User talk:68.88.23.141

Pseudoscience

I've restored a comment that was in the faq from at least 2004 [1] to about late 2007, when it got removed in a text cleanup. I think it clarifies the scope of the Pseudoscience section in a way that the revised, 2008 wording does not. To whit, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy?

How can a FAQ on a policy be a policy itself? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It was split off the policy page several years ago, and helps to expand upon and clarify some of the issues involved. Pretty much the entire FAQ page can be found in the first revision of WP:NPOV. [2]. Of course, in some ways, the name is a misnomer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. As Shoemaker points out, WP:NPOV/FAQ was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy. Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added [3] - apparently based on this discussion, according to the edit summary, but the discussion seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". Looks to me to be more along the lines of a guideline or even an essay. Dreadstar † 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's at least some important policy in there - WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, for instance, is the policy basis behind WP:FRINGE. I'd be inclined to remerge at least parts of the FAQ before downgrading it. The simple fact is that a clear, unambiguous statement like WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience is the oly way to keep certain parts of Wikipedia at all sane to edit, such as Intelligent design, Evolution, Homeopathy and so on. Without it as policy, we could pretty much throw out any hope of getting any of those fields looking at all encyclopedic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A dilemma. As the FAQ was spun off originally from the NPOV Policy one would think the material was significant but not crucial, possibly an important distinction. In which case, the auxiliary material should probably have never been tagged as a policy but left as an essay or at best a guideline. The Civility policy for example has numerous links to material/essays significant to the understanding of the policy but not critical to its explanation. If critical enough to be part of the policy one would assume that it should have been left on the page where it could be easily accessed. If any material is reinserted into the original policy, I would think a fair amount of discussion and a consensus would be necessary to distinguish what is necessary, from what is useful but not critical. (olive (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Givenm it's BEEN policy for 7 years, I don't think we'd need that much re-evaluation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First, the pseudoscience bit (the bit in contention at this time) has not been policy for 7 years, but has been in constant conflict and question, and has been changed many times. Some of the users changing it were senior admins, who thought it was not in accord with WP basic policy. Second, the length of time it's been in could as easily be seen as it's being in need of review, as of it's having consensus. Third, it has been edit warred over, which often means it is not a consensus version, but people gave up. Fourth, the status of the FAQ as policy is in question, as above:

"What's for sure is that 18 KB of chat just doesn't belong in the main policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"

So, I don't think there was any consensus to make it policy. We may need to merge/downgrade.

Fifth, the point is whether it is correct. There needs to be a discussion on whether some of its parts are actually NPOV in truth, or merely relics or bits which only some editors feel are correct. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless Martinphi provides some evidence, I don't think he accurately portrays the situation. His firststatement, portrayed more accurately, boils down to "The policy was questioned, and consensus said it should stay". If a policy having ever been challenged means it wasn't a policy, then no Wikipedia policy is one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, it looks more like edit warring to me [4] [5]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. You ignore the lengthy talk page discussion that was ongoing simultaneously. That discussion went on for some time, but eventually died out after some mild constructive criticism of a new suggestion failed to result in any further suggestions. You'll note I was not even involved for much of the last part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

shoemaker:

1. an FAQ should not be policy. at best it should have guideline status, and anything on the page that should be more than a guideline should instead be moved over to the policy page proper. otherwise we open a tremendous back door where editors can surreptitiously write new policy without the normal review and consent process, and possibly end up with mutually contradictory policy statements. I second Martin's suggestion that it should be downgraded.
2. I think it's high time this entire pseudoscience/fringe issue was reopened and revised. frankly, this supposed 'policy' strikes me more as a political move in ongoing ideological warfare than as useful aid in writing wikipedia articles. the whole thing is predicated on a questionable understanding of the nature of science, and on some blatant misconstruals of the original ArbCom ruling (which itself is underspecified).

--Ludwigs2 06:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something needs to be done, but let's take our time on it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The ending of the discussion mentioned above by Shoemaker: "I've changed it in the proposal above, and made some tweaks in the response. See what you think. Any better? Jayen466 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)" ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Martin, but I'm getting a strong impression that you really want a major war with me. Maybe this isn't true, but I still think that such feelings means the best thing for me to do is to just disengage, and to make a polite request that you do the same, both of us communicating as little as possible with or about each other. If you would, I'd appreciate if you'd make sure that at least one neutral party's comment is said in any thread after I make a reply before you reply, and I'll do the same for your comments. I do not want to be pulled into a war with you, and so a tacit agreement to this sort of disengagement for the immediate future would be far preferred by me. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

War with you? No idea what you mean. You seem to be continually trying to get me banned from Wikipedia or sanctioned, etc. etc., but for my part I have only wanted to be left alone. Nor have I done anything warlike toward you at all, although once I responded to an attack by going to AN/I. I find no reason not to respond to you, but if you wish to not respond directly to me that is up to you. At any rate, be assured that I have no warlike intentions to anyone on Wikipedia, yourself very much included. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Various arguments about content aside for a moment, it seems fairly obvious to me personally that a FAQ page, which is effectively a policy fork where editors have substantially more leeway than they would ordinarily get on the policy page per se, is not properly categorized as a "policy". Plainly this one slipped through one of the many cracks that the diffuse concept of WP:Consensus quite frequently allows in such a large endeavor as Wikipedia. At best, it seems to me, this type of FAQ page is properly categorized as a supplemental guideline based on the policy page from which it is derived, unless adequate consensus can be achieved to the effect that it's not merely a convenience but instead is sufficiently central to the policy to merit the community's attention to maintain it with the same degree of diligence as policy pages in general. (I will intentionally avoid any personal judgement here about how well policy pages are typically maintained, except to say that in my observation more attention is typically paid to the core policy pages than is ordinarily devoted to various other pages.)
..... That said, this set of arguments is fundamentally a content dispute, which has escalated into an attempt to define or redefine the current balance between WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:Reliable sources, and perhaps also other policy pages that might be relevant here. Might I suggest that, if participants in this intense debate here can't hone in on what factors the dispute involves, or to the extent that participants disagree about either WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and/or other policy issues, that the discussion be moved into a forum where such balances are commonly negotiated? The normal course of resolving such content disputes is WP:RFC, followed if necessary by WP:RFArb, etc.,
..... Maybe the most obvious step for longer term participants in WP:NPOV, of which this page is a direct extension, is to seriously consider "downgrading" this page to guideline status, and leave the content issues such as are being brought up here to local consensus about WEIGHT and RS, and if need be to RFCs and Arbcomm. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think it best to keep it policy (as it has been for the last five years or so) until at least a few issues are settled. For instance, I think Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity as important for understanding the NPOV policy as "Verifiability, not truth" for WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, Kenosis, except that we seem to be making some progress here, so give it a chance. I also don't know how it would be brought to ArbCom, as they don't do policy much. The FAQ maybe should be downgraded.... which in itself might solve a problem, as either people would not care quite so much, or else any parts of it moved to NPOV would be given attention by the community. Also, it's easier to say "the guideline doesn't jibe with policy." On the other hand, I'm not sure the issue would get enough attention if it weren't policy, but whatever. But this should not be seen as a content dispute, as it's been brewing for years. We have a couple good suggestions going, I don't see why we should not forge ahead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Francis Schonken, this policy is essential for understanding aspects of the main NPOV policy, in particular WP:NPOV#Common objections and clarifications which links directly to this rather than providing the answers on the main page. It might clarify things if that section was reorganised to include all essential points from this policy, at which point anything less important could be covered in a guideline, but it's evident from current content disputes that this would be strongly contested and could easily escalate into a complete waste of time. A correction – when this was split from the main page, it was a summary style split into two aspects of the policy, and not a POV fork. . dave souza, talk 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave, just to clarify, I didn't say "POV fork" but said "effectively a oolicy fork" in the sense you just described it, i.e. a fork devoted to FAQs. If it's to remain policy, it should of course be maintained accordingly by admins and other users familiar with specific aspects of NPOV such as WP:UNDUE, the Arbcom decision on pseudoscience, and other relevant aspects of WP:NPOV. At present, the section on "pseudoscience" appears to me to be consistent with the Arbcom decision, though there are many aspects of the section on "Balancing different views" that presently read like an opinion piece, with direct links to guidelines and even to essay pages. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to misrepresent that, I think we're on the same wavelength here. My feeling is still that it's not so much a fork as an amplification of aspects of the core policy, which have been left rather cryptic by the split showing the questions without the answers. As you say, it's consistent with the Arbcom decision, and the principles in that decision are important. Items 3a and 4a seem relevant to recent discussions.[6] . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FAQ pseudoscience discussion reopened

• Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#FAQ_pseudoscience_discussion_reopened

For reference, the current intro wording is this:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

The question and answer simply don't fit together. In fact, the question the answer appears to answer is this one: What does NPOV mean in the context of pseudoscientific theories? Then our answer would make sense.

But the question asked is something else. It is "how to write an article on a pseudoscientific topic" (e.g. astrology). In this context, the sentence "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate" simply does not compute. I said at the time that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on astrology devotes 4 large, densely printed, double-column pages to describing the history of astrological thought, its cultural standing over the centuries, etc., and that it ends with the words "In short, modern Western astrology, though of great interest sociologically and popularly, generally is regarded as devoid of intellectual value." In other words, the EB thought it "proportionate" to devote most of its article on astrology to the description of pseudoscientific thought, and surely that is appropriate in the article devoted to such a topic.

I also thought that when it comes to Ancient astronaut theories and the like, our articles on these theories should not contain lengthy quotes from primary sources such as Erich von Däniken & Co. Instead editors should be encouraged to search out mainstream scientific analyses of these pseudosciences as sociological or religious phenomena, like this source here: [7] Where such a scientist quotes Däniken, we can of course quote what he quotes (E. v. Däniken, quoted by X in Y). But where there is a body of secondary literature, editors should follow that, and not be let loose to quote the primary source bits they like best.

So, the suggested wording was this:

I am working on an article about a pseudoscience. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?

If a pseudoscientific theory makes claims related to a field of natural science, for example, and these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. Also check if the theory has been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then scholarly source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large.

We could of course keep the existing answer as well, but should change the question preceding it, as indicated above. --Jayen466 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm inclined to use both your suggested response, and the old one with a new question, yours to emphasize the standard rules on POV-forks, and the old one to make it clear that minority views should not be presented as equally important as the majority ones in main articles. However, what does everyone think about moving both of them into a new section fo the main WP:NPOV page, with a change of questiona nd answer to more standard text? They're the basis for the important guideline WP:FRINGE, so I do think they should have a simple, policy-level statement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with moving them into a new section either qith a Q&A or with a 'more standard text'. Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to moving them there. Jayen466 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving anything onto the main policy page should have a fair amount of community input I would think, especially on this topic.(olive (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

That new version is a lot clearer and ties in well with issues of basing articles on reliable secondary sources rather than giving priority to self-descriptions by pseudoscience promoters, so support the change. Not sure if there's much value in keeping the previous version to supplement it. It could be readily phrased as an instruction rather than a question and answer and so made suitable for a move to the main policy page, which would perhaps help to point out that this is a policy. There's validity in the need for consultation before such a move, but it must be accepted that this is policy regardless of which page it appears on. . dave souza, talk 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Jayen466. Reads much better and a lot clearer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Jossi, this was well-done, and should be incorporated into policy. It is clear. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen: I'm inclined to be a bit clearer about the issue. for instance, I'd prefer something like this (using the same question as in your second box, above):

An article on a pseudoscience topic, like any article on wikipedia, should strive to present a clear and comprehensible description of the topic's theory, history, and pertinent details. Since pseudoscientific theory often make claims related to established sciences, the article must clearly state that the theory has not found scientific acceptance. This should not, however, become a central or organizing theme in the article; it should be offered simply as a historical and scientific fact. Wherever possible, source material from mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology should be used to present the idea's history, and indicate its standing within the scientific community and within society at large. Sources from advocates of the pseudoscience and sources from mainstream scientists engaged in the field should be treated as primary research, with the limitations that entails.

further, if you want to retain the first paragraph as a separate FAQ question, then I'd prefer it to be modified for clarity. something like this, maybe:

What does NPOV mean in the context of pseudoscientific theories?

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; pseudoscience by definition lacks scientific corroboration. However, pseudoscience may have significant social or historical importance which merits its inclusion in articles. Where pseudoscience is presented in comparison to mainstream scientific views it should be made clear that the pseudoscience view is a minority position with limited standing and acceptance; in no case should it be suggested that the pseudoscience view is superior to , equal to, or even in serious competition with established science. Where pseudoscience views are presented on their own, as in articles about the pseudoscience itself, the article should give them prominence, but must note that the view is not currently considered to be a valid scientific perspective; in no case should the theory be presented in isolation from other more accepted scientific views, or suggest that those other accepted scientific views are false, flawed, or otherwise unacceptable. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

I think these answer both questions fully and appropriately. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Both of these make it less clear. Jayen's is much better. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More comments. First, if an article represents a pseudoscience, and it is well known, then yes, the scientific debunking should be the primary, if not exclusive, theme of the article. And I just cannot support the use of "fairly" in anything, since it's so judgmental. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Orange (damn, I have an inexplicable urge to call you 'Agent Orange' today ) - the article is supposed to be about a pseudoscience, not 'the debunking of a pseudoscience'. the 'debunking of a pseudoscience' wouldn't even be notable enough for an article without an article about the pseudoscience itself. you're forgetting that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for establishing truth. it's our job to present even pseudoscience in a clear, neutral, and fair manner. and no, I do not think wikipedia wants to establish a policy that says wikipedia reserves the right to be brutally unfair to any topic it thinks is stupid. that's just wrong, on so many levels. --Ludwigs2 21:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the POV which has caused so much damage to the NPOV status of articles on fringe topics. It is this which needs to be specifically addressed and put to rest in a final way per policy. It is this POV which the former FAQ gave some tenuous support, by making the scientific view ipso facto the majority. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, the scientific view is not a majority view. It is the verified and supported view. If Wikipedia were to work using a majority view, the UFO's exist and make crop circles. Science lacks a POV, it simply is a methodology to ascertain the behavior of the natural world. It can't think. It can't opine. Because humans, who are fundamentally flawed in being that rational, run science, a whole system was created to publish articles, to review them, and to bring them to the forefront fore discussion. Over time these theories are enhanced and developed until they are fundamental facts, like Evolution or Gravity. Psychics or paranormal are both rejected because they cannot be tested scientifically or when tested scientifically were found to be lacking. So, your POV and Ludwig's suggestions actually create a POV, instead of keeping it NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Orange, this doesn't quite track. setting aside things that I would heartily love to debate but are out of scope (e.g.: of course science has a POV - what do you think a methodology is based on, if not a set of pre-binding assumptions?), let me make a few necessary things clear:

1. wikipedia is not here to defend science or truth. wikipedia is here to present human knowledge, and this means all human knowledge, even where it's wrong knowledge. pseudoscience topics are valid field of human knowledge in their own right, and should be presented as such.
2. NPOV does not mean 'lacking a POV' on wikipeida; it means fairly representing all significant POVs. so even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant. we're not looking for sources that present some 'neutral truth', ever; we're looking for sources that present their own POV, so that we can balance those fairly with other sources.
3. you are consistently oblivious to context, and that puts a tremendous strain on the credibility of your arguments. if you can't distinguish the different contexts in which a fringe topic might appear, how could you possibly have any insights in to the contextual nuances that go into establishing neutrality?

--Ludwigs2 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Science is a POV, and it is not Wikipedia's job to present information in a way which favors any POV. "Even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant...we're looking for sources that present their own POV" and we present all the POVs in proportion to their prominence. I happen to believe science is the only way of gaining knowledge, but that doesn't matter. Your take on psychic stuff is uninformed, but it doesn't matter either: Wikipedia is still not in the business of taking sides. Orange, your POV has been discussed and rejected by the Wikipedia community. There is no point engaging you on it. Just don't edit war over it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Where has MY POV been rejected. In fact, it's been supported more times than not. Give me a fucking break. You just can't make broad pronouncements and get away with it. Oh that's right, you used your pseudoscientific psychic powers to divine what I know and don't know. I keep forgetting how much smarter you are than I. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's be civil here, please. Dreadstar † 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, you guys. For history's sake, I am against any policy which makes the scientific view ipso facto the majority view. This is used on articles to argue that within articles on fringe subjects the scientific view has the greatest WEIGHT, and thus should be favored in terms of a) space and b) wording. In other words, it takes over the subject of the article and tends to be asserted as fact or presented with wording which gives a very heavy bias.

I support Jayen's drafts and I think that Ludwig's drafts are very good expansions on it and make the issue clearer. I think we need to make sure the final draft makes clear that per WEIGHT the scientific opinion is not going to take over the entire article, per Ludwigs.

Thus the previous version has to go. It is not in accord with the NPOV principle.

I think we need to make it clear that the criticism should come either 1) from critics outside the field, in which case it should be Attributed. Or 2) should come from sources within the field (eg Astronomy) in which case it can be presented as the majority opinion, unless there is good reason to attribute-- for example, if the person writing is a noted critic of pseudoscience in general or a member of CSICOP.

We also need to note, per dave souza above, that pseudoscience sources are perfectly acceptable for describing the positions of fringe ideas. I don't know what he's really getting at, but if he thinks WP should use the secondary sources in order to take their point of view, instead of a neutral POV, then that is an indication that we need to make things clear. When he says "basing articles," it seems as if he would describe a fringe POV from the perspective of a mainstream source, thus cutting out the fringe POV's ability to speak for itself. That's unacceptable. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense, finally. In a simplistic parallel. If in the fine arts I am writing an article on Rauschenberg's goat sculpture Monogram which let's say many critics would say is not art, then I can't write an article about Rauschenberg's goat and have most of the article be about how this is not mainstream art. The article is about the goat and no matter my view on it, and although certainly, the article must contain material on the critics' views of the goat negative and positive, the "weight" of the article must be about the topic (or subject) of the article, that goat. That's encyclopedic...(olive (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Exactly. We need to make that clear, and also that sources within the fringe POV are good -often best- for explaining that POV.

You can use fringe and pseudoscientific sources to describe beliefs, but you cannot use them to describe reality. Articles on, for example time cube, remote viewing or a flat earth need to accurately describe the ideas and their history, but need to also give a clear and thorough account of their relation to reality. It would be unacceptable, for example, to write an entire article on ideas about the flat earth without balancing the claims of advocates with the facts from reliable sources. This also needs to be done throughout much of the text, so that the reader can be given a clear idea about each claim. However, such an account of the relation between claims and reality should not be the sole purpose of the article, since the history and sociology of such ideas need to be covered as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're basically right, but I believe you err in your use of the word "reality." We don't do reality here on WP, but sources. Yes, on all controversial subjects we need to describe both sides of any controversy, and who says what. Yet, we should never, ever contrast POV X with Reality.

Controversy should have weight relative to its prominence in the sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources must be reliable sources, and undue weight must not be given to minority views amongst expert opinion on the subject. Where the subject is claimed to be science, that claim has to be shown in relation to majority expert scientific opinion and the scientific consensus on the subject. Of course that doesn't prevent due weight being given, for example, to majority expert theological views of faith based subjects. . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As Dave observes, there is often a close interaction between WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. When discussing majority and minority points of view, it needs to be done keeping in mind the reliable sources analysis. If a pursuit such as, say parapsychology or "psychic", such as is at issue here, is asserted by certain of its advocates to be a "science", the majority view of the scientific community must be given its due weight w.r.t. that assertion and the minority view its respective due weight, using also a reliable-sources assessment when making the "due weight" assessment. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No consideration versus rejection

I see a WP:NOR problem with these:

...these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. (Jayen)

...Since pseudoscientific theory often make claims related to established sciences, the article must clearly state that the theory has not found scientific acceptance. (Ludwigs)

These can be read as: Lacking serious/reliable sources you may/should jump to the conclusion that the scientific/reliable sources reject the novel/pseudoscientific theory. Inferring verifiability from a *lack* of reliable sources? That would be a first...

In that case I'd prefer to stay with the present formulation, which is a bit more woolly but doesn't seem to have this NOR related issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. In practice, it is almost always the case that this "non acceptance" will be stated in the fringe or mainstream sources (and either are RS for such a statement), and if it isn't stated anywhere that it has been "not accepted" (or rejected), then it is OR just like you say.... but it is non-controversial almost always. And perhaps we should make it clear that "not accepted," or "not considered" is not the same as "rejected." FRINGE already does that, but it could be stated here also. For example, saying that the concept of Orgone energy is not accepted by the scientific community isn't going to get tagged usually as it's self evident. Saying that Psi (parapsychology) isn't accepted by mainstream science will not raise any eyebrows. Saying either has been rejected is contentious, however, and therefore requires sources combined with attribution. That's what you're saying, and the statements above are in harmony with that principle. Maybe we just need to add a sentence? From FRINGE:

However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. [8] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, but a lack of credible scientific sources would mean that the subject is not notable as science, and should not be presented as having any scientific credibility. Thus a protoscience such as the phrenology of the 1820s became recognised as a pseudoscience, and it might be difficult to find any modern mainstream sources giving it serious consideration. A more nuanced situation arises where claims are still made for scientific credibility but no evidence has been published in recognised scientific journals, or the little attention it has been given by mainstream science has found it wanting. That still meets the current WP definition that "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." In such cases care has to be taken to ensure that a lack of modern attention is not presented as giving any credibility, or allowed to give undue weight to claims made by proponents. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the WP definition that anything which has not received publication in mainstream scientific journals, but claims to be science, is pseudoscience? Oh, well, it's the "otherwise lacks scientific status" bit, I see. Lol. Well, that makes most research, published in little specialist journals, pseudoscience. Not only has it not gained overall "status," it never will because it's only of interest to a sub-sub-discipline which only two or three people in the world know much about. Don't cite WP articles for accurate understanding for use in making overall policy. That last bit should just be taken out. I agreed completely with this diff. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I don't know what to say about the comment above except that it seems to demonstrate pretty severe misunderstanding of how science works. First, a journal can be "specialist" without being not mainstream. Specialist journals are frequently cited by other journals in other areas. And those aren't the only issues. Reputable journals of all types go through rigorous peer-review by experts in the fields. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well if that's what he's getting at then there is no problem. I thought he was saying something different, hinging on the word "recognized." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the OR problem Francis raises could be solved as follows:

I am working on an article about a pseudoscience. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?

Check if the theory is notable enough to have been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large. Also check for press sources. If the pseudoscientific opinion has not been discussed by scholars of any field, and there are no other reliable third-party sources discussing it, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any good? :-) Jayen466 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Except there are clearly notable pseudosciences that scientists won't even bother thinking about. Consider for example EVP which is so thoroughly rejected that it is very hard to find any scientists even saying "yeah, that's crap". But EVP is clearly notable with many mainstream media sources discussing the idea especially when it comes up in fictional contexts (as it has in many recent movies and television shows). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources – "4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." – feel free to summarise. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on EVP, but I'm pretty sure there are scholars of psychology, sociology etc. who find this sort of thing an interesting topic for research, especially if it's prominent in contemporary entertainment media. [9], [10], [11], [12]. The thing is, if no one has studied it, not even out of psychological or sociological interest, if the press don't mention it, and not even the Skeptics have a page on it somewhere, then we don't need to have a page on it either. Jayen466 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with Jayen's draft above is that, unlike the quote above, it doesn't say "reliable source varies with the topic of the article." It is clear that a RS for the content of a fringe idea will be the proponents of the fringe idea. I really liked Ludwigs expanded version, because it made some of these things clearer. Basically, Jayen's draft may be easier to put in the policy, yet it doesn't cover a lot of things. Still, as long as it can't be used against policy, it might be alright. I do see that potential though "this isn't a mainstream source which says what fringe people believe, so we can't use it." You might not get the history in a mainstream source at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since a rewrite could be included in the mother policy, NOPV, and since the question and answer format is used very little there, I have transcribed as a statement rather than a question: This is a combination of the work and words of multiple editors, and hope they don't mind my using their words in this draft.(olive (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

In an article on a science, where pseudoscience is presented in relation to mainstream, scientific views, the sources must be reliable sources and undue weight must not be given to minority views in relation to expert opinions on the subject. If the subject is claimed to be science, that claim must be shown in relation to majority, expert, scientific consensus on the subject.

In an article where the pseudoscience itself is the subject of the article, material concerning the pseudoscience should be given prominence, but the pseudoscience by definition should not be considered a mainstream scientific view, and its relationship relative to more accepted scientific or skeptical viewpoints should be described.

Since pseudosciences often have not been considered by mainstream science, mainstream sources on them may be difficult to find. If available, notable sources on the subject by expert scholars in fields such as history, sociology, religion, psychology may be used as historical and or philosophical perspectives to show the relationship of the pseudoscience within the scientific community and society at large. If reliable sources cannot be found on these matters, less reliable sources may be used. However, in each case careful attention should be paid to attribution, so that the reader will have opportunity to evaluate the reliability of the claims. If the pseudoscientific opinion is not notable, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

---

[The above is not by me - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]

I find Olive's suggestion confusing, paticularly the third paragraph. Also, insisting on attribution could result in situations where you see something like "The Organisation of Psudoscientific Scholars say that there is strong evidence that UtterNonsense exists. Frederick Farrar disagrees, and says that UtterNonsense is not possible under the laws of science." - where Frederick Farrar is representing the majority, scientific view, and the Organization of Pseudoscientific Scholars has only a dozen members. Attribution could easily directly violate undue weight. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, Actually, I believe it should be possible to find at least some scientific discussion of the paredolia-like ways that people delude themselves into thinking that EVPs occur on a certain bit of tape. It might be necessary to go back to its earlier form, playing records backwards to find supposed "secret messages", but there's almost surely some commentary out there. And, given parity of sources, the pro-EVP sources are pretty weak, so we need not counter with articles in top-tier journals. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker are you on the wrong page, perhaps? I put together the draft above as noted, based on the several drafts and ideas by multiple editors. I am in the dark or at least twilight on why you have introduced EVP into this discussion on a NPOV/FAQ and NPOV policy.(olive (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

The first and second paragraphs discuss undo weight in both articles whose topics are science and pseudoscience.(olive (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

EVP was used as an example a little bit above. I just threw in the comment down here as an aside. I'll edit it a little to make that clear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Olive, where do you get the idea that we should be using "less reliable sources"? If no reliable third party sources show that it's science, then we don't present it as science. . dave souza, talk 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Attribution violates undue weight? Not if the scientific source is any good, and the reader not a total idiot. Rather, it strengthens it. Anyone else think that attribution is likely to mislead a reader? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's nothing to prevent total idiots from reading and misunderstanding anything in our articles which is in any way obscure, and some seem to think that fringe or pseudoscientific organisations should be shown as though they match mainstream organisations with titles which are not in common usage by the general public. WP:NPOV#Article structure, Undue weight "the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" apply. . dave souza, talk 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those things where I've seen it done - the majority side is carefully attributed to individual scientists, making it look like there's just a few scientists that hold those views. There's a WP:FRINGE section on Particular attribution which, while it could be done a lot better, does point out a genuine problem: That attribution can be used to imply that widely-held beliefs are only held by a tiny minority, or, by using the names of tiny fringe organisations, you can make fringe theories appear to be much more widely-held. Both are problematic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that as long as there's confusion, the writing is still too complex. If we can't understand it, either will a new editor looking for guidance.To explain, this rewrite includes work from Jayen, dave souza, Ludwigs, and Martinphi. I tacked it together.

The reference you make, Dave, to "less reliable sources" is not for science but pseudoscience, and I think attribution implies verifiability. That should be clear if not it should be rewritten.

The third paragraph is saying basically: In the case of a pseudoscience where mainstream sources are difficult to find the editor may use : a notable source by expert scholars to explain historical and philosophical perspective, if necessary a less reliable source well attributed (verifiable), and if not notable the pseudoscience should not be included in Wikipedia.

Doesn't the first paragraph take care of problems with presenting a minority view as if its a majority view, and in the second paragraph as well where it says pseudoscience should not be considered a mainstream scientific view and its relationships to more accepted scientific viewpoints described?(olive (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

WP:V already takes care of this. The problem I’ve seen is where one or two mainstream scientists have made a comment about a pseudo or fringe science, and that singular comment is presented as being the view of the entire scientific community, while there’s no WP:V source that says the entire scientific community shares that view. Indeed, it has been used in situations where members of the scientific community have not all agreed that something is pseudoscience – a few believe something possible, yet those holding the minority opinion are completely disenfranchised. If only a limited number of the mainstream scientific community have commented on something, then that should be made clear... but the small number of actual comments should not be made to look like it’s a view held by the entire mainstream scientific community. Rare is the occasion where the mainstream scientific community agrees on anything. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; so while the majority or even all members of the scientific community may agree that something is impossible, or stupid, or pseudo or fringe, if it is not Verifiable, then it is not something that can or should be included in Wikipedia. If it is made so that you can do synthesis or original research for pseudoscience and fringe topics, then why not every other subject? It’s a slippery slope and it is misleading to our readers. We need to maintain complete neutrality and verifiability across the board in a predictably consistent manner. Making an exception for pseudo/fringe articles doesn’t do that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Practical considerations

The approach remains rather theoretical/philosophical – which maybe isn't too bad while we want it to cover a lot of aspects. Nonetheless contributors might want to find more practical recommendations. Here are some ideas, not yet clear-cut policy or guideline text, but let's explore whether such approach might add more practicality:

1. Does the theory, approach or ideas we want to describe in a Wikipedia article make scientific claims or assumptions?
   • Scientific claims (in this sense) may follow from several indicators: the person proposing the approach may claim to be a scientist or professor; the terminology to describe the ideas may be hooked in a scientific discourse; the theory may be published in a scientific journal (Nature, The Lancet,...); The proposed claims may be discussed by the scientific community; [non-limitative list]
   • If the described theory, approach, ideas, claims, don't carry *any* scientific claims, no mention of "science" nor "pseudoscience" need to be made in the Wikipedia article describing them;
   • If there are scientific claims, then,
     • The scientific community may reject the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims virtually unanimously: then it wouldn't be too difficult finding reliable sources to that effect: use them to describe the scientific approach, on the same page as the description of the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims, in order to acquire a NPOV.
     • The scientific community may embrace the novel theory (without necessarily approving): then it would not be too difficult to find sources describing the novel theory as a scientific theory: use the available sources to describe and qualify the novel theory (without leaving out possible reserves scientists my have per the reliable sources).
     • The scientific community may be ambiguous, some approving, some rejecting: anyway, again reliable sources are available to describe these approaches, and should be used in the Wikipedia article;
     • The scientific community at large may remain moot on the point: attention should be given not to describe the novel theory as if it were something the scientific community is involved in: depending on circumstances e.g. the Wikipedia article could indicate that the theorist proposing the new ideas is a science fiction author, that the expression "speed of light" as used by the theorist is not 299,792,458 metres per second (take care not to suggest the contrary e.g. by using wikilinks "speed of light" in that case). Sometimes the "broader picture" should be given, summarizing conventional scientific approaches on the subject (take care not revert to original research, by adding something like "...therefore the [novel theory] is wrong" if no reliable source states thus - let the reader come to his/her own conclusion).
2. "In universe" aspects: some novel approaches/theories/... may carry a distinct artistic (or otherwise) in-universe component, e.g. ’pataphysics - in which case WP:INUNIVERSE should be observed in writing an article about such approaches/theories.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A general rule might be "If insufficient sources exist to discuss the scientific community's response to a fringe theory, which claims to be scientific or makes claims obviously related to a scientific field, then the theory should not be on Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Too narrow, imho: Wikipedia's "reliable source" concept is broader than "scientific sources" (it might be useful to refer to the rejected WP:SPOV here). Scientific claims treated only in non-scientific reliable sources may have a place in Wikipedia. Whether they would have in a separate article is not the issue here (I mean, in the context of the NPOV policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think, this rule would be so open to interpretation and other difficulties as to be impossible to handle in any contentious environment:

What constitutes insufficient sources could be debated.

Science does not sufficiently deal with fringe, if at all, by definition ... fringe to what.... fringe to science. Since peer-reviewed science becomes by definition the mainstream, and what makes something mainstream could be, at the least, peer-review, a relatively closed loop is created that would not include notable, albeit, not mainstream science topics - fringe to science topics.

In an article on a so called fringe science or a pseudoscience, references to science can and should be made as long as the pseudoscience is not shown to incorrectly be mainstream, since the terms fringe science and pseudoscience refer in part to a relationship the topic has to science, however slight that might be. In an article, material might be included to show the topic's non-association to science, the debunking of the pseudoscience in relation to science, as long as it is appropriately weighted, and attributed. All of this is possible in a well sourced, well written complete article but would be disallowed by the above suggestion, seems to me.(olive (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Since we need attibution to show that it's science, if such verification is unavailable then we don't show it as science, but as a non-science social phenomenon. Where it's been subject to scientific testing which has not shown any validity for the claims, then we state just that. Since proponents of such claims commonly claim to have made tests, reports of scientific tests have to be published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Reports in fringe journals or self-published claims by proponents have to be treated as primary sources. . dave souza, talk 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's in a p-r journal doesn't mean it isn't WP:PRIMARY. We can report proponent's claims about their tests. Also, above people were saying that attribution was a factor detracting from its believability.

The problem around here is that people often don't quite get that we aren't out to present the truth. We're just presenting sources, and attributing. So all this evaluation that people are doing-- we don't have to do that. We don't have to evaluate the truth of a claim, we only have to let the reader know who the claimant is. We have to present sources in accordance with their prominence, not their truth. If we use the sources right, we can write a good article on any topic without ever evaluating for ourselves who is right and who is wrong. Attribution kind of takes truth off our hands.

Prominence not truth: that is why RS and WEIGHT are relative to the article, not to some general body of humanity or intellectuality. Otherwise you could never rank which source is most prominent for the article. In a fringe area, you would find that the most prominent sources are the fringe ones. The most prominent sources stating the scientific or mainstream scientific opinion of the fringe topic will be from mainstream sources. The most prominent sources stating the fringe opinion of the mainstream will be fringe sources. The most prominent sources stating the relationship of the fringe claim to the mainstream will be both from fringe and mainstream sources, and attribution will be particularly important: don't like that? No, we aren't here to tell the reader what the relationship is, we're out to report what people say.

Yes, that means if the reader can't tell a good source from a bad one, the reader will be twisting in the wind of truth and falsehood. That isn't our concern. We aren't here to tell the reader what to believe.

The phrase "we...show it as" in the post above: that's utterly wrong. We aren't here to show anything as anything. If that is how people are thinking about policy, then something very wrong is going on.

People don't get the italicized text here:

"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."

Note that you can always get RS on fringe topics: the publications of proponents are the fully RS sources which you use.

For what they believe. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, self-published sources are by definition generally unreliable, and can only be used in specific exceptional circumstances - most fringe topics would fail that (e.g. per #3 "unduly self-serving") when no other sources apart from the self-published ones exist. But that is all WP:V matter, not something that needs to be rehashed for the purposes of the WP:NPOV policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You forget the fringe exception [13]. That exception seems to have consensus because the alternative is to adjust NOTABILITY to exclude more, as Shoemaker suggests in a limited way above. Whatever, but if we're talking about fringe, the sources have the fringe exception. And of course in most fringe areas you can find plenty of fringe proponent sources from third party publishers. We should probably make this exception even more clear, I guess. The reason for it is that you sometimes can't describe a fringe idea without having recourse to such texts- yet it's still notable. In FRINGE it's phrased to favor non-RS criticism, but the corollary is that fringe topics are also sourced to fringe sources, including self-published ones. This also constitutes an exception to WP:SELFQUEST 2, 3, 4, and 7. This is the practice. If anyone wants to tighten up NOTABILITY, we've got a lot of articles to delete. I'll support it. There is of course disagreement on this, but the exception is commonly accepted, and necessary, since in many fringe areas you just don't have RS. You have one or two RS which give it notability, but 90% of the description only exists on sites or self-published texts. The alternative to using self published sources is thus to not allow fringe proponents to speak at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice the dodges on the Time cube article. It's about the site, not the ideas (thus I guess they could use the site as a source but for SELFQUEST), but they quote the website without citation. This is where you get if you don't allow fringe sources to speak for themselves on articles about themselves. Another example is the EVP article, where it has been argued that you can't use sources like the AA-EVP website. The problem is that information is moving to the web, first, and second fringe ideas are often only described fully in proponent sources. You can't get a full picture of a lot of these things without using their self-pub sources. Perhaps we need to tighten NOTABILITY to say that unless there are enough mainstream sources for a full and comprehensive article, and some of the sources are by proponents, you can't have an article. Proponents have to be able to speak for themselves or else WP is biased and not very useful. This may not be easy to argue under current rules, but I think it would fly in a full-blown policy discussion. So if anyone wants to argue that the fringe exception as I described is against policy, we need to have that discussion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of he Fringe policy,a s far as Ican tell. I belivev you're talking about Parity of scources, which says that if the fringe claim's sources are weak, the criticism can be taken from similarly weak sources. That doesn't mean, though, that all the sources in an article can be self-published internet sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they could be- you need at least the requirement of NOTABILITY. But that is such a low requirement that if you are going to fully describe a fring idea, you are going to be using such sources. You just said "all the sources." By standard policy, you don't use any such sources. That's why I'm saying there is a commonly accepted fringe exception. It should be made more clear as now any wiki lawyer can do as he pleases. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pathological science like Pseudoscience?

Maybe WP:PSCI is also valid for Pathological science, Junk science and their kin listed under Voodoo science? Said: Rursus (☻) 17:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)