→Fringe sources identify someone as a scientist: move bottom |
|||
Line 327: | Line 327: | ||
:::::::::::Looks like a separate section to me! See, you can even [[#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|link to it]]! [[User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|jps]] ([[User talk:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|talk]]) 19:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::::::Looks like a separate section to me! See, you can even [[#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|link to it]]! [[User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|jps]] ([[User talk:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|talk]]) 19:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::Well as it does not have a separate header (and by the way, you never asked any question, you made a statement) it is not. Also, you did mention Chrisy, as you referred to the one being discussed above this.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::::::Well as it does not have a separate header (and by the way, you never asked any question, you made a statement) it is not. Also, you did mention Chrisy, as you referred to the one being discussed above this.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::Did you not click my link? It has a separate header. The question I asked was, "A current ban?" Do you see the question mark? That indicates that I'm asking a question. I never mentioned DrChrissy. I, in fact, was not discussing DrChrissy at all, but then DrChrissy decided to inject DrChrissy into the conversation. Do you see how that happened in this section? By the way, when I refer to "this section" I am referring to the one I linked to above. Did you click on that link yet? If you did, you'll know what section I'm talking about. Do you see how I didn't mention DrChrissy in this section? Did you see how DrChrissy responded to my comment which was not about DrChrissy? Can you see that? Also, do you see the question mark? I'm not sure I asked if you could see it or not, but I thought I would ask just in case you missed it. [[User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|jps]] ([[User talk:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|talk]]) 20:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::at JpS Yes it certainly can be about an editor's behaviour - which includes misrepresenting another editor. JpS, I looked at the diff you provided and tried a word search on "pseudoscience" - the result was 0 (zero) returns. You are deliberately misrepresenting me again. Please stop. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 18:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
::at JpS Yes it certainly can be about an editor's behaviour - which includes misrepresenting another editor. JpS, I looked at the diff you provided and tried a word search on "pseudoscience" - the result was 0 (zero) returns. You are deliberately misrepresenting me again. Please stop. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 18:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::It's not hard to figure out that someone who links to mercola.com in articlespace about GMOs is promoting pseudoscience with regards to GMOs. In fact, I have yet to see something on mercola.com with respect to GMOs that is ''not'' pseudoscience! [[User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|jps]] ([[User talk:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|talk]]) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
:::It's not hard to figure out that someone who links to mercola.com in articlespace about GMOs is promoting pseudoscience with regards to GMOs. In fact, I have yet to see something on mercola.com with respect to GMOs that is ''not'' pseudoscience! [[User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|jps]] ([[User talk:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS|talk]]) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:02, 11 February 2017
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Uri Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CIA documents already existing in the public archives have been recently posted online, and this has apparently prompted some recent edit warring at the article to give undue weight "to justify point of view" that Harold E. Puthoff's CIA funded study of Geller showed he had psychic powers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- couldn't that just be restated that "Harold E. Puthoff's CIA funded study of Geller was so poorly designed that it ludicously suggested he had psychic powers. The CIA's abortive attempt to develop "paranomal warriors" was later mocked in the film The Men Who Stare at Goats." ? - Nunh-huh 12:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- They want the article to be less skeptical and more open minded about Geller's psychic powers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to how open those editors are to the possibility that Geller doesn't have psychic powers... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- This looks like a question regarding the credibility and reliability of Puthoff than about Geller himself. I don't know if Puthoff's been taken to RSN before, I imagine he has, but based on the "Assessment of scholarship" section of his biography article I would have to say that to meet NPOV concerns any content in the Geller article about Puthoff's findings would also have to discuss the serious questions regarding the reliability of his work with roughly equivalent weight. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to how open those editors are to the possibility that Geller doesn't have psychic powers... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- They want the article to be less skeptical and more open minded about Geller's psychic powers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The primaries problem are 3 fold.
1> Only sources that use the title of the page are acceptable.
2> Only "acceptable" knowledge is allowed on Wikipedia (as a policy).
3> Only (in effect) scholarly sources are allowed (see 2 above).
There is also the AFD, but that is another matter. This is about the fact that no sources are being allowed unless they are both scholastic and use the exact phrase "place of power".Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand the problem here - could you explain what you perceive is wrong? -Roxy the dog. bark 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I am asking if the above is true.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Read WP:RS and WP:NPOV Roxy the dog. bark 11:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have (they have been quoted at me before) and they do not back up (as far as I can tell) 1 or 3 (and indeed not really 2, as long as subjects can be cited to RS then it does not matter how "acceptable" they are from a scholastic sense). But I may be wrong, so that is why I am asking.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the responses on the talk page of the article, plus my responses above, are clear enough. In universe sources just don't cut the mustard. I think the deletion discussion will sort the problem anyway. Roxy the dog. bark 13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- What the hell is meant by "in universe sources"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's a term common in discussion of fiction. It means sources that do not break the fourth wall, or which cover a thing entirely from the perspective of its own self-descriptions, rather than objective reality. I see Roxy's point: I have removed about 2/3 of the sources because they fall a long way short of WP:RS. A looooooooooooong way. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- And what has this got to do with the topic I link to? You may think it is fictional, but it is not written as a work of fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly the point. It is credulously written, as if it were real, using in universe sources, and a couple of weak ones. An encyclopeadia doesn't present made up stuff as if it were real. Roxy the dog. bark 12:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which is not what I asked, is it fictional, if so who has said it? Why is it less fictional then (say) Judaism?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly the point. It is credulously written, as if it were real, using in universe sources, and a couple of weak ones. An encyclopeadia doesn't present made up stuff as if it were real. Roxy the dog. bark 12:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- And what has this got to do with the topic I link to? You may think it is fictional, but it is not written as a work of fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's a term common in discussion of fiction. It means sources that do not break the fourth wall, or which cover a thing entirely from the perspective of its own self-descriptions, rather than objective reality. I see Roxy's point: I have removed about 2/3 of the sources because they fall a long way short of WP:RS. A looooooooooooong way. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- What the hell is meant by "in universe sources"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the responses on the talk page of the article, plus my responses above, are clear enough. In universe sources just don't cut the mustard. I think the deletion discussion will sort the problem anyway. Roxy the dog. bark 13:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have (they have been quoted at me before) and they do not back up (as far as I can tell) 1 or 3 (and indeed not really 2, as long as subjects can be cited to RS then it does not matter how "acceptable" they are from a scholastic sense). But I may be wrong, so that is why I am asking.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Read WP:RS and WP:NPOV Roxy the dog. bark 11:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I am asking if the above is true.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think what he means is what kind of sources would be reliable in an article about Judaism - from my understanding the Torah for example would be a primary source and not a reliable one for facts. Writings about the Torah that believe it to be entirely factual would similarly be questionable, as I read WP:RS. So the books about magic energies and ghosts and such are generally even worse quality than that and not useful for much in an article. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- No I am asking whether the above three concepts in my above OP are valid, but as this is clearly not being taken seriously what is the point? I wonder how many other sources would stand the "in universe" test just because a user thought the concept was fictional?Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is a real place of power. Roxy the dog. bark 10:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- No I am asking whether the above three concepts in my above OP are valid, but as this is clearly not being taken seriously what is the point? I wonder how many other sources would stand the "in universe" test just because a user thought the concept was fictional?Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory walled garden: Frank Olsen
- Frank Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Project MKDELTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- A Terrible Mistake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Three articles pushing fringe POV that the CIA killed Olsen because "he knew too much". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I nominated the last for deletion based upon my inability to find anyone who cared. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Project ARTICHOKE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another related to the same garden. Claims White House memos exist, but sources are unconfirmable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Frank Olson article seems ok, and a fairly balanced look at what could be a complete bit of wingnut conspiracy stuff. Based on the references and stuff, I don't think there's much case for a zillion articles or substantial expansion of the existing, without getting way outside reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
See this edit which is pretty much gibberish and poorly sourced. I always prefer to wait for responses and show those as well, but in any case this should be trimmed just to show the various locations suggested. The IP is pushing Diaz-Montexano. The only news stories I see since the broadcast are in the Daily Mail and Sun, British sensationalist tabloids. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- The whole article is unencyclopedic crap. Needs a major filleting to remove the primary sources, and anything that's left merged into the main Atlantis article. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Very poorly sourced but isn't it Hypothesis ? 115.186.171.226 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Hypothesis" does not give you a free pass from WP:N and WP:V. Otherwise, we would have numerous articles that are unencyclopedic crap (to use the technical term used above) such as Freemason reptilian army of Donald Trump hypothesis. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, you mock the reptilian army now, in your silicon safety, but tomorrow they shall rise! - Nunh-huh 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- "Hypothesis" does not give you a free pass from WP:N and WP:V. Otherwise, we would have numerous articles that are unencyclopedic crap (to use the technical term used above) such as Freemason reptilian army of Donald Trump hypothesis. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Very poorly sourced but isn't it Hypothesis ? 115.186.171.226 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have a problem with "hypotheses" (which is the proper plural form, dear IP) in that it implies a serious pretense at legitimacy. The notions of Atlantis aren't crackpot theories which have been debunked, we've known for thousands of years that Atlantis never existed, and we even know who made it up, when and why.
- I think the article should be renamed to "Atlantis location speculation". I do not agree with Doug that this article should be trimmed down to just a list of location: these claims are notable and well-covered; it benefits the encyclopedia to cover them well. And besides, I find this stuff fascinating and WP should cater to my interests. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- The trouble is the article is a secondary work, not an encyclopedic (tertiary) one. It it based on primary, not secondary content. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: I didn't say the article should be trimmed to only a list of locations. My edit summary in the National Geographic section said that we should only list the locations suggested in the program, not go into a lot of detail arguing the cases or telling us where it was filmed. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ahh. My mistake, then. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, the list of locations is arguably the least important part of the article. What's needed is more emphasis on the absurdity of trying to locate a fictional place in the actual world. - Nunh-huh 20:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ahh. My mistake, then. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: I didn't say the article should be trimmed to only a list of locations. My edit summary in the National Geographic section said that we should only list the locations suggested in the program, not go into a lot of detail arguing the cases or telling us where it was filmed. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- The trouble is the article is a secondary work, not an encyclopedic (tertiary) one. It it based on primary, not secondary content. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- As the editor who suggested inclusion of the Gerhard Herm Denmark hypothesis, I think there are some sources which might not be perfect but would qualify as "good enough" for our purposes. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if we could somehow turn this into a List of proposed locations for Atlantis which might include only those locations which are promoted in works discussed in maybe greater detail in articles specifically relating to the works themselves. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we want to have to deal with "alternative facts"?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is now a discussion on WP:VPP as to how to deal with "alternative facts" promulgated by the White House, in which one option suggested is treating them as fringe theories. Discussion here for those who want to chime in. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Opinion: Alternative facts are not fringe. Fringe is mostly pseudoscience and conspiracy theories (see WP:FRINGE). Now, alternative facts do meet some criteria for being conspiracy theories (the government is telling you what to believe), but, to me, alternative facts aren't quite conspiracy theories. They lack the idea of being outlandish alternative explanations for something simple (e.g. Kennedy was assassinated by 12 gunmen hired by the CIA to cover up an affair he was having vs. one gunman acting alone).
- Alternative facts are "repeal and replace," to use a Trumpism. The real facts are simply "replaced" by "alternative facts" that put the administration in a better light. Therefore, I think the best way to deal with the topic is to use other policies and guidelines instead of WP:FRINGE. See WP:DUE for example; the alternative fact should receive an appropriate amount of coverage. Under WP:FRINGE, fringe theories are to receive minimal coverage because the theories are believed by only a small minority. The sources for fringe theories are usually things like websites and poor-quality journals. With alternative facts, a substantial number of people believe them, and the source is an otherwise reliable source, the White House press conferences.
- As an example, let's take the inauguration attendance figures. Various sources give different figures, and Wikipedia should state a range of possible figures from reliable sources. It should then say that the White House released a different, larger attendance figure. That way WP:NPOV is maintained because both sides of the argument are presented. Roches (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to say here what I said at the pump because I'm more likely to see any responses here. (I'm not watchlisting the pump. Not a chance.) This is a non-issue. Except for statements about White House official position, or the opinions of Trump or the person writing/speaking the claim, the White House is obviously an unreliable source. Therefore, we treat it the exact same way we treat other unreliable sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- "The White House is obviously an unreliable source." Wow, imagine someone saying that a year ago today when Trump was just a candidate? Obama's White House was definitely a reliable source, wasn't it? It's true that it's an unreliable source, but how do we deal with one that's so authoritative? If Wikipedia were around in 1938, say, what would we do about Hitler and Goebbels's claims about Czechoslovakia? Sure, everyone knew what was coming out of the Reich Chancellery press conferences wasn't strictly the truth, but they still had to print it. Just as then, there is no need for a special way of dealing with authoritative but unreliable sources. We simply need to say "According to the White House..." as one of our sources, just as they would have printed "According to Berlin's statement on treatment of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland..." Readers will notice the conflict between original and alternative fact and will form an opinion based on what the sources say, reliable or not. Roches (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- But how would we, for example, report a statement by a single scientist working on an obscure animal who is knowingly seeking funding as "According to scientist X, the species is on the brink of destruction so work should be funded" when many other sources show the species is nowhere near extinction? DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- White House antics aren't a WP:FRINGE issue, at least so far. I think the "alternative facts" episode has been covered very appropriately here in our article. Basic NPOV and RS took care of it very well, so potential future disputes between the WH press secretary and the media should be covered similarly. The only thing that even comes close to a WP:FRINGE theory is the three million illegal votes claim, which may have had its origin with Alex Jones, and is widely cited in RS as a conspiracy theory [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- +1 @LuckyLouie I appreciate the heads up to the VPP discussion but political silliness is not FRINGE. I suggest this discussion be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest this discussion be closed.
Seconded and done. Revert if needed, but please don't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- +1 @LuckyLouie I appreciate the heads up to the VPP discussion but political silliness is not FRINGE. I suggest this discussion be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- "The White House is obviously an unreliable source." Wow, imagine someone saying that a year ago today when Trump was just a candidate? Obama's White House was definitely a reliable source, wasn't it? It's true that it's an unreliable source, but how do we deal with one that's so authoritative? If Wikipedia were around in 1938, say, what would we do about Hitler and Goebbels's claims about Czechoslovakia? Sure, everyone knew what was coming out of the Reich Chancellery press conferences wasn't strictly the truth, but they still had to print it. Just as then, there is no need for a special way of dealing with authoritative but unreliable sources. We simply need to say "According to the White House..." as one of our sources, just as they would have printed "According to Berlin's statement on treatment of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland..." Readers will notice the conflict between original and alternative fact and will form an opinion based on what the sources say, reliable or not. Roches (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Fringe sources identify someone as a scientist
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This could probably also go at WP:RSN, but I'll just drop it here.
Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an article about a Big Bang denier from the 1990s.
Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a longtime editor of the page who thinks that Lerner is a scientist. I think that is a little strange characterization considering he doesn't seem to be working within the scientific field. Right now he is mostly preoccupied with his dense plasma focus company which has been struggling along for 20 years failing to get funding. While he does, from time to time, publish in fringe journals about his peculiar contrarianism, I would not say this rises to the level of "scientist". Dicklyon is under the impression that the man has a PhD, which is also not the case (not that one cannot be a scientist without a PhD, but I am finding it difficult to engage with this person).
The proposed sources for the claim that Lerner is a scientist that Dicklyon has provided have been: (1) an article by Lerner himself, (2) a book about postmodern deep ecology invoking integral theory, and (3) a creationist book about Adam and Eve.
This kind of fringe POV-pushing, whether intentional or not, is often occurring at this page, and I'd like to get a few more eyes to figure out how to best characterize the fringe nature of Lerner.
Thanks,
jps (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- JPS, I did not recognize your handle; just noticed that you are the account previously known as ScienceApologist. Your account name history is baffling. Anyway, I agree that the sources that call Lerner a scientist are sometimes flaky sources, and I was wrong about him having a Ph.D.; I'm not sure where I got that. But he does have a degree in physics, and does plasma physics stuff, and expresses his scientific theories. The fact that mainstream scientists reject his theories is not a great reason for WP to decide that we shouldn't refer to him as a scientist, or a physicist. It's what he is. He happens to think that electromagnetic effects in the plasma of outer space have a bigger role than gravitation effects in forming cosmological structures. In the eyes of the mainstream, this makes him something of a quack. But he's still a scientist, is he not? I'm not actually asking you, but would like to hear from others. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- That most scientists reject his claims doesn't make him not a scientist. If he studies science and comes to conclusions by a similar process to that of other scientists, that makes him a scientist. That doesn';t mean that his claims should be treated as anything but fringe theories; however, same would have been said about continental drift when Alfred Wegener first proposed it, or about the Earth orbitting the sun when Nicolaus Copernicus first proposed it - and now tgese are both accepted as correct science. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Dicklyon's most recent edit (diff) at Eric Lerner was to remove "citation needed" with edit summary:
We usually let sources decide; here's another: https://books.google.com/books?id=q0huDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA488
That's pretty shocking given that the introduction of that work concludes by saying that the book shows than belief in a literal Adam and Fall is consistent historic Christian orthodoxy, and is "powerfully confirmed by many lines of solid scientific evidence". That text disqualifies that source from being reliable for any assessment related to science. A reliable source would be needed to describe Lerner as scientist. If sources say Lerner has a degree in physics, the article can say he has a degree in physics without misusing the word "scientist". Editors do not get to decide that a particular individual must be a scientist because they have views related to science. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Dicklyon's most recent edit (diff) at Eric Lerner was to remove "citation needed" with edit summary:
So what is the definition of a scientist, and does he fit it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know that there is a consistent definition. However, there is a problem we have when people who are famous for being fringe theorists try to maintain credentialism by claiming to be members of the scientific community when they are really on the outside looking in. We have to balance two ideas: (1) there is no one way to be a scientist and (2) many people are not scientists. Generally, I am in favor of being as broad as possible, but we don't want to engage in WP:COAT or WP:SOAP in our pages, and readers can be misled if we simply say, "Hey, here's a scientist. And this scientist has this obscure idea...." See what the problem is?
- How we balance this is not clear, so my preference is to go by reliable WP:FRIND compliant sources when we can. In this case, I find very little in the way of such identifying Lerner as a scientist. I will admit there are a lot of rather fringe-y sources that identify Lerner as a scientist, but it would be irresponsible at Wikipedia to use this kind of source as a citation-worthy marker, IMHO. So the thing to do is find a cosmologist, physicist, astronomer, or even a sociologist of science who identifies Lerner's occupation/role/identity as "scientist" rather than using creationist texts or books about the magic of a literally conscious Earth.
- jps (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
[[2]]
[3] (bit iffy, but it does not say he is not a scientist, and implies he is one that does not accept the Big Bang theory).
Also he has been published in the New scientist, which would tend to imply something to do with science.
Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- The Times of Israel piece, apart from the associations with fringe-magnet cold fusion that are conjured, does get a basic fact wrong: "Dr. Eric Lerner" is not "Dr." That would seem to undermine its reliability as an identifier of other descriptive labels, such as "scientist". Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is RS, and our key word is Verifiability, not Fact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is under no obligation to reproduce errors simply because they appear in a newspaper. A newspaper which makes an obvious mistake about Lerner's credentials should not be used to source information about his status within the community for which such credentials are relevant. jps (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Er... "reliable source" means reliable for statements of fact. That the Times of Israel piece reproduces a basic error shows conclusively that no, it is not a reliable source. It is written by a political correspondent, so I would accept it as a reliable source for statements about politics, as well as who said what to whom, but not on the demarcation problem between science and non-science (unless expert views on the demarcation problem were presented, not in the editorial voice of a political correspondent). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- So do you have a source that says he is not a doctor, as we do not judge sources veracity, we repeat what RS say. We are under an obligation to only say something is false, when we have RS saying it is false.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you seriously trying to argue that we don't know whether Lerner has a PhD or not? If so, you are getting tendentious. jps (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, I am saying you cannot object to what an RS says unless you have an RS that contradicts it.14:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you seriously trying to argue that we don't know whether Lerner has a PhD or not? If so, you are getting tendentious. jps (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- So do you have a source that says he is not a doctor, as we do not judge sources veracity, we repeat what RS say. We are under an obligation to only say something is false, when we have RS saying it is false.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is RS, and our key word is Verifiability, not Fact.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
An unrelated aside about the fact that Lerner has no PhD |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- The book is far from WP:FRIND compliant. It's just another creationist book. jps (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Being published in a popular science magazine does not make one a scientist. Dennis Overbye, Michael Lemonick, and Ira Flatow are not scientists, for example. jps (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Written by someone with a PHD (but in biology, rather then one of the "approved" subjects), hence it passes the "is it said by a scientist" test. Now does anyone have a source (RS of course) that says that Eric Lerner is not a scientist? Im agree, the new Scientist on it's own is not a good source, it is not aloneSlatersteven (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but a book that is just creationist idiocy is not reliable for anything. jps (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- So has this been decided by the RS forum, or is it just an opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- You can take whatever you want to WP:RSN, but it's waste of your time. The shitty-ness of the source is rather obvious and similar such works have been excised from Wikipedia for the better part of 15 years. Frankly, someone who doesn't understand this might be bordering a bit on the wrong side of the WP:CIR metric. jps (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- And that is a borderline PA, and I ask you to strike it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to promote creationist sources as reliable on Wikipedia, you're going to find yourself marginalized. Admit you made a mistake in doing so, and I'll happily strike my concern over your competence as an editor. We all make mistakes! Only the competent can admit to it, though. jps (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree re the cir metric. Roxy the dog. bark 14:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to promote creationist sources as reliable on Wikipedia, you're going to find yourself marginalized. Admit you made a mistake in doing so, and I'll happily strike my concern over your competence as an editor. We all make mistakes! Only the competent can admit to it, though. jps (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- And that is a borderline PA, and I ask you to strike it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- You can take whatever you want to WP:RSN, but it's waste of your time. The shitty-ness of the source is rather obvious and similar such works have been excised from Wikipedia for the better part of 15 years. Frankly, someone who doesn't understand this might be bordering a bit on the wrong side of the WP:CIR metric. jps (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- So has this been decided by the RS forum, or is it just an opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but a book that is just creationist idiocy is not reliable for anything. jps (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Written by someone with a PHD (but in biology, rather then one of the "approved" subjects), hence it passes the "is it said by a scientist" test. Now does anyone have a source (RS of course) that says that Eric Lerner is not a scientist? Im agree, the new Scientist on it's own is not a good source, it is not aloneSlatersteven (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth, so why not obey policy?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Verifiability, not truth is an essay, not policy. This wording was removed from WP:V (which is policy) some time ago. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- You don't seem to grok that those arguing against you are "obeying" policy (yes, even the very policy you cite). We even are even explaining to you how this is so, but for some reason you aren't accepting the explanations. jps (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is a source we even use in the article [4] it calls him chef scientist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Uses a lot of garlic perhaps? Roxy the dog. bark 16:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- chief scientist, as I think was obvious.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
How about this (same source, different page) [5].Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- In that context, the point is that he is a "lead scientist" at his company. While still self-bestowed, I think that using something like this may at least be a worthy compromise. We could even use the official title he gave himself, for example. It's really the lower case category that strikes me as being misleading, anyway. jps (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the Wired RS? [6].Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- You think Wikipedia should call him a "mad scientist"? Hmm.... jps (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- IS this RS for the fact he is a scientist (mad or otherwise).Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would say it is an RS for the fact that he is a fringe scientist, which is what our lede currently says. jps (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The wired source is a good one for the "fringe scientist" label. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. The wired source is a good one for the "fringe scientist" label. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would say it is an RS for the fact that he is a fringe scientist, which is what our lede currently says. jps (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- IS this RS for the fact he is a scientist (mad or otherwise).Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
NOt sure about this one either [7].Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ugh. That article has a lot of errors in it and is anonymously authored (peculiarly). I don't see much in the way of editorial policy for the website which appears to publish a lot of pseudoscience. [8]. jps (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, as I said I was not sure myself.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... I've been published in a pop-sci magazine. There are a couple of newspaper articles (all compliant with WP:IRS) about me, too. Do I get to make an article that asserts I'm a scientist? If I then write a blog post showing some statistical and economic reasons Trump is bad for the US, do I get to add to the Trump article that "At least one scientist has shown mathematically that Trump is bad for America"? LOL
- Seriously, a little common sense could go a long way here. Step back from all your knowledge of policy and the nuances of how the community treats policy and ask yourself "Does this guy do science?" Once you've answered that, you know what WP should say. (If you answered "Yes" to that, you should probably read through the sources again.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think a person who studies science, does science, bills himself as scientist (e.g. "Chief Scientist" as [http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/04-mar-2016/broadcast-2658-eric-lerner this source says), and proposes scientific theories, can be called a scientist in Wikipedia, even when the other scientists, whose theories he opposes, call his work pseudoscience. Report both sides – don't decide that he can't be called a scientist. For another example of a person with only one year of grad school, with an undergrad degree in "Engineering and Applied Science", who has held job titles like Chief Scientist and Principal Scientist, who is open to believing some out-of-mainstream theories as serious possibilities and uses the services of alternatives to standard medical practice, and is called a "scientist" in the article about him, see Richard Francis Lyon. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- When did he last do any science? and will people please learn to indent their posts. thanks -Roxy the scientist. bark 17:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- 2006 when he was a Visiting Scientist at the European Southern Observatory in Chile?Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- What science did he do? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- When was the last time Richard Dawkins did science? Does this make him less of a scientist? DrChrissy (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Richard Dawkins bibliography#Academic papers -Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what science would a visiting scientist do an an observatory (Scientific interests: Surface brightness test; Plasma cosmology; Thermonuclear fusion are his stated interests on their web page)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Coming back to the main point, the article currently says that the subject is a "fringe scientist", and it is in this capacity that he is primarily notable. He is not notable as a visiting scientist at the European Southern Observatory. Visiting scholars are not typically regarded as notable under the relevant guideline. (In fact, I would agree that the subject is a scientist. Probably we can even find some sources for this if we look hard. But it's a question of what WP:WEIGHT do we lend that assessment here.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- When was the last time Richard Dawkins did science? Does this make him less of a scientist? DrChrissy (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- What science did he do? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- 2006 when he was a Visiting Scientist at the European Southern Observatory in Chile?Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
E. O. Wilson's definition of a scientist
E. O. Wilson's definition of a scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: "he or she has shown that...". I would add that the customary way to accomplish this is to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Can anyone here complete that sentence for Eric Lerner? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Look, he can be a bad scientist, a fringe scientist, a scientist who has really out there ideas that have no basis in reality etc. But the core part of being a scientist is using the scientific method to perform or theorise research. He has been funded by scientific agencies to perform research and the fact that he also believes in completely fringe ideas does not detract from that, other than to indicate he may be barking up the wrong tree. In short, if sources call him a fringe scientist we can use that, if they just call him a scientist we can use that, we shouldnt be denying he is a scientist unless there are specific sources that do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- "we shouldnt be denying he is a scientist unless there are specific sources that do so" No one has suggested this. What has been suggested is that we leave out the "scientist" label from the first sentence, not to add a sentence saying that he is not a scientist. Nowhere in our WP:PAG is it mandatory that we must refer to someone as a scientist, in the first sentence of an article, if some reliable source somewhere characterizes the subject as a scientist. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe but it seems to me established convention is that we list what a person does in the lead (be they an actor, a president or a scientist).Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- (EC) We do generally refer to someone's profession very early on in the lead in a biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- But this is not what you were suggesting. You were suggesting that we cannot deny he's a scientist unless sources do. We are certainly free to discuss whether the sources we have are adequate to identify the subject as a scientist in the first sentence of the article. For example, there are sources that call Pablo Escobar a philanthropist. But it is probably not due weight to refer to the infamous drug lord as a philanthropist in the first sentence of the article. Is it? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I wasnt suggesting anything other than we follow what the sources say - which indicate generally he is a scientist engaged in fringe science for the most part. You want to remove the scientist label based on some nebulous idea that he isnt a scientist and that sources have not described as such. Even the article describing him as 'mad scientist' is only looking at his work on big bang denial - not his recent plasma stuff (which it also mentions). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- If you think I "want to remove the scientist label based on some nebulous idea that he isnt a scientist and that sources have not described as such", you haven't been paying attention to the discussion. Let me know when you're ready to participate in a discussion, rather than setting up strawmen to attack. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I wasnt suggesting anything other than we follow what the sources say - which indicate generally he is a scientist engaged in fringe science for the most part. You want to remove the scientist label based on some nebulous idea that he isnt a scientist and that sources have not described as such. Even the article describing him as 'mad scientist' is only looking at his work on big bang denial - not his recent plasma stuff (which it also mentions). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- But this is not what you were suggesting. You were suggesting that we cannot deny he's a scientist unless sources do. We are certainly free to discuss whether the sources we have are adequate to identify the subject as a scientist in the first sentence of the article. For example, there are sources that call Pablo Escobar a philanthropist. But it is probably not due weight to refer to the infamous drug lord as a philanthropist in the first sentence of the article. Is it? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- "we shouldnt be denying he is a scientist unless there are specific sources that do so" No one has suggested this. What has been suggested is that we leave out the "scientist" label from the first sentence, not to add a sentence saying that he is not a scientist. Nowhere in our WP:PAG is it mandatory that we must refer to someone as a scientist, in the first sentence of an article, if some reliable source somewhere characterizes the subject as a scientist. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is a world of difference between stating in wikivoice that someone is a "scientist" and that someone is a "fringe scientist". And I'm not completely convinced that the latter is even accurate. Lee Smolin is a fringe scientist in that he's an actual scientists whose views and published work fall in the fringes of current science. But there's a huge difference between him and Lerner. I wonder what kinds of reliable sources there are to support the term "fringe scientist" with respect to Lerner. I haven't seen any. I've seen two sources proposed: The first a creationist book (and thus not even remotely RS for a use like this), and the second a news article which gets basic facts wrong and was written by the outlet's political correspondent. With enough reliable sources, I'd accept "fringe scientist", but I'm just not seeing any of those. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding jps' original question, I myself find the first sentence of the article at this time a good solution. He is currently in the first sentence of the article called a "popular science writer" (which I think is pretty non-controversial) and an "independent plasma researcher." A researcher is not necessarily a scientist by any means - there are "researchers" dealing with the Grey aliens too. The fact that he is also "independent," because apparently no reputable firms or institutions might hire him?, is also useful to note, as it further casts into question the quality of his work. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you, @Dicklyon:, me, any Wikipedia editor, or even cherry-picked sources get to decide who is and who isn't a scientist. I've never heard of such a criteria anywhere, ever. WP is not a forum. We MUST have an objective criteria. For me, the solution is trivial: just ask various societies and organisations what they consider makes a "scientist". As an example, ask AAAS, Royal Society of Biology etc. They are impartial, reliable and verifiable. When I asked the Royal Society of Biology what makes a "biologist", they were clear:
From: <c###@societyofbiology.org>
Subject: Definition of 'Biologist'
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 08:18:52
- Clearly anyone who has at least a degree in biology can sensibly be called a biologist. Whether they are practising or not can define if they fall into the ‘professional’ biologist category or not, rather than a 'biologist' or not.
- The teacher example is very clear - they are a biologist.
- A first degree is sufficient, a PhD is nice but not necessary
- It is not necessary to publish peer reviewed papers, this is just one way of evidencing whether they are currently a 'professional' biologist. For example, a biology school teacher would be unable to publish papers, whereas a researcher in a Biology Department would , but both would still be ‘ professional’ biologists, but would evidence this in different ways.
ie. a degree makes a scientist. That's not my opinion, or anyone else's, but one of the bodies that represents their members. That does not imply that the person does good science, has good ideas, or that people agree with them. --Iantresman (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, better than nothing; better than squabbling. Does a degree in "Engineering and Applied Science" count? Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- A scientist is defined by the way in which the person approaches gaining information about a question - it does not matter whether they have a degree or not. If they have a paper published in a reputable peer-reviewed science journal, IMO, this makes them a scientist. DrChrissy (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd probably have to agree with DrChrissy here. I know that there are a lot of amateur astronomers who have found and named various celestial objects, and some of them probably don't have degrees in the field, but I still think they would merit the term "astronomer," so I guess any similar individuals in other sciences might merit the term "scientist" as well. And, like DrChrissy says, being published in a peer-review scientific journal may well be a better indication of being a "scientist" than a degree. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would have to add what seems to me to be a necessary qualification that if someone were published in a peer-reviewed scientific or specialist academic journal of any sort about a topic which does not in and of itself necessarily relate directly to the stated topic of the journal, there might be questions. So, for instance, someone who wrote a biography of someone published in a scientific, or theological, or philosophical journal might not qualify as necessarily being a scientist, theologian, or philosopher. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly there are many criteria we could use to define a scientist, and that it the problem. Being a scientist should not depend on a straw poll of a bunch of Wikipedia editors and an arbitrary selection of criteria. I am also not disputing that these criteria are what one would expect of a scientist. But this is not an objective method. --Iantresman (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but I am failing to see the word "scientist" used.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I assumed that since biology, chemistry and physics are the science subjects we do at school, then all biologists, chemists and physicists are also scientists? --Iantresman (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- So your secondary school teachers was a scientist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's what we're trying to ascertain, when there should be an objective method. According the Society of Biology above, a degree in the subject is sufficient to make someone a biologist, presumably because they "do" biology and demonstrate the scientific method every day at school. --Iantresman (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- e/c This is a really interesting question and one which I have not really considered before - perhaps because I have pieces of paper on the wall which prove without doubt I am a scientist (a little bit of sarcasm ther!). Perhaps we can not objectively identify who is a scientist and who is not. After all, does being a member listed by the British Arts Council make someone an artist if they cut an animal in half and place it in formalin? Getting back to the subject matter. It appears here that we might be creating the news rather than reporting the news. If this person has been described as a scientist, we should report this with suitable RS. If he has been reported as a fringe-scientist, this can also be reported with RS. DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- There is also the question as to whether, in some cases, "scientist" or "psuedoscientist" is the best term to use. In this particular case, I think we might be best off using "researcher", like the article has been doing, because it avoids the labelling and thus the controversy about the labelling. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- e/c This is a really interesting question and one which I have not really considered before - perhaps because I have pieces of paper on the wall which prove without doubt I am a scientist (a little bit of sarcasm ther!). Perhaps we can not objectively identify who is a scientist and who is not. After all, does being a member listed by the British Arts Council make someone an artist if they cut an animal in half and place it in formalin? Getting back to the subject matter. It appears here that we might be creating the news rather than reporting the news. If this person has been described as a scientist, we should report this with suitable RS. If he has been reported as a fringe-scientist, this can also be reported with RS. DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's what we're trying to ascertain, when there should be an objective method. According the Society of Biology above, a degree in the subject is sufficient to make someone a biologist, presumably because they "do" biology and demonstrate the scientific method every day at school. --Iantresman (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- So your secondary school teachers was a scientist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I assumed that since biology, chemistry and physics are the science subjects we do at school, then all biologists, chemists and physicists are also scientists? --Iantresman (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but I am failing to see the word "scientist" used.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'd probably have to agree with DrChrissy here. I know that there are a lot of amateur astronomers who have found and named various celestial objects, and some of them probably don't have degrees in the field, but I still think they would merit the term "astronomer," so I guess any similar individuals in other sciences might merit the term "scientist" as well. And, like DrChrissy says, being published in a peer-review scientific journal may well be a better indication of being a "scientist" than a degree. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- A scientist is defined by the way in which the person approaches gaining information about a question - it does not matter whether they have a degree or not. If they have a paper published in a reputable peer-reviewed science journal, IMO, this makes them a scientist. DrChrissy (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, better than nothing; better than squabbling. Does a degree in "Engineering and Applied Science" count? Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Problems with WP:ACTIVIST editors
- While Dicklyon has a bone to pick about Eric Lerner that I do not understand (maybe something to do with having known Arno Penzias?), Iantresman has been a historic supporter of plasma cosmology on Wikipedia, so I think his agenda and ulterior motives in this discussion are clear. jps (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please comment on the content of edits, not the editors. DrChrissy (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Will you two kindly fucking stop. TimothyJosephWood 18:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please comment on the content of edits, not the editors. DrChrissy (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- For clarity to those reading this thread, Timothy made the comment above after JpS illegally hatted a comment of mine here[9] with an incivil title, I unhatted, and then JpS again illegally hatted here[10] with a totally spurious accusation that I have a topic ban on pseudoscience. I unhatted this and Timothy then made their comment. I am not making any comment here whatsoever about Timothy's behaviour - I am simply trying to clarify matters for readers. DrChrissy (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Normal complaints about editors are made in ANI, not on talk pages. Take it there.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Can an admin step in now?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Now we can discus this in it's proper place, please do so. Can some hide this de-rail please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I really have no idea what this discussion is even about...I just know the two users I pinged in the above comment were reverting each other every three seconds over a hat note. That is dumb, and doing dumb things is bad. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Science Council definition
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
A scientist can be further defined by:
how they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (Statisticians) or data (Data scientists) what they’re seeking understanding of, for instance the elements in the universe (Chemists, Geologists etc), or the stars in the sky (Astronomers) where they apply their science, for instance in the food industry (Food Scientist) However all scientists are united by their relentless curiosity and systematic approach to assuaging it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia
A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Look, I think the issue here has become rather confused. It's not really relevant how "scientist" is defined. Sure, anyone who does science is a scientist. Every kid with a chemistry set is a scientist, why not. What's relevant for us is to determine is the appropriate conditions under which the first sentence of an encyclopedia article describes an individual as a scientist. Merely being "true" (under some definition), or even existence of sources, is a necessary but not a sufficient criterion. Take, for example, the question of whether the notorious drug lord Pablo Escobar is a philanthropist. There are sources that say this, but putting that in the first sentence is undue weight. (Just like describing Escobar as a zoologist would be as well; yes there are sources for this too.) Pablo Escobar was most well-known as a drug lord, so that is how the article describes him. We don't describe him as a philanthropist, zoologist, avid reader of magical realism, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. This principle seems to be missed a lot. Is Lerner most famous for being a scientist? If by "being a scientist" you mean, "publishing a book bashing science", then yes. But this seems a tortured way to go about describing him. It's not like we don't know what he is. The question is, how best to describe the situation, right? jps (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- But he is noted (notorious?) for a book about science, it may be bad science, it may be fringe science, it is still science.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. It's also a paper book. It may be hardback, it may be paperback, but it's still a book. That doesn't mean we write, "Eric Lerner wrote a book." and leave it at that. The book being about science is only the first part. It's hardly a science textbook. We're not talking about Paul G. Hewitt here. jps (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- as this has gone on, the article has been edited and the first sentence now reads " is an American popular science writer, and independent plasma researcher." which I think solves the problem. The body goes into his training in science (an undergrad and a year of graduate work) and what he has actually done, research and writing. It is unwise to get into ontological discussions and better to just describe activities. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- That was pretty much the status quo before someone added the "scientist" label at the front of the list. As it was my removal of that which touched off the controversy, I imagine that this history may repeat itself unless we get some clear consensus as this isn't the first time we've had this kind of dispute (see the discussions on Rupert Sheldrake as a biologist and Deepak Chopra as a physician). jps (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would go with "pseudoscientist": i.e. the subject claims to be a "scientist" but engages in pseudoscience. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for declaring your POV, but that's totally out of order. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why is that out of order? I think we would need sources that do this, and the ones we have don't go quite that far, but it seems like this isn't out of the realm of possibility. A lot of Lerner's objections do strike me as skirting very close to the pseudo-line. Of course, demarcation problem is always around. jps (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is out of order for the same reason "the Nazis were evil" would be out of order in our Adolph Hitler article. Instead that article says "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word 'evil' to describe the Nazi regime" with a citation to a reliable source establishing that claim. If you want to call Lerner a pseudoscientist, Wikipedia policy requires that you specify who said he was a pseudoscientist and that you provide a citation so that the reader can verify that they actually said that and that they are a reliable source on the subject of who is and is not a pseudoscientist. This article, like all articles, must follow WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why is that out of order? I think we would need sources that do this, and the ones we have don't go quite that far, but it seems like this isn't out of the realm of possibility. A lot of Lerner's objections do strike me as skirting very close to the pseudo-line. Of course, demarcation problem is always around. jps (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for declaring your POV, but that's totally out of order. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would go with "pseudoscientist": i.e. the subject claims to be a "scientist" but engages in pseudoscience. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- That was pretty much the status quo before someone added the "scientist" label at the front of the list. As it was my removal of that which touched off the controversy, I imagine that this history may repeat itself unless we get some clear consensus as this isn't the first time we've had this kind of dispute (see the discussions on Rupert Sheldrake as a biologist and Deepak Chopra as a physician). jps (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is also out of order because Wikipedia, its editors, and selective sources do not decide, that would WP:OR. As it is, not even the descriptions provided are objective. You wrote:
- "he doesn't seem to be working within the scientific field" - Yet he is a researcher in the field of "plasma physics", specialising in the "dense plasma focus" with applications to "fusion" It doesn't get more mainstream than that.
- "[his ] company which has been struggling along for 20 years failing to get funding" - Even his article mentions that NASA funded him in 2001, and that the received additional investment in 2008. Who knows what other funding he may, or may not have received, and it certainly isn't relevant either way.
- "he does, from time to time, publish in fringe journals" - he has personally had papers published in "Astrophysics and Space Science",[11] "Laser and Particle Beams ",[12] and and more recently his company's results have been cited in several peer-reviwed papers.[13] including the "Journal of Fusion Energy"[14]
- This is all consistent with being a scientist, and following the scientific method, unless you have peer-reviewed sources (not someone's blog) that says otherwise, pe WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:TALK#FACTS and WP:RS --Iantresman (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY is part of Wikipedia's guidelines in part because of your insistence on peer-reviewed articles proving pseudoscience, you realize. jps (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS - can you provide an RS stating the person is a follower/publisher of pseudo-science or fringe-science? Not your opinion - an RS. If not, I feel your edits here are becoming disruptive. DrChrissy (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- You're on my ignore list, now. Sorry. WP:DFTT. jps (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: Citing WP:DFTT is effectively calling me a vandal or troll - the collegiate way to behave is to address my question above. DrChrissy (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't ping me any more. Please don't post on my talkpage. Please just avoid getting involved in conversations that I am in. You're not worth discussing anything with. jps (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- (no ping as requested) I will ping you when this is necessary according to PaQ's. I will respect your banning me from your Talk page - (although this seems rather retiliatory since this thread has not occurred on there). I will not avoid getting involved in conversations in which you are engaged if I feel I have something useful to contribute. DrChrissy (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't ping me any more. Please don't post on my talkpage. Please just avoid getting involved in conversations that I am in. You're not worth discussing anything with. jps (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: Citing WP:DFTT is effectively calling me a vandal or troll - the collegiate way to behave is to address my question above. DrChrissy (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- You're on my ignore list, now. Sorry. WP:DFTT. jps (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I believe his statement of opposition to the Big Bang theory, which is maybe one of the most broadly accepted theories out there, could probably be seen as indicating that he is at least an advocate of fringe science. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, John, fringe advocate is a pretty fair way to describe his approach, I would say. The question of pseudoscience is whether these approaches are ignoring evidence to the contrary in a way that abrogates the scientific method. I would say that this is the case judging from his ongoing obstinancy in the face of a field that developed right before his eyes, leaving his book from the 1990s to look quaint by comparison. Nevertheless, this is what he is most notable for. At which point this kind of maverick behavior crosses over into pseudoscience is not an easy question to answer, but we are right up against the line in any case. Best to err on the side of caution with WP:FRINGEBLP, but I do not hesitate to proffer my professional opinion here that the fellow is a pseudoscientist at this point for the very reason you outline. jps (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS - can you provide an RS stating the person is a follower/publisher of pseudo-science or fringe-science? Not your opinion - an RS. If not, I feel your edits here are becoming disruptive. DrChrissy (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PARITY is part of Wikipedia's guidelines in part because of your insistence on peer-reviewed articles proving pseudoscience, you realize. jps (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is also out of order because Wikipedia, its editors, and selective sources do not decide, that would WP:OR. As it is, not even the descriptions provided are objective. You wrote:
A mix of sources, but I couldn't find any that referred to Lerner as a "fringe scientist" or "pseudoscientist", and I did look:
- "Eric Lerner, chief scientist". The Space Show, hosted by Dr David Livingston [15]
- "Chief Scientist Eric Lerner", Forbes by Alex Knapp [16]
- "chief scientist Eric Lerner", ZD Net, by Mark Halper [17]
- "Eric Lerner, chief scientist", ExtremeTech, Sebastian Anthony[18]
- "Plasma physicist Eric Lerner", discovermagazine [19]
--Iantresman (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought this had run it's course and we should all drop the stick?Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
This seems familiar. Oh, right User:Iantresman was flogging this particular dead horse over nine years ago, on behalf of Eric Lerner himself. It didn't go well for Lerner or for Iantresman.
Given that Eric Lerner is at the very center of an Arbcom case specifically on pseudoscience, I'd say that question was settled a long time ago. --Calton | Talk 14:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Without going into a lot of detail, Lerner has been engaged in research since 2008, so the circumstances are not entirely the same. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Also what question has been resolved, seems to me it is not only User:Iantresman who is flogging this horse, nor was he the only one sanctioned.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)?
- He is the one currently topic banned from the subject, though. jps (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- If that is the case, why did you only 4 days ago leave an edit summary
(Undid revision 764212844 by DrChrissy (talk) totally unacceptable for a person topic banned for pseudoscience editing to be opining in this way)
[[20]]? DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)- Because it's true. You were topic banned for promoting pseudoscience with respect to GMOs. jps (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- (not pinged due to user's request) Please provide a diff to support this statement. DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- [21] You were caught red-handed! jps (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- (Whacks jps with rolled up newspaper) No, No, No! BAD jps!! Do not post a link to an entire section and say "You were caught red-handed!". When you accuse another editor of doing something wrong, you must provide a diff to a specific edit that the accused editor made, and if needed an explanation of exactly what you think was wrong about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- [21] You were caught red-handed! jps (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- (not pinged due to user's request) Please provide a diff to support this statement. DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Because it's true. You were topic banned for promoting pseudoscience with respect to GMOs. jps (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- If that is the case, why did you only 4 days ago leave an edit summary
- He is the one currently topic banned from the subject, though. jps (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
At this point it might be pertinent (and yes I k now I am guilty too) to point out this is a talk page about improving articles, not discus users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a noticeboard and user conduct is often of relevance. jps (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough then, he may be currently banned, but then he did not have admins overturning last chanciness. Certain users have shown the self same attitudes and behaviors that got them repeated bans.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- True. We are discussing another example above, though related to a different pseudoscientific argument. jps (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- So you accept then that if a user has been banned in relation to a topic that undermines their cridibilty and may indicate bias.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- A current ban? Absolutely. jps (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- I did not ask about current bans, but about the kind of situation you are shouting at Chrisy over.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- I asked about current bans. That's relevant to this page, I would argue. jps (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- So why mention CHirsey, they are not currently banned from editing pseudoscientific pages.Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you talking about this section? Because I did not mention DrChrissy. jps (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a separate section, it is part of the same argument as below and above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a separate section to me! See, you can even link to it! jps (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well as it does not have a separate header (and by the way, you never asked any question, you made a statement) it is not. Also, you did mention Chrisy, as you referred to the one being discussed above this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Did you not click my link? It has a separate header. The question I asked was, "A current ban?" Do you see the question mark? That indicates that I'm asking a question. I never mentioned DrChrissy. I, in fact, was not discussing DrChrissy at all, but then DrChrissy decided to inject DrChrissy into the conversation. Do you see how that happened in this section? By the way, when I refer to "this section" I am referring to the one I linked to above. Did you click on that link yet? If you did, you'll know what section I'm talking about. Do you see how I didn't mention DrChrissy in this section? Did you see how DrChrissy responded to my comment which was not about DrChrissy? Can you see that? Also, do you see the question mark? I'm not sure I asked if you could see it or not, but I thought I would ask just in case you missed it. jps (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well as it does not have a separate header (and by the way, you never asked any question, you made a statement) it is not. Also, you did mention Chrisy, as you referred to the one being discussed above this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a separate section to me! See, you can even link to it! jps (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a separate section, it is part of the same argument as below and above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Are you talking about this section? Because I did not mention DrChrissy. jps (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- So why mention CHirsey, they are not currently banned from editing pseudoscientific pages.Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- I asked about current bans. That's relevant to this page, I would argue. jps (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- I did not ask about current bans, but about the kind of situation you are shouting at Chrisy over.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- A current ban? Absolutely. jps (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- So you accept then that if a user has been banned in relation to a topic that undermines their cridibilty and may indicate bias.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- True. We are discussing another example above, though related to a different pseudoscientific argument. jps (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- at JpS Yes it certainly can be about an editor's behaviour - which includes misrepresenting another editor. JpS, I looked at the diff you provided and tried a word search on "pseudoscience" - the result was 0 (zero) returns. You are deliberately misrepresenting me again. Please stop. DrChrissy (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's not hard to figure out that someone who links to mercola.com in articlespace about GMOs is promoting pseudoscience with regards to GMOs. In fact, I have yet to see something on mercola.com with respect to GMOs that is not pseudoscience! jps (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) See [22]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- You think he will listen?Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Guy's telling a funny joke. Or maybe he just didn't read the relevant section. jps (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- jps, Please provide a diff to the edit where DrChrissy linked to mercola.com in articlespace. Again, accusations against another editor must provide a diff to a specific edit that the accused editor made. Consider yourself warned. Further accusations without evidence will be brought to WP:ANI. (Note that I am not implying that you are wrong or that DrChrissy is right. I have no opinion on that until I evaluate a diff to the actual edit(s) in question.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Guy, thank you for trying to bring some sanity to this. I recollect using a mercola source, but once it was explained to me that many editors found this to be an unreliable source, I did not resist its removal. My concern here is the editorialising of JpS as to the reason for my Topic ban. Clearly I am hand-cuffed by the TB and I can not comment on the context of my ban. DrChrissy (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's linked in the very section linked above. jps (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- You think he will listen?Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough then, he may be currently banned, but then he did not have admins overturning last chanciness. Certain users have shown the self same attitudes and behaviors that got them repeated bans.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am bowing out of this as it has just become a petty snipping match that in no way improves anything. I can only ask it to be closed by an admin and hidden fro view so as to protect those of us with at least some pride left.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
My ignorance about portals and maybe DYK
Portal:Creationism has a DYK section with one entry stating "Did you know - that in the context of Creation–evolution controversy, according to a 2007 Gallup poll,[1]about 66% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" and 38% believe that God guided the process of evolution?" The source is a dead link, but Gallop does have a page with with the relevant polls[23] and the figure is 43&. Is it possible that there was an original DYK with a false figure? I have no idea how to fix this other than just change it with a new source, but that might be against some guideline. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- archive link. Seems verified, if a little cherry picked. I don't see a DYK banner on the article talk page and it looks like the old DYKs section of that portal includes another one for the same poll in the previous year, which suggests this didn't actually appear on the main page DYK? Regardless, here is a more recent version (2014): 42% "God created humans in present form"; 31% "humans evolved, with God guiding"; 19% "human evolved, but God had no part in the process". It doesn't look like they asked the stand-alone "creationism... definitely true/probably true/probably false/definitely false" question that yielded the 66% figure in the 2007 survey. So 2014 is better, but still enough to ruin my morning. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: It's definitely cherry-picked as your source shows the same question asked in a different poll that year getting the 43% that's in the Gallup poll I mentioned. 17:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Doug Weller talk
@Doug Weller: That portal's DYK section was created on 10 August 2006 by user:Arturo 7. That user's talk page portrays a creationist advocate who had a controversial editing history. Arturo 7 edited only between 13 July 2006 and 26 October 2006, except for this single edit about his user page in October 2007. 342 of his 768 edits are deleted, some no doubt after AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of creation (note the consecutive sections on his talk page).
Looking at the archives of DYK (WP:DYKA), I can find no hook that the text matches the portal's DYK section on the talk pages for creation-evolution controversy (redirect page, small dash name moved to endash in 2009) nor Creation–evolution controversy. Looking at the incoming links to the creation-evolution controversy redirect page from from WP space, there are only two from the DYK archive – Wikipedia:Recent additions 225 and Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August – plus one from the statistics record page Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Archive 2008, all of which relate to the hook:
- ... that Science, Evolution, and Creationism was published by the National Academy of Sciences to address the creation-evolution controversy?
from 6 August 2008 (5 600 views). The proper endash article title has no incoming links from WP space relating to the DYK project. Searching further, I can't find any evidence that any of these were ever in the DYK section, and edits like this one strongly suggest they had nothing to do with the DYK project. IMO, Portal:Creationism/Did you know and Portal:Creationism/Previous did you knows should be restructured to make clear they are unrelated to the WP:DYK project or deleted. I'm going to post a link to WT:DYK. Thanks, Doug, for raising this question. EdChem (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect this is not relevant or important at all. If these were ever DYKs, so what? If these weren't DYKs, so what? I'm not sure it makes any sense to make a big deal out of any of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Many of these would not make it through DYK vetting, and I think portraying these as if they were from the DYK project reflects poorly on the project and its members. There are already enough examples of problematic and poor DYK hooks for which we were responsible, without adding more that aren't real / true. EdChem (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think the DYK project has enough issues of its own before it worries about a few rogue DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Many of these would not make it through DYK vetting, and I think portraying these as if they were from the DYK project reflects poorly on the project and its members. There are already enough examples of problematic and poor DYK hooks for which we were responsible, without adding more that aren't real / true. EdChem (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Some thoughts on portals I agree with The Rambling Man that we shouldn't make a big deal out of it. I don't think there's any policy against it and if a WikiProject wants to show off content from their scope that for some misfortune or chance wasn't able to be put on the mainpage, we should let them. In one of my more niche contributions, I once tried to get Portal:Linguistics up to featured portal so I actually remember a good deal about portals. The only thing I could never figure out is why we have them at all. I think we should maybe consider why we have portals and the inclusion criteria for what content groupings can qualify for portals, but I digress. Anyway, the spirit of portals, I gather, is to (1) navigate and orient users to basic and important concepts of a topic, and (2) display quality contributions from content within the portal scope. I think that, as long as the DYK links are to articles of quality (in Wikipedia:Portal guidelines it's defined as "above a start-class") and important to the topic, it doesn't really matter if they've been through the DYK process because that's also the spirit of DYK, the time restrictions are just so that they don't get flooded with old content. That being said, this is the fringe theories notice board, so whether it violates that guideline is something different. I just don't want others to think that just because it hasn't been through the WP:DYK process, it automatically shouldn't be included in a portal. That being said, I don't much see what policies the presented hooks are afoul of. They're verifiable, and much "hookier" than a lot of the things put on the mainpage, if the time period or expansion of the articles linked was correct, these hooks would honestly not be the worst submissions to DYK. The only problem is their content. They're meant to support a particular fringe theory: creationism. But that's within the spirit of portals: to promote the content and topic of the portal. To promote content in the scope requires cherry picking facts and misconstruing article content. The portal's topic and therefore purpose is antithetical to NPOV and FRINGE, and, I think, those should win out over the portal guideline. I think the mere existence of Portal:Creationism, not just it's DYKs, violate the spirit and perhaps letter of NPOV and Fringe. I think we should rather give serious discussion to deleting the portal. (edit conflict) The Rambling Wug (Wugapodes) 22:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, I'm not suggesting DYK is any sort of requirement for content, but the portal has a section headed "Did you know" and that to me is implying that the content below it is DYK-vetted. Whether intentionally or not, it implies an endorsement by the DYK project that is not true, and reminds me of the way creationism tries to invoke the legitimacy of science to defend its decidedly unscientific claims. DYK requires facts that are verifiable to reliable sources. Would the DYK project have ever endorsed putting "... that in the context of Creation–evolution controversy, according to a 2007 Gallup poll,[24] about 66% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" and 38% believe that God guided the process of evolution?" on the main page? The link is dead, as Doug Weller notes, but here is how it appeared on 13 June 2007 which was 2 days after it was posted online. The statistics presented are clearly cherry-picked, and I don't think would have passed a DYK review even though some reviewers do a poor job. It would certainly not have survived a challenge at WT:DYK. No comment on whether the portal should go, I haven't looked into the rules governing them. Certainly coverage of creationism is difficult in that the scientific consensus is clear, so we need to avoid advocacy but maintain NPOV balance. EdChem (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing that it wouldn't have made it through, but I'm saying that the reason it wouldn't make it through isn't necessarily a fault of the hooks. In all those cases it would be because of how the editor was using the sources incorrectly to advocate a fringe theory. A neutrally worded hook could be created for these articles, but it would necessarily not promote creationism. I'm saying the overarching problem is that the portal as a whole, not just the DYKs, are on the wrong side of policy and the purpose of Wikipedia. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, I'm not suggesting DYK is any sort of requirement for content, but the portal has a section headed "Did you know" and that to me is implying that the content below it is DYK-vetted. Whether intentionally or not, it implies an endorsement by the DYK project that is not true, and reminds me of the way creationism tries to invoke the legitimacy of science to defend its decidedly unscientific claims. DYK requires facts that are verifiable to reliable sources. Would the DYK project have ever endorsed putting "... that in the context of Creation–evolution controversy, according to a 2007 Gallup poll,[24] about 66% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" and 38% believe that God guided the process of evolution?" on the main page? The link is dead, as Doug Weller notes, but here is how it appeared on 13 June 2007 which was 2 days after it was posted online. The statistics presented are clearly cherry-picked, and I don't think would have passed a DYK review even though some reviewers do a poor job. It would certainly not have survived a challenge at WT:DYK. No comment on whether the portal should go, I haven't looked into the rules governing them. Certainly coverage of creationism is difficult in that the scientific consensus is clear, so we need to avoid advocacy but maintain NPOV balance. EdChem (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've done a fair amount of work with portals over the years, and I regret to say that I don't remember ever seeing anything which specifically indicated that something included in the DYK section of a portal necessarily had to have been included as a main page DYK. And, in fact, in some of the portals with smaller topics, there have been, I think, times when the portal DYKs are just articles of significant importance to the topic, sometimes because there haven't been any main page DYK's. Regarding the particular item in question, I don't think that there are any regs regarding what can be done with portals. I can't see changing the DYK in question to accurately reflect the figures first quoted above would be in any way problematic. The changes should probably be made to Portal:Creationism/Previous did you knows though, as that is where the citation is included. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, but that page cites a 2006 poll. In any case, it seems odd to cite a 2007 poll, if the item is to be changed, it should probably be to the latest poll. Pretty US-centric though. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Acknowledging the US-centric aspect, but as per the content of Creationism#Prevalence the US seems to maybe be the area with the greatest percentage of believers in creationism. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, but that page cites a 2006 poll. In any case, it seems odd to cite a 2007 poll, if the item is to be changed, it should probably be to the latest poll. Pretty US-centric though. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
More diet advocacy
- Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Neal D. Barnard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barnard and his committee are diet advocates, and it has recently transpired that these articles have been the subject of paid editing. Could probably use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Keith Hearne, parapsychologist
Article is mainly based on his own work. Not my field, but clearly promotional. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just to add I ran into him via an argument at another fringe subject Talk:Jordan Lead Codices#Authenticity of Jordan Codices after I discovered an Amazon description calling him " one of the world's foremost psychologists." Doug Weller talk 12:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Richard M. Swiderski materials used in the article is disputed frequently by various people from the community, the most recent edits that show a substantial differences in facts by sticking to our acceptable content polices seen are 1, 2. The first one excludes any inclusion of the Swiderski material, maybe a non-cooperative or bold approach. The second one looks like inclusionism. Both this edits originates from multiple statements on the inaccuracy of the material used and with complaints of its non-neutrality due to its fringe nature. The article is protected multiple times for edit warring, there also seems a strong resentment from community members and often annoying statements of "Failure or refusal to "get the point". The problem from history seems to be present for 5 years. Somewhere in the middle there is a truth behind this problem. Major complaints I am able to understand are Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree, Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Beware grandstanding text and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The personalisation of the issue also fails to honor anything related to Wikipedia:Negotiation and to a certain extend appropriate Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and good faith is seen lost in its history. I think its a better time now to edit out inconsistencies and incorporate neutral materials. Certain neutral materials I found are wedding customs, history-short version, a theological college thesis paper. As I bring this matter to the noticeboard, I vote for less overclassification of this christian group and avoidance of including overly speculative sections as authoritative evidences.
Robert Sungenis
This is about the pseudoscience pusher Robert Sungenis, see the WP:PROFRINGE edit at [25]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- The issue with Robert Sungenis is not WP:PROFRINGE, but WP:BLP. I have placed a complaint on the BLP noticeboard.The editors may consider Robert Sungenis fringe, but this does not mean they get to do their own original research to state so (WP:NOR). The version I posted is fair and balanced relative to WP:BLP (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Sungenis&oldid=764563259). I am willing to work with them on what they consider fringe theories. See BLP noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Sungenis Joe6Pack (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, the WP:BLPN topic was the first one, so we will continue our discussion there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Exceptions to WP:FRIND
Recently an editor insisted on using a primary source to describe a fringe view, contrary to FRIND. The arguments given were as follows, with my rebuttals.
- FRINGE is just a guideline.
- Guidelines can have exceptions, of course, but that doesn't mean a guideline can be automatically discarded when it stands in the way of what an editor wishes to do. There should be consensus for making an exception to a guideline, as noted in WP:PAG:
Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptable, although it may be possible to convince fellow editors that an exception ought to be made.
- Guidelines can have exceptions, of course, but that doesn't mean a guideline can be automatically discarded when it stands in the way of what an editor wishes to do. There should be consensus for making an exception to a guideline, as noted in WP:PAG:
- If independent sources do not adequately describe a fringe view, we must summarize and/or quote primary sources for the sake of fair treatment.
- Since primary sources are occasionally permitted (WP:PRIMARY), this may initially seem reasonable, but further consideration reveals a few problems:
- This leaves it up to editors to determine what constitutes a fair summary of a fringe view. Editors may, unintentionally, unduly weight one aspect or otherwise miss the forest for the trees. Summarizing necessarily entails some interpretation, which WP:PRIMARY prohibits.
- Even supposing a fringe view is fairly summarized from primary sources, there is a disconnect: the independent sources brought in for mainstream reception (WP:PSCI) may not match up with the editors' own summary. The independent sources are addressing what they describe as the fringe view, which may not be exactly what editors have written.
- It feels a bit like vigilante justice, like, "Independent sources aren't treating this fairly, so we must step in to make it right." This is especially open to abuse when COI editing is involved. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; if there isn't much coverage by independent sources then perhaps it doesn't belong in the first place.
- Since primary sources are occasionally permitted (WP:PRIMARY), this may initially seem reasonable, but further consideration reveals a few problems:
I would like to establish consensus for these two statements:
- Making an exception to FRINGE (including FRIND) is possible, but requires consensus for doing so.
- If a fringe view has parts A, B, and C, and independent sources only address B, then the article should only discuss B. It is improper to summarize A, B, and C from primary sources, then cite an independent source to address B. (Basically what WP:FRIND says.)
Manul ~ talk 13:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- These points seem to be covered by existing policies and guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)