ThesariusQ (talk | contribs) |
ThesariusQ (talk | contribs) →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2020: Analysis of authors and references for use in the article Socionics, preamble, definition of the subject of socionics |
||
Line 137:
:::::Regarding the "mediator" you linked me to at Russian Wikipedia, their comment concludes with, "At the same time, this is not a request for mediators to subscribe to this outcome, but ''only an offer'' to borrow the positive experience of other mediation" (Google Translate, emphasis added). There is futher discussion above and below this comment. It does not appear to be any binding decision. In fact, it logically ''cannot'' be. If it were, then the Russian article wouldn't say what it says. It clearly isn't decided yet there, or else it was decided that the opening sentence is fine, because the opening sentence is what it is. And crucially, ''we are not bound by decisions made at Russian Wikipedia''. It is of interest only in an advisory sense. I'm not seeing any problem behavior from the QuantumBorg account, whoever it is. It edited once, in isolation. You, on the other hand, are a very suspicious account: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::This is mistake. In the ru-wiki, the mediator wrote: "This result was accepted by me as final, and since I have already adopted 2 expanded preliminary totals and 1 expanded final result, the mediators A.Vajrapani, Divot can revise the result in case of dissatisfaction, Alexander Roumega" [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C,_%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC_%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%98#Итог_2].--[[User:ThesariusQ|ThesariusQ]] ([[User talk:ThesariusQ|talk]]) 23:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::::In the ru-wiki, the neutral participant has already considered and analyzed the sources that were placed by QuantumBorg and Q Valda in the lead sentence to call socionics a pseudoscience. I offer a google translation of this analysis."Here is an analysis of the sources from the definition of socionics in the preamble of the article, given to substantiate the pseudoscientific nature of socionics by the participant Q Valda."Socionics is a pseudoscientific [1] [2] [3] concept of personality types and relationships between them."Analysis of authors and references for use in the article Socionics, preamble, definition of the subject of socionics, related to criticism of socionics for the correspondence of the source to the subject of knowledge (psychology, sociology, philosophy), characteristics of the source (primary, secondary, tertiary), significance, appropriateness of mentioning and location in the sections of the article on the basis of the rules of the EP and the decision of the mediator. 1) Mineev V.V. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. Philosophy textbook - characteristic secondary source. One mention of socionics, there is no definition, characteristics and analysis of the subject - it is insignificant in content. It is appropriate to be in the Socionics article with an arrangement in accordance with low weight, not in the preamble. 2) Sergeev A.G. Journalist - not relevant to the subject. The article on homeopathy is not relevant to the subject. The article is publicistic, does not correspond to the genres of scientific articles, does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of EP One mention of socionics, there is no definition, characteristics, analysis. The mediator considered it appropriate to take into account the opinion of A.G. Sergeev. in the article and, as follows from the Preliminary Results and Results, to place in the relevant section in the body of the article (possibly: Criticism) not in the preamble, not in the definition. 3) Sokolchik V. N. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. The article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics with a brief definition, no characteristics and analysis of the subject - is of little significance in terms of content. It is inappropriate to find one criterion in the Socionics article. 4) Zhilina V.A., Nevelev A. B., Kamaletdinova A. Ya. Philosophers - corresponds to the subject. The article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics in the remark of Zhilina V.A., no definition, characteristics, analysis - is of little significance in terms of content. It is inappropriate to find one criterion in the Socionics article. 5) Salpagarova L.A., postgraduate student of the Department of Philosophy and Humanities of the North Caucasus State Humanitarian and Technological Academy - does not have an academic degree - does not correspond to the subject Not AI. One mention of socionics in graduate work. It is inappropriate to find a significant criterion in the Socionics article. 6) Podymov L, teacher, does not have an academic degree. Not AI. Popular science book - does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of EP. It is inappropriate to find in the Socionics article by significant criteria. 7) Volkov E., Ph.D. n. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. Conference abstracts - does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics, no definition, characteristics, analysis - is of little significance in terms of content. It is appropriate to be located in the relevant section in the body of the article (possibly: Criticism), not in the preamble, not in the definition. 8) Ivashechkina E. A., Chedzhemov G. A. The authors are a student teacher with no academic degree. Not AI. It is inappropriate to find a significant criterion in the Socionics article. 9) Ignatiev V.A. The article describes the use of personal experience of socionics. The original article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of the IP. Not AI. From discussion history - rejected by facilitator. It is inappropriate to find an intermediary in the Socionics article by a significant criterion and decision. 10) Abashkina T. L. Philologist - does not correspond to the subject. Not AI. It is inappropriate to be in an article by a significant criterion. Thus, 10 sources were analyzed for their compliance with the possibility of using the article Socionics, in its preamble and in the definition of the subject of socionics. Out of 10 sources, only one meets all the criteria 1) V.V. Mineev. with low weight. None of the sources used considers socionics in essence, does not give definitions, characteristics and analysis of socionics in general, therefore they cannot be used in the preamble and definition of the subject of socionics. The academic degree and education of the authors of 4 references correspond to the subject. According to the characteristics of the source, only 1 (secondary source) meets the criteria of the IP. It is appropriate to use, taking into account their weight in the body of the article, the decisions of the mediator, it is possible to single out in the section Criticism, but not in the preamble and not in the definition of the subject of socionics of the 3rd source "[https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C,_%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC_%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%98&diff=108070087&oldid=108068062]--[[User:ThesariusQ|ThesariusQ]] ([[User talk:ThesariusQ|talk]]) 23:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
== How to find consensus ==
|
Revision as of 23:51, 31 July 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Neither error nor falsification
[1] - neither error nor falsification. Sergeev is member of Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences, see ru:Комиссия по борьбе с лженаукой и фальсификацией научных исследований, he also is editor of the commission website and editor of commission's bulletin "In Defence of Science" (ru:В защиту науки). --Q Valda (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- A mistake or falsification is an attempt to present the opinion of one person - a journalist - for the opinion of the entire commission, which includes many competent doctors of science. They did not sign this article. It's just a private opinion.--Sounderk (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sergeev is member of commission of Russian Academy of Sciences, editor of its website and of its bulletin. All publications in the bulletin are from commission, otherwise it warns about "private opinion". --Q Valda (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is not true. There was no any expertise and decision of the commission about socionics. Where is the examination report? Where is the protocol of the decision? This collection is generally devoted to homeopathy. Sergeev as a journalist just wrote his own popular article without any references or sources. And to give him a single mention of socionics for the decision of the academic commission - this is a mistake or a conscious falsification.--Sounderk (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- 0) what exactly is not true? he is not member of commission? not editor of its website and of its bulletin? 1) In the case of pseudoscience, scientists are often reluctant to give detailed criticism, because they do not want to give scientific status to pseudoscientific concepts. 2) Sergeev is a science journalist. And of course, one of the main goals of the Commission is public criticism of pseudoscience, and a science journalist is a reliable source in this area. --Q Valda (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- From the bulletin ([2] sorry for my translation):
--Q Valda (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Bulletin is continuing publication of the Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, headed by Acad. E. B. Alexandrov. The articles published in it are aimed at exposing pseudoscience promoted by irresponsible media. Our authors continue to fight against false scientific ideas and projects, against any attempts to undermine the authority of science.
- You are trying to give an article of a journalist in a bulletin for an academic source. But a journalist can not be a scientific expert. This is the function of doctors of science. He can only refer to their work on this issue. And an authoritative source can only be a scientific article. And the ballot here does not play a big role. His article - just mentions socionics without any reference. He does not refer to any study. But the commission did not consider and did not conduct any decisions or studies that refute socionics. At the same time, socionics is studied in many state universities of different countries and several thousand scientific articles are devoted to it. Therefore, the opinion of the journalist is deeply mistaken. To present it as an opinion of an academic commission is wrong.--Sounderk (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I was not trying to do what you suggested. I only argued why Sergeev is a representative of the Commission of Russian Academy of Sciences and why he is a reliable source in determining the scientific status of socionics --Q Valda (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are trying to give an article of a journalist in a bulletin for an academic source. But a journalist can not be a scientific expert. This is the function of doctors of science. He can only refer to their work on this issue. And an authoritative source can only be a scientific article. And the ballot here does not play a big role. His article - just mentions socionics without any reference. He does not refer to any study. But the commission did not consider and did not conduct any decisions or studies that refute socionics. At the same time, socionics is studied in many state universities of different countries and several thousand scientific articles are devoted to it. Therefore, the opinion of the journalist is deeply mistaken. To present it as an opinion of an academic commission is wrong.--Sounderk (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- From the bulletin ([2] sorry for my translation):
- 0) what exactly is not true? he is not member of commission? not editor of its website and of its bulletin? 1) In the case of pseudoscience, scientists are often reluctant to give detailed criticism, because they do not want to give scientific status to pseudoscientific concepts. 2) Sergeev is a science journalist. And of course, one of the main goals of the Commission is public criticism of pseudoscience, and a science journalist is a reliable source in this area. --Q Valda (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is not true. There was no any expertise and decision of the commission about socionics. Where is the examination report? Where is the protocol of the decision? This collection is generally devoted to homeopathy. Sergeev as a journalist just wrote his own popular article without any references or sources. And to give him a single mention of socionics for the decision of the academic commission - this is a mistake or a conscious falsification.--Sounderk (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sergeev is member of commission of Russian Academy of Sciences, editor of its website and of its bulletin. All publications in the bulletin are from commission, otherwise it warns about "private opinion". --Q Valda (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- If Sergeev is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, then his opinion can be cited. Otherwise, you're violating WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS: he does not become an authoritative source by associating with an organization of authoritative sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think Sergeyev is quite notable. He is a science journalist, member of Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences (from nearly 60 people only two members are non-scientists, Sergeyev and illusionist Gorny), editor of commission's website and deputy executive editor of its bulletin, he has many publications on science and pseudoscience topics (e.g. in the magazine Vokrug sveta). [3] — for example, he answered questions from Deutsche Welle on behalf of the Commission (on its website). --Q Valda (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here is Rosanov's (notable scientist, ru:Розанов, Николай Николаевич) opinion [4] about Sergeyev:
--Q Valda (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)A number of serious scholars are of the view that forces for struggle with pseudoscience should not be spent. Highly convincing, on our opinion, the proof of the necessity of this struggle presented by A. Sergeyev
- Here is Rosanov's (notable scientist, ru:Розанов, Николай Николаевич) opinion [4] about Sergeyev:
- I think Sergeyev is quite notable. He is a science journalist, member of Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences (from nearly 60 people only two members are non-scientists, Sergeyev and illusionist Gorny), editor of commission's website and deputy executive editor of its bulletin, he has many publications on science and pseudoscience topics (e.g. in the magazine Vokrug sveta). [3] — for example, he answered questions from Deutsche Welle on behalf of the Commission (on its website). --Q Valda (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- One can not confuse journalism and science and call the opinion of a journalist without academic degree and qualification the conclusion of the commission. Once again I repeat: this is just falsification. A journalist is not a competent scientific expert. In his article he did not refer to anyone - not to academic scientists - nor to the decision of the commission. Because the commission did not consider this issue. For example, this collection dealt with homeopathy. Her analysis was conducted in several articles, which have several dozen references and are signed by many competent specialists. Such an analysis is the basis for the conclusions of the commission on homeopathy. And all the rest is a personal opinion of the journalist.--Sounderk (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong, bulletin is not a collection of individual opinions. Each article reflects the opinion of the entire сommission on pseudoscience — this is their editorial policy. The commission is fully responsible for each publication. --Q Valda (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Each issue of the bulletin has a statement [5] : ″Approved for publication by the RAS Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud″. --Q Valda (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the very message of journalist Sergeeev about the work of the commission: "How is the work of the RAS Commission on combating pseudoscience, how decisions are made?
- Each issue of the bulletin has a statement [5] : ″Approved for publication by the RAS Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud″. --Q Valda (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong, bulletin is not a collection of individual opinions. Each article reflects the opinion of the entire сommission on pseudoscience — this is their editorial policy. The commission is fully responsible for each publication. --Q Valda (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The commission is a group of specialists from 60 people, whose level and class is confirmed by the Presidium of the RAS, which appoints the composition. At the head is the chairman, who is authorized to give any comments, statements on behalf of the commission, and appoint temporary expert groups on all issues.
Naturally, questions can go beyond the competence of permanent members of the commission - one can not expect that 60 scientists can cover all scientific issues. Their task is to select qualified experts at the right time and supervise their work in the methodological plan: how to make the right argument, to think about the level of its complexity, so that it is available to a wide audience.
These 60 people are not inquisitors, but competent scientists. The commission has many status academicians, and they do not write third-term dissertations. Their task is to say: here this candidate of sciences is a brilliant expert in this topic, I vouch for him. After that, he writes a review of the work or analysis, and the academician checks it. The result is signed by the chairman of the commission." https://www.ucheba.ru/article/4353
But no expert work commission on socionics was not conducted. Nobody accepted any memorandums. Therefore, what the journalist Sergeyev wrote, once mentioning socionics without scientific references is his personal opinion or just a delusion. Therefore, an attempt to present his opinion as a result of the work of the commission is an obvious falsification or scientific forgery.--Sounderk (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Edward321! This is an obvious mistake or falsification. This is the opinion of the journalist, not the commission.--Sounderk (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Journalist Sergeev is an editor in geographical sciences and has nothing to do with psychology. The Academic Commission has never considered Socionics, since Socionics has been taught for over 20 years in 200 universities and is even used to train astronauts and civil aviation pilots. All this is in the article. Socionics comes from the famous typology of Carl Jung and is close to the Myers-Briggs typology, which is used by millions of people. --Sounderk (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- 1) Sergeev is an editor of bulletin "In defence of science", published by Commission on Pseudoscience of RAS, have to repeat this again. Its main theme is public criticism of pseudoscience, not "geographical sciences" or "psychology". 2) Scientific status of Jung typology or Myers-Briggs typology is also questionable. --Q Valda (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- 3) repeat: Each issue of the bulletin has a statement [6] : ″Approved for publication by the RAS Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud″. So its articles are not just private opinions. --Q Valda (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is very important that participant Q Wald did not even try to put such a text in the Russian-wiki socionics, because everyone who reads in Russian would have been falsified with the opinion of the journalist as a decision of the academic commission! And here is the hope of not knowing the Russian language? --Sounderk (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Do not mislead and falsify. This was later rejected and the administrator of the Russian-wiki A.Vajrapani | Alexandrine made a direct ban on the presentation of this material on behalf of the academic commission, because this is the opinion of one person - journalist Sergeyev, rather than the entire commission. After this decision, Q Walda wrote to the administrator "Thank you very much." The only request to clarify is that "not the KBL under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences was characterized, but such an author in the ballot of such and such", but all the ballots are approved by the commission ("Approved by the RAS Commission on Struggle with pseudoscience and falsification of scientific research "), so the responsibility in the bulletin publications is not only personal, but collective, is not it? -Q Valda 10:47, May 16, 2018 (UTC)" "Administrator's response: "If you take the reference you quoted, the attribution" KBL under the Presidium of the RAS characterized "could be used for assessments taken, for example, from" Memorandum No. 2 of the RAS Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research "(P.7 and further), because it says directly: "The Commission declares that ...", and for other articles of the bulletin, where there are no applications on behalf of the Commission, the attribution of the author is appropriate Alexandrine (обс.) 11:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC )" [7]
- After that, the Q Valda himself, in order to avoid sanctions himself, removed all controversial edits from the article[8]Thus in the Russian-wiki socionics his actions were rejected. But here he is trying to do the same, But there is no reason to support such erroneous or falsified actions here. --Sounderk (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Some russian-speaking sources that considered subject to be a pseudoscience:
- Mineyev, V. V. (2014). Введение в историю и философию науки [Introduction to the history and philosophy of science] (in Russian). Moscow: Directmedia. p. 84. ISBN 9785445875116.
The long list of pseudoscientific concepts today includes: theory of torsion fields, cold fusion projects, wave genetics, japhetic theory, the theory of "living matter", "new chronology", eugenics, dianetics, cryonics, socionics…
- Abashkina, T. L. (2015). "Формирование психологических терминов на основе прецедентной концептосферы" [Formation of psychological terms on the basis of precedent conceptosphere] (PDF). Actual problems of semantics, lexicology and phraseology (Ukraine) (in Russian) (9): 48–54.
...the Barnum effect or Forer effect. This effect to some extent explains the wide popularity of astrology, homeopathy, socionics and other pseudosciences
- Zhilina, V. A.; Nevelev, A. B.; Kamaletdinova, A. Ya. (2017). "Философия, наука, лженаука и наукообразность" [Philosophy, science, pseudoscience and sciolism]. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk state University (in Russian) (4 (400)): 89–94.
Pseudoknowledge or pseudoscience is an imitation of scientific knowledge, pursuing consciously or unconsciously some unrecognizable goal and claiming the truth [...] These include astrology, phrenology, homeopathy, parapsychology, ufology, numerology, cryptozoology and cryptobotany, palmistry, socionics...
- Sokol'chik, V. N. (2017). "Феномен паранауки и проблема демаркации знания в постнеклассической науке" [The phenomenon of parascience and the problem of demarcation of knowledge in post-nonclassical science]. Proceedings of BSTU (Belarus) Ser.6, History, philosophy (in Russian) (1 (107)): 113–117.
An example of pseudoscience is [ ... ] socionics (the idea of Lithuanian economist and psychologist A. Augustinavichiute about the existence of 16 sociotypes, which can be identified with well-known personalities)...
- Sergeyev, A. G. (2017). "Синекдоха отвечания, или Защита гомеопатическая" [Synecdoche of Answering, or Homeopatic Defence] (PDF). In Aleksandrov, E. B.; Efremov, Yu. N.; Sergeyev, A. G. (eds.). В защиту науки [In defense of science] (in Russian). Vol. Bulletin No.19 of Commission on pseudoscience and research fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: ПРОБЕЛ-2000. pp. 90–94. ISBN 978-5-98604-606-8. Retrieved 2018-05-14.
--Q Valda (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)...there are dozens of true pseudosciences, such as astrology and palmistry, ESP and parapsychology, cryptobiology and bioenergetics, bioresonance and iridology, creationism and telegonia, UFOlogy and paleoastronautics, eniology and dianetics, numerology and socionics...
- Volkov, E. N. (2008). "Воздействие психолога: принципы выбора мировоззренческой позиции и профессионального поведения" [The influence of the psychologist: the principles of choice of attitude and professional behavior]. Практическая психология в междисциплинарном аспекте: проблемы и перспективы. Материалы Первой Международной научно-практической конференции, 15-16 октября 2008 г. [Practical psychology in the interdisciplinary aspect: problems and prospects. Materials of the First international scientific-practical conference, October 15-16, 2008] (in Russian). Dnepropetrovsk.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
--Q Valda (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)These concepts and discoveries [...] are used exclusively in the form of pseudoscientific and mythological half-occult techniques (like NLP, a "positive thinking", socionics, etc...)
- Unfortunately, all these links have the same drawback. 1. They are written not by specialists - psychologists, but by philosophers or philologists who are not psychologists. 2. Socionics is mentioned once, without any reference, which indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject and the unwillingness to analyze numerous studies in this area. Such work - without analysis - can hardly be even called scientific. 3. Scientific and applied works on socionics are presented in the English version of 2500 articles https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=70&q=socionics&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5, and in Russian and other languages - 4240 scientific articles and books . https://scholar.google.com.ua/scholar?start=100&q=sotsionika&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 This indicates the ignorance or ignorance of these philosophers in the matter of the scientific status and development of socionics. 4. The share of 6 articles of these philosophers, singly mentioning socionics without analysis and scientific references in the general scientific content is only 6: 4240 = 0.0014 or 0.14%. Therefore, their importance for the evaluation of socionics is negligible or microscopic according to the rule of WP:NPOV: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." --Sounderk (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong. Astrologers (even with academic degree and tons of articles) are not reliable in the determination of scientific status of astrology. Such determination is in the area of science studies and philosophy of science. --Q Valda (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC) (and Volkov is a psychologist) --Q Valda (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- None of these works contains an investigation of the subject of socionics. Socionics are mentioned once, without any reference or analysis. Therefore, as sources for Wikipedia, they can not be recognized. Volkov has a scientific degree of a philosopher and is engaged in practical psychology. His short message to the provincial conference contains only a single mention of the word "socionics" and also without any analysis and references. None of these 6 authors have any works devoted to the analysis of socionics. Therefore, their significance is close to zero.--Sounderk (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- They consider it pseudoscience, so they just don't think it's a valid area of research. --Q Valda (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- None of these works contains an investigation of the subject of socionics. Socionics are mentioned once, without any reference or analysis. Therefore, as sources for Wikipedia, they can not be recognized. Volkov has a scientific degree of a philosopher and is engaged in practical psychology. His short message to the provincial conference contains only a single mention of the word "socionics" and also without any analysis and references. None of these 6 authors have any works devoted to the analysis of socionics. Therefore, their significance is close to zero.--Sounderk (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- about many publications on socionics — you may try to make the same with homeopathy and you will see that this pseudoscience has a much more academic publications. --Q Valda (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- about using WP:NPOV — wrong, we need WP:ITA here : ″Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported″. I would like to note that in russian-wiki socionics is considered a fringe theory. --Q Valda (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is impossible to brief several non-professional authors without references and analysis to counter 4240 to real scientific works. And they were not accepted even in the Russian-wiki socionics.--Sounderk (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Who is non-professional author? For example Mineev is PhD [9], professor of the Department of philosophy, sociology and religious studies in KSPU, his main speciality is social philosophy. --Q Valda (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Zhilina is PhD [10], head of philosophy Department in MSTU, her speciality is social philosophy too. --Q Valda (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is impossible to brief several non-professional authors without references and analysis to counter 4240 to real scientific works. And they were not accepted even in the Russian-wiki socionics.--Sounderk (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wrong. Astrologers (even with academic degree and tons of articles) are not reliable in the determination of scientific status of astrology. Such determination is in the area of science studies and philosophy of science. --Q Valda (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC) (and Volkov is a psychologist) --Q Valda (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, all these links have the same drawback. 1. They are written not by specialists - psychologists, but by philosophers or philologists who are not psychologists. 2. Socionics is mentioned once, without any reference, which indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject and the unwillingness to analyze numerous studies in this area. Such work - without analysis - can hardly be even called scientific. 3. Scientific and applied works on socionics are presented in the English version of 2500 articles https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=70&q=socionics&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5, and in Russian and other languages - 4240 scientific articles and books . https://scholar.google.com.ua/scholar?start=100&q=sotsionika&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 This indicates the ignorance or ignorance of these philosophers in the matter of the scientific status and development of socionics. 4. The share of 6 articles of these philosophers, singly mentioning socionics without analysis and scientific references in the general scientific content is only 6: 4240 = 0.0014 or 0.14%. Therefore, their importance for the evaluation of socionics is negligible or microscopic according to the rule of WP:NPOV: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." --Sounderk (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- These authors are not psychologists. They are not specialists in this field. The word "socionics" is mentioned only once in their works. There are no links in these works. Consider these works with a single mention of socionics are important and considering the socionics there is no reason. The administrator of the Russian-wiki banned the use of such works. And Q Valda, after the decision of the administrators of the Russian-wiki, removed such links from the article in which he tried to put them. [11] Therefore, it is not possible to support the use of such banned substandard references, provided there are 4240 normal quality authoritative sources.--Sounderk (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Article protected
...for 3 days due to instability caused by a content dispute. I will add that the WP:BURDEN is on the side who wants to add content, to support the addition. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Criticism, Iarovenko and Chernyaeva: violation of Wikipedia rules
Wikipedia rules prohibit articles of Wikipedia to cite other articles from Wikipedia as authoritative sources. But Iarovenko and Chernyaeva do not give an analysis of socionics, but directly quotes one of the controversial articles of Russian Wikipedia, which is constantly contested: "The corresponding Wikipedia article on Pseudoscience presents ... "Thus Pancarlos brought not the opinion of Iarovenko and Chernyaeva, but their direct quote from Wikipedia. this link must be removed.--Sounderk (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- I admit that Iarovenko and Chernyaeva claimed to have used Wikipedia article on pseudoscience as the source of inspiration and this is not fortunate. Nevertheless, we should assume that, as responsible researchers should do, they critically evaluated the information obtained in such way, expanded upon it and not just copy-pasted it. Moreover, their work has been reviewed by other scholars (because this is normal in case of truly scientific journals) and these reviewers obviously had no problems with the issue of the Authors commenting on Wikipedia article.-- Pancarlos (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is also the problem that this is not the opinion of the authors themselves, but a review of various sources. And there is directly rewritten a large excerpt from the article in Wikipedia. But the authors do not express their opinion. Therefore, one can not talk about their opinion. Therefore, if you are correct, you should write this: " Iarovenko and Chernyaeva in their review quoted one of the articles in Russian Wikipedia .." You write this? Therefore, reviewers and skipped this text as a quote in a review of various sources of information. But by the rules of Wikipedia you can not refer to other articles in Wikipedia, even if they are placed in other sources. Therefore, this text is subject to deletion.--Sounderk (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Personally I wish I had more time to make this whole Wikipedia article on socionics shorter and more precise. It sounds like an advertising content and not an encyclopedic article. And I think Sounderk that your attitude just strenghtens the impression that socionists have something to hide under the mask of sophistication.-- Pancarlos (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Let's not engage in conspiracy. There are sources and facts, they are given in the article. Socionics has been used for 26 years to train astronauts and 17 years to train civil aviation pilots. And the course is taught in 180-200 state universities in a number of countries. If you read in Russian, read the book by astronaut S. Zhukov "Become an astronaut!". There is even an official protocol about the results of socionic forecasting of the work of the space crew in training for survival. Http://www.epizodyspace.ru/bibl/jukov-s/jukov-stat-2011.pdf --Sounderk (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, socionics is effective in space crew training and psychoanalysis is effective in the therapy of neuroses. And people somehow withdraw from trying to force others to view psychoanalysis as science. It works and I'm sure that socionics works for some problems. So why don't you accept that there are serious facts excluding socionics from science, or at least moving it to the borders of it? It can be non-scientific and still useful. Just because some articles are on google scholar it does not mean they are scientific. If you do science, you do everything to disprove your hypotheses and not to confirm them. I think that socionics has its merits just like psychoanalysis has, but we should not hide its true image and status.Pancarlos (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Socionics is devoted to more than 4000 scientific works in peer-reviewed journals. Study them first, and then talk about science. At the moment, you cite only amateur sites and Wikipedia, and not scientific publications, and from this you try to make some strange conclusions. --Sounderk (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The status of socionics as science is disputed. The evidence is given in this page. And such information should be included in the criticism section. You surely are aware that socionics journals are not recognized by the mainstream science community. It is hard to find socionics papers in peer reviewed journals other than those published by Bukalov's institute. I do appreciate the effort of dr Bulalov to make socionics as close to science as possible, but still it is not recognized in the mainstream. Laypeople should be aware of that fact. Maybe the reception in Russia is a bit better but in the west socionics is marginal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancarlos (talk • contribs) 06:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- No one disputes the status of socionics from authoritative and professional authors. There are no such works. There are several non-professional authors who even without any reference mention the word "socionics" once in a critical context. It just says that they do not understand anything about this, because this is not their field. Even the author Karol Petrak, to whom you put the link, is an expert in technical sciences, not psychology. And he did not find anything to criticize Socionics other than the article that cites in the review a controversial article from Wikipedia. But the authors of the review of Yarovenko and Chernyaeva do not express their opinion, and even nothing more on this topic is quoted. At the same time, everyone knows that citing Wikipedia in scientific works is an indicator of a very low scientific level of the authors. Even university students are not allowed to refer to Wikipedia in their works. Scientific journals on socionics have long been recognized by the scientific community, they are referred to in several thousand scientific papers and a thousand dissertations in all the humanities. But besides this there are many other publications in other academic journals and collections. Yes, there are a lot of them in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakh, Bulgarian, Romanian and other languages of Eastern Europe. But there is also an English publication of authoritative authors. Some of them are given in the article. If you really want to criticize an object, you have to do it correctly, and not because you just really want to criticize. Therefore, the reference to Yarovenko and Chernyaeva is not correct, it violates Wikipedia rules and must be removed.--Sounderk (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There is criticism by Bogomaz who is psychophysiologist, Magun -social scientist and philosopher Monastirsky. These are just right professions to comment about science and its issues. There was also criticism by science journalists. Therefore I've added them and removed the articles you wished. I agree with you that they are inappropriate (Pietrak and Iarovenko). Wikipedia must be objective and include all relevant viewpoints. The majority of article praises socionics and the criticism section is just appropriate to include any objectives stated by qualified professionals. Science must be verifiable by independent authorities. Material coming from socionists themselves is not objective in that respect. -- Pancarlos (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Bogomaz, Monastyrsky, and others: incorrect citation
1. Pancarlos, a rewritten "criticism" from Bogomaz was written back in 2000 at the beginning of his research on socionics and the correction of some disadvantages of socionics. This is just an introduction to the study. Therefore, to quote it as the shortcomings of socionics in 2018 is very incorrect and borders on falsification. It is precisely these corrections and refinements of socionics that are devoted to his doctoral dissertation, monograph of 2000 and the cycle of works of 2000-2010! Read them to begin with, before rewriting unscrupulous quotes! This is normal, when the researcher at the beginning of the work points out some shortcomings, which he is going to correct. Even the phrase "The factual discredits of socionics in the eyes of psychologists" refers to the 1995 article - 23 years ago! However, we must quote the result of the work, and not its beginning.
2. You rewrite the unscrupulous quotes from Monastyrsky, not knowing that he never called socionics "pseudoscience". On the contrary, in this article he suggests "turning to the notion of a socionic type" for carrying out some research! Read this work. At the same Monastyrsky, recognizing the potential of socionics, proposes "to turn to the concept of a socionic type for carrying out some research in the field of the methodology of science.
3. One can not quote an illiterate journalist who, even from the Russian Wiki, copied the texts with big mistakes, without understanding what is written there. She was subjected to great criticism. This is not an authoritative source.
4. And what does Magun's remark about the problems of Russian education have to other countries of Eastern Europe, in which socionics develops? This quote is also incorrect, because it applies only to one country.
5. WP:NOR. Mistake and original research: Jung's analytical psychology is not related to typology. In the article quoted by Wallis this also does not exist.--Sounderk (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Pseudoscience - 2
Socionics differs from MBTI (which itself suffers from a lack of scientific status) by the presence of the theory of relations between types, which makes it something like a modern divination practice. There are no proofs for the existence of its 16 types, the stability of these types over time, or the dichotomy of traits. --Q Valda (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- after next revert like this - [12] - [13] - [14] - I will contact the administrators --Q Valda (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are" Verifiability "and" No original research ". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".
Member Q Valda is trying to challenge this decision. He even threatened the mediator Helgo13, as the mediator Helgo13 himself defined:
“First, you have to stop having a discussion like this ('juggling ... will not end well”) if you don’t want problems when discussing your actions in a much wider circle than the local mediation. You seem to be a mediator, but instead of a solution, you create a conflict yourself, and out of the blue. Second, you were offered specific questions on SALW, but there was no answer to them. And something tells me that the answer to the specific question of whether the current wording in the article suits (this is exactly what worries me the most at the moment), we will never hear.- Q Valda 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The wording in the article is not satisfactory, since it is not in accordance with the result. And I don't need to threaten me with a "broad discussion", you have the right to do so, as I have the right to use administrative powers. - Best regards, Helgo13 • (Obs.) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In the edits of user Q Valda about socionics, there is falsification and manipulation in the retelling of an authoritative source. This is an attempt to prove that the existence of psychological types is rejected by psychology. In doing so, he even tries to refer to an article that refutes this very point of view. In this work, 4 stable psychological types are identified. Even the title of the article by Gerlach M., Farb B., Revelle W., Nunes Amaral L. A. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets // Nature Human Behavior. - 2018. - No. 2 (September). - S. 735-742. [17]. In addition, the isolation of psychological types is one of the main scientific methods in psychology. In all other sources, which the user Q Valda tries to put in the preamble of the article, the word "socionics" is mentioned only once. Moreover, these sources are not written by experts, not psychologists and cannot be considered authoritative on the topic of socionics. In ru-wiki, these sources were rejected by the intermediary for citation on Wikipedia:
"To be honest, I agree with the bottom line. In terms of the fact that there is no reason to include this opinion in the preamble. There are too few sources that consider in sufficient detail the issue of pseudoscience of socionics (in contrast to the same NC). You can't even write a section on them properly, and in order to include this in the preamble, kmk, such a section must first appear. After all, the preamble is the summary of the article. --ptQa 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--"
[18]Sounderk (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- An example of an academic tertiary source: Prof. Krysko V. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0
"Socionics is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity."
--Sounderk (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- 1) Krysko is the military psychologist, not reliable by default in the fields of differential psychology and science studies. As far as I know his next books on psychology (after Dictionary, 2003) did not mention socionics again. 2) existence of personality types is extremely controversial, according to RS. If they exist, they are not the ones postulated in socionics. 3) please answer the questions - where is the proof of the existence of 16 socionic types? of their innate and unchangeable nature throughout life? of dichotomy of personality traits? Unfortunately, none is available in the current version of the article --Q Valda (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2020
Socionics should not be label as "pseudoscientific" since it violates the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy; such an opinion, if controversial (and truly backed up) should be discussed under the section "Criticism", and not included as part of the article preamble, since such allegations are but conjectures shared by the few and have not consented. Socionics leads a 2500+ list of research papers on peer-review journals, with the label "pseudoscientific" possibly inciting the defamation of the theory and its lead researchers. To add on the trouble, the article has been vandalized with irrelevant references for this claim, which were already reviewed and decisively left out of the original article which is written in the Russian language (the language which offers the broadest 25+ years of research papers on the topic), for which such an attempt to use the same invalid information, falls under the category of falsification.
The referred articles that supposedly "support" such claim (1 to 10) need an actual revision since they don't provide any information other than (opinion-based) conjectures regarding socionics; in most of those articles, the word "socionics" being merely mentioned once in the whole paper. No actual argument was provided to support such a claim that socionics should fall under the label "pseudoscience".
Please review the validity of such articles supporting the alleged claims.
2806:10A6:19:5B4A:CDBB:76FE:5E78:D713 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Suggest specific changes in a "Change X to Y" format. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It may be of interest that the Russian Wikipedia actually does call it pseudoscience in the lead sentence. [19] Crossroads -talk- 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It may be interesting that a protest has already been made to this text in the Russian Wikipedia and the mediator has decided that the preamble should be neutral: "In the definition of the subject of the article (the first sentences of the preamble), no unambiguous conclusion should be made about either the scientific nature or the pseudoscientific nature of the theory (concept). The definition should be written in general words, for example, "Socionics is a concept such and such, created ..." Next, a brief retelling of the text of the article should follow, first touching on the position of supporters and then opponents of socionics in matters of its scientific or unscientific nature.I want to point out that in the preamble, only those opinions are worthy of attention, the authors of which are authoritative sources in the field of psychology, sociology, philosophy ... " [20]--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is a timeline of consensus breaking. For several years a consensus was in the article. But QuantumBorg[21] made edits [22] are completely identical to the edits of Q Valda in the lead sentence in ru-wiki [23],[24],[25],[26]. Later Q Valda took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version [27]. The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious. QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the "mediator" you linked me to at Russian Wikipedia, their comment concludes with, "At the same time, this is not a request for mediators to subscribe to this outcome, but only an offer to borrow the positive experience of other mediation" (Google Translate, emphasis added). There is futher discussion above and below this comment. It does not appear to be any binding decision. In fact, it logically cannot be. If it were, then the Russian article wouldn't say what it says. It clearly isn't decided yet there, or else it was decided that the opening sentence is fine, because the opening sentence is what it is. And crucially, we are not bound by decisions made at Russian Wikipedia. It is of interest only in an advisory sense. I'm not seeing any problem behavior from the QuantumBorg account, whoever it is. It edited once, in isolation. You, on the other hand, are a very suspicious account: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk. Crossroads -talk- 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is mistake. In the ru-wiki, the mediator wrote: "This result was accepted by me as final, and since I have already adopted 2 expanded preliminary totals and 1 expanded final result, the mediators A.Vajrapani, Divot can revise the result in case of dissatisfaction, Alexander Roumega" [28].--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- In the ru-wiki, the neutral participant has already considered and analyzed the sources that were placed by QuantumBorg and Q Valda in the lead sentence to call socionics a pseudoscience. I offer a google translation of this analysis."Here is an analysis of the sources from the definition of socionics in the preamble of the article, given to substantiate the pseudoscientific nature of socionics by the participant Q Valda."Socionics is a pseudoscientific [1] [2] [3] concept of personality types and relationships between them."Analysis of authors and references for use in the article Socionics, preamble, definition of the subject of socionics, related to criticism of socionics for the correspondence of the source to the subject of knowledge (psychology, sociology, philosophy), characteristics of the source (primary, secondary, tertiary), significance, appropriateness of mentioning and location in the sections of the article on the basis of the rules of the EP and the decision of the mediator. 1) Mineev V.V. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. Philosophy textbook - characteristic secondary source. One mention of socionics, there is no definition, characteristics and analysis of the subject - it is insignificant in content. It is appropriate to be in the Socionics article with an arrangement in accordance with low weight, not in the preamble. 2) Sergeev A.G. Journalist - not relevant to the subject. The article on homeopathy is not relevant to the subject. The article is publicistic, does not correspond to the genres of scientific articles, does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of EP One mention of socionics, there is no definition, characteristics, analysis. The mediator considered it appropriate to take into account the opinion of A.G. Sergeev. in the article and, as follows from the Preliminary Results and Results, to place in the relevant section in the body of the article (possibly: Criticism) not in the preamble, not in the definition. 3) Sokolchik V. N. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. The article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics with a brief definition, no characteristics and analysis of the subject - is of little significance in terms of content. It is inappropriate to find one criterion in the Socionics article. 4) Zhilina V.A., Nevelev A. B., Kamaletdinova A. Ya. Philosophers - corresponds to the subject. The article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics in the remark of Zhilina V.A., no definition, characteristics, analysis - is of little significance in terms of content. It is inappropriate to find one criterion in the Socionics article. 5) Salpagarova L.A., postgraduate student of the Department of Philosophy and Humanities of the North Caucasus State Humanitarian and Technological Academy - does not have an academic degree - does not correspond to the subject Not AI. One mention of socionics in graduate work. It is inappropriate to find a significant criterion in the Socionics article. 6) Podymov L, teacher, does not have an academic degree. Not AI. Popular science book - does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of EP. It is inappropriate to find in the Socionics article by significant criteria. 7) Volkov E., Ph.D. n. Philosopher - corresponds to the subject. Conference abstracts - does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of airspace. One mention of socionics, no definition, characteristics, analysis - is of little significance in terms of content. It is appropriate to be located in the relevant section in the body of the article (possibly: Criticism), not in the preamble, not in the definition. 8) Ivashechkina E. A., Chedzhemov G. A. The authors are a student teacher with no academic degree. Not AI. It is inappropriate to find a significant criterion in the Socionics article. 9) Ignatiev V.A. The article describes the use of personal experience of socionics. The original article does not correspond to the characteristics of the sources of the IP. Not AI. From discussion history - rejected by facilitator. It is inappropriate to find an intermediary in the Socionics article by a significant criterion and decision. 10) Abashkina T. L. Philologist - does not correspond to the subject. Not AI. It is inappropriate to be in an article by a significant criterion. Thus, 10 sources were analyzed for their compliance with the possibility of using the article Socionics, in its preamble and in the definition of the subject of socionics. Out of 10 sources, only one meets all the criteria 1) V.V. Mineev. with low weight. None of the sources used considers socionics in essence, does not give definitions, characteristics and analysis of socionics in general, therefore they cannot be used in the preamble and definition of the subject of socionics. The academic degree and education of the authors of 4 references correspond to the subject. According to the characteristics of the source, only 1 (secondary source) meets the criteria of the IP. It is appropriate to use, taking into account their weight in the body of the article, the decisions of the mediator, it is possible to single out in the section Criticism, but not in the preamble and not in the definition of the subject of socionics of the 3rd source "[29]--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is mistake. In the ru-wiki, the mediator wrote: "This result was accepted by me as final, and since I have already adopted 2 expanded preliminary totals and 1 expanded final result, the mediators A.Vajrapani, Divot can revise the result in case of dissatisfaction, Alexander Roumega" [28].--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the "mediator" you linked me to at Russian Wikipedia, their comment concludes with, "At the same time, this is not a request for mediators to subscribe to this outcome, but only an offer to borrow the positive experience of other mediation" (Google Translate, emphasis added). There is futher discussion above and below this comment. It does not appear to be any binding decision. In fact, it logically cannot be. If it were, then the Russian article wouldn't say what it says. It clearly isn't decided yet there, or else it was decided that the opening sentence is fine, because the opening sentence is what it is. And crucially, we are not bound by decisions made at Russian Wikipedia. It is of interest only in an advisory sense. I'm not seeing any problem behavior from the QuantumBorg account, whoever it is. It edited once, in isolation. You, on the other hand, are a very suspicious account: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk. Crossroads -talk- 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is a timeline of consensus breaking. For several years a consensus was in the article. But QuantumBorg[21] made edits [22] are completely identical to the edits of Q Valda in the lead sentence in ru-wiki [23],[24],[25],[26]. Later Q Valda took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version [27]. The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious. QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It may be interesting that a protest has already been made to this text in the Russian Wikipedia and the mediator has decided that the preamble should be neutral: "In the definition of the subject of the article (the first sentences of the preamble), no unambiguous conclusion should be made about either the scientific nature or the pseudoscientific nature of the theory (concept). The definition should be written in general words, for example, "Socionics is a concept such and such, created ..." Next, a brief retelling of the text of the article should follow, first touching on the position of supporters and then opponents of socionics in matters of its scientific or unscientific nature.I want to point out that in the preamble, only those opinions are worthy of attention, the authors of which are authoritative sources in the field of psychology, sociology, philosophy ... " [20]--ThesariusQ (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- It may be of interest that the Russian Wikipedia actually does call it pseudoscience in the lead sentence. [19] Crossroads -talk- 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
How to find consensus
My suggestion to all participants in the conflict and the war of revisions is as follows. According to Wiki rules, the definition of the subject of an article should be neutral,WP:POV. The preamble of the article should contain the generalized content of the article. The article contains a section of criticism, it is there the critical reviews of socionics should be placed. Now they are in the definition of the subject of the article, which is a violation of the rules. But their number is small compared to other sources cited in the article. Moreover, the weight and reliability of some of them are questionable. Therefore, they need to be further investigated. If these critical sources really have significant weight, on their basis the relevant information will be placed in the preamble of the article in accordance with the WP:RSUW.--ThesariusQ (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a misstatement of what WP:POV requires. It requires that we follow the view of the sources, not that the article should express no judgment at all (see WP:GEVAL). Where lots of sources call a subject a pseudoscience (as is the case here) we must follow suit, and we must not tuck that away into a separate criticism section. Readers need context right away, and the level of acceptance of a theory is extremely important for that. - MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a misstatement of my proposal. Only the definition of the subject of socionics should be neutral, and the content of the article is determined by reliable sources and their weight.--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)