A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) →Scorpio (astrology): It's only WP:SYNTH if you state a conclusion not stated by two (or more) sources. Aggregating multiple sources in determining WP:WEIGHT is, unfortunately, a normal part of Wikipedia editing. |
A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) →Scorpio (astrology): Reboot. Maybe try informal mediation or formal mediation. |
||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
====Compatibility==== |
====Compatibility==== |
||
[[Astrological compatibility]] looks pretty bad too. Any others? [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
[[Astrological compatibility]] looks pretty bad too. Any others? [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
=== Reboot === |
|||
What is the point of this discussion? Are we trying to find a way forward, or just complain about how astrology is stupid and that there are no expert sources to cite? If the former, I and I'm sure many other editors are willing to help, but if the latter, this thread is a waste on this board's time and resources and should be closed. Maybe try [[WP:Mediation Cabal|informal mediation]] or [[Wikipedia:Mediation|formal mediation]]. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== cold fusion == |
== cold fusion == |
Revision as of 15:29, 2 December 2011
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.
Examples of appalling material removed:
“ | ...the National Health Service (NHS) currently operates two homeopathic hospitals, and the Luton-based Faculty of Homeopathy... | ” |
No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.
“ | ]]. Homeopathy in Britain quickly became the preferred medical treatment of the upper classes[1] as well as the aristocracy;[2] it retained an elite clientele, including members of the British royal family.[3] At its peak in the 1870s, Britain had numerous homeopathic dispensaries and small hospitals as well as large busy hospitals in Liverpool, Birmingham,[4] Glasgow, London and Bristol. | ” |
You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.
The article also lied by ommission:
“ | A study commissioned by West Kent Primary Care Trust in 2007 found similar figures for referrals for homeopathic treatment, but that referrals were almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clincal decision.[5] | ” |
Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.
Remaining problems
I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:
“ | According to the European Committee for Homeopathy, homeopathic industrial manufacturers register only those products that are economically feasible, e.g. in the case of the Netherlands 600 out of a total of 3,000. The strict safety requirements even for very high dilutions of biological substances also impede registration for certain homeopathic products such as nosodes. As a result, several homeopathic products have disappeared from the market. | ” |
That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011
Looks like these need some attention, I don't even know where to start on The Body Electric or even if it needs its own article. I'm not sure about the author either, he seems to be a somewhat prolific researcher but I don't know if he's notable enough for an article. Some googling made me think he has some definitely fringe ideas.
- I made the article into a stub as a starting point for future work. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- The article The Body Electric should probably just be merged into the Becker article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone familar with merging merge these two articles? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles like this are just embarassing. Maybe we need a working group to clean them up. Sadly I've decided to take a Wikibreak now. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- What? You don't think that scorpios are strong-willed, sensitive, passionate, and can achieve anything in life? You must be a Sagittarius. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I took the scissors to it, see what you think. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Leo (astrology), Gemini (astrology) and most of the other zodiac signs have similar issues. Yobol (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Itsmejudith: I'm not sure that was the right approach.[1] I think a lot of this content should have remained, but rewritten so it's not in Wikipedia's voice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- But no good source, not even a source that would tell us about Scorpio in traditional astrology. Even for magazine astrology the sourcing was poor. Add more if you can find anything to go on. Scorpio in medieval thought, that would be really interesting. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Itsmejudith here. I've been trying to find reliable sources on astrology for two months now, and, surprisingly, there is precious little out there. The topic is almost completely ignored by mainstream scholars, and there are only a handfull of fringe scholars that have published anything reliable, and they have published very little indeed. That leaves a vast mess of in-universe sourcing, most of which is self-contradictory. Publications by the largest astrological societies can't be considered representative because they emphatically state that they don't want to have anything to do with the most commonly practiced forms of astrology. I'm loathe to accept them as sources anyway because they are published in sham "academic journals". If the source has deliberately misrepresented itself, how can it be trusted for any information? They also seem to want to create a "new form" of astrology that doesn't yet exist except in their dreams, so what they write about bears no resemblance to reality.
- I'm loathe to leave unsourced material in the articles with just a citation tag. At this point, I've come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that acceptable sourcing will ever be found. So I endorse Ismejudith's approach. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, a few months ago Dieter Bachmann and I agreed that astrology magazines were acceptable sources for the article on astrology software. That was on the basis that those magazines were where you would expect to see reviews of the software; for comparison you would expect to see reviews of manga in manga magazines. Just thought I would get that off my chest. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I probably would agree with you on the software, PROVIDED that extreme care was taken to avoid any promotional slant. I wouldn't rely on Manga fanzines for encyclopedic-grade information on the philosophy or history of Manga without further verification, though, unless the author were a clearly recognized expert, as confirmed by reliable independent sources.
- However, I can't agree that any of the in-universe astrology sources can be used to provide encyclopedic-grade information on astrology in general, only on the kind of astrology that each clique or each author believes in. And that's where we run into the relevance problem. There are plenty of people who claim to be "experts" in "astrology" (implying astrology sensu lato), but are only "experts" in their own "brand" of astrology. It's really difficult or impossible to determine how many other astrologists they speak for, if any. Self-promotion and misrepresentation are rife as well, reducing the credibility of many sources.
- Like I said, the largest organizations are very "elitist" and exclusive, and they state themselves that they are not representative. For example, the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand. The academics at the Sophia centre are even more elitest, and don't even speak for each other; there are major differences in astrology as imagined by Nicholas Campion, and that imagined by Patrick Curry, for instance. If their centre weren't so small and endangered that they had to cling to each other for dear life, they would be at each others throats.
- Another thing is that the various personalities at these larger societies and the Sophia center describe astrology as they think it ought to be (sometime in the distant future, perhaps), rather than how it is generally practiced today. Their visions are likewise inconsistent and conflicting.
- So which sources should we pick from the myriad swarm of self-published popular books and fanzines? How do we tell what is representative, reliable, credible, disinterested, scholarly and trustworthy, and what not? The problem that always will return is the dearth of reliable independent sources with which we can assess in-universe claims. Without that, I'm afraid we're stuck.
- Last, but not least, is the problem that no reliable sources I've seen discuss astrolgy in the widest sense of the word, inclusive of Western, Vedic and Chinese astrology and the other variants. Maybe they are so different that they cannot be treated together. Which brings us to the question of whether the Astrology article should really exist, and how much material from it should be moved to the daughter articles. I share your concern that the article is still too Western-centric. I myself have problems remembering that it is not an article on Western astrology alone.
- By the way, did you see the external link to CURA that Zac added? It might be helpful locating sources. Unfortunately, what would be the best source for Chinese astrology is designated as having "just a few unhelpful pages on astrology". Yes, it's frustrating. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have also to admit to accepting in relation to History of astrology the reliability of Campion. He has an academic affiliation, but I would rethink that now. I would like to see us continue to keep all the astrology together. It remains to be seen when and how the divergences between traditions occured. I was just looking at zodiac, and will try and add the Chinese 12 stems, which are often called "zodiac"; whether there is any connection with the Western zodiac is a fascinating question for the history of ideas that may be addressed one day. I am coming to think that we are seeing one group of people trying to impose their own quite limited view as the sole kind of "astrology". That is the new "computational" group, with their pseudo-academic publications. Naturally they loathe the sun-sign magazine astrology that is actually dominant. And they go loopy when presented with the sheer scale of practice of Indian and Chinese astrology. They present themselves as the natural inheritors of medieval and early modern Western astrology, but actually it is a reinvention, just as modern Wicca lays claim to continuity with medieval and early modern witchcraft. We will unpick it all, but it takes time. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Itsmejudith: Yes, but we don't delete material simply because it's unsourced unless it's a quotation or it's something that is challenged or likely to be challenged. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: We have to go with the best sources we can find. If scholarly sources don't exist on this topic, then we should try looking at journalistic and popular press. It's difficult to Google newspaper sites because they all have damn horoscope sections, but perhaps one of these books would be acceptable?[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have also to admit to accepting in relation to History of astrology the reliability of Campion. He has an academic affiliation, but I would rethink that now. I would like to see us continue to keep all the astrology together. It remains to be seen when and how the divergences between traditions occured. I was just looking at zodiac, and will try and add the Chinese 12 stems, which are often called "zodiac"; whether there is any connection with the Western zodiac is a fascinating question for the history of ideas that may be addressed one day. I am coming to think that we are seeing one group of people trying to impose their own quite limited view as the sole kind of "astrology". That is the new "computational" group, with their pseudo-academic publications. Naturally they loathe the sun-sign magazine astrology that is actually dominant. And they go loopy when presented with the sheer scale of practice of Indian and Chinese astrology. They present themselves as the natural inheritors of medieval and early modern Western astrology, but actually it is a reinvention, just as modern Wicca lays claim to continuity with medieval and early modern witchcraft. We will unpick it all, but it takes time. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, a few months ago Dieter Bachmann and I agreed that astrology magazines were acceptable sources for the article on astrology software. That was on the basis that those magazines were where you would expect to see reviews of the software; for comparison you would expect to see reviews of manga in manga magazines. Just thought I would get that off my chest. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- But no good source, not even a source that would tell us about Scorpio in traditional astrology. Even for magazine astrology the sourcing was poor. Add more if you can find anything to go on. Scorpio in medieval thought, that would be really interesting. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Itsmejudith: I'm not sure that was the right approach.[1] I think a lot of this content should have remained, but rewritten so it's not in Wikipedia's voice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Leo (astrology), Gemini (astrology) and most of the other zodiac signs have similar issues. Yobol (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I took the scissors to it, see what you think. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
@Itsmejudith: Campion's history is the main problem I'm thinking about right now, too. Yes, he's a genuine academic, but he's teetering on the very edge. He's patently very partisan, and I'm reluctant to trust him for the history without a reliable backup. Another problem is that he's not only fringe within the academic community, he's also fringe within the astrological community. You're right about the article being to highly influenced by the "computational group" from AAGB and Sophia. That's because there were a lot of SPA shills from there before you and I arrived. They were eventually blocked en masse, but a lot of the problems remain. The pro-astrology editors seem to rely exclusively on their material, too. Gauquelin, Eysenck, Ertel, Campion and Curry are all part of this movement. The Journal of Astrology, Correlations, Culture and Cosmos, and Astropsychological Problems are all associated with this group. It does seem like a small, unrepresentative and very incestuous group of Western "neo-astrologers" is being over-emphasized out of all proportion here, and their disdain for other types of astrology is palpable in the fact that the other types are de-emphasized or ignored. Yes, like Wicca, modern astrology is also a reinvention going back to about 1900. Medieval astrology was moribund in the 1700s, and after a brief revival during the Romantic era, died out for good. Medieval astrology was also a reinvention from the late tenth/early eleventh century based on Arabic and Greek scholarship brought back to the West by Western scholars who had studied in Islamic or Byzantine centers like Cordoba or Constantinople. The "unbroken chain" myth was a problem we had to deal with in the articles related to creationism, too. Modern creationism was invented only in the 1920s. I guess it's just part of the human tendency to trace one's ancestry back to Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, William the Conquerer, etc. Good luck with finding better sources! You have a tough row to hoe! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
@Quest: I'm afraid that you will find that the popular books you linked to will rarely agree with each other about anything at all, and it's impossible to determine whether anything is "authoratative" or "widely held", as there are no widely recognized experts in astrology. This isn't like creationism where we have clearly identifiable leaders and spokesmen. Astrology really is a free-for-all. Books like that are written and published for entertainment purposes only, and have precious little scholarly value for things like history or philosophy. There is zero fact-checking, and edotorial policies are geared exclusively to maximizing sales. I'd have to say the same for newpaper articles and the mass media. They rarely, if ever, treat the subject seriously enough to serve as reliable sources for WP. They usually write to entertain, as well. In short, there isn't very much there that's any more reliable than the in-universe fanzines. As for deletion, it seems to be the only way to eliminate extremely dubious material sourced with completely unreliable sources. Deletion is the best option when it is reasonable to expect that adequate sourcing will never be found. For example, the "Core Principles" section [[3]] of the astrology article is OR or SYNTH based on primary or extremely unreliable sources, or misused sources. There is no reasonable expectation that any adequate sourcing will be found to support any of it, or that it could ever be improved. There just ain't no baby in the bathwater. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- This thread is full of ignorance and inaccuracies, unfounded speculation, distortion of facts and groundless slanderous remarks. I don't want to take it anymore seriously than it deserves, so please bring it to an end, and stop using this discussion page as a soapbox for predjudical remarks about the subject, other editors and a named person who is a subject of a WP:BLP. This is contentious material that is not sourced because it is not true, so it doesn't have a place here.
- @Dougweller. I think you had a point, but I have taken most of the unsourced info off the page, and added a number of references to well respected works. I'll try to contribute more later as I believe the pages have a good potential for development.-- Zac Δ talk! 00:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: Well, we can't delete these articles because astrology is clearly a notable topic. Nor can have empty articles. Can you please take another look at this list of sources[4] to see if any are acceptable? At the very least, this book[5] would meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements of reliability. Obviously, these aren't scholarly books, but the publisher does produce many excellent - if beginner - books on many different topics. Keep in mind that astrology is much like religion. For example, we don't need to have fact-checking on whether Jesus was the son of god. We only need fact-checking that Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god. This isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed most of the mythology section, it had no connection to Scorpio and seemed to be general mythology about scorpions in general. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- There was a sort of connection, just not well explained - the Babylonian constellations and astrology were partial predecessors to te Greek. 86.** IP (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Current issue whether Manilius and William Lilly are RS for the article. I've said they are primary but this is disputed. An interesting fact emerging is that a 20th century astrologer, Olivia Barclay, discovered and promoted Lilly's work. Astrology for Dummies is one thing. Ideology in the English Revolution for Dummies is quite another... Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Zodsign1 seems highly problematic. It is the use of this template that ensures that each article on a star sign repeats off-topic material on tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac in general. I am all for an infobox that tells us the characteristics of the sign in astrology. The dates in the tropical and sidereal zodiacs should definitely be in each article. But definitely not in this way. My removal of similar off-topic information has been reverted. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I suggested that the template should be discussed at WikiProject Astrology, and this is happening. Currently some editors have weighed in in favour of keeping the template on the star sign articles. Not sure if a WikiProject can make such decisions that are against normal practice. Some more eyes would be very useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Template:Zodsign1 seems highly problematic. It is the use of this template that ensures that each article on a star sign repeats off-topic material on tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac in general. I am all for an infobox that tells us the characteristics of the sign in astrology. The dates in the tropical and sidereal zodiacs should definitely be in each article. But definitely not in this way. My removal of similar off-topic information has been reverted. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Current issue whether Manilius and William Lilly are RS for the article. I've said they are primary but this is disputed. An interesting fact emerging is that a 20th century astrologer, Olivia Barclay, discovered and promoted Lilly's work. Astrology for Dummies is one thing. Ideology in the English Revolution for Dummies is quite another... Itsmejudith (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there really enough reliably-sourced material specifically on the signs to justify spin-off articles? Couldn't they all just be merged to Astrology? 86.** IP (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Now that is an idea. Maybe not with Astrology but with Zodiac. Yes. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Zodiac is actually a fairly decent article, balancing a lot of history, and straddling the astronomy/astrology divide. We shouldn't overload it with too much woolly astrology, particularly as the astrological star sign ones are pretty crap. How about Astrological sign? 86.** IP (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)To Astrological sign, I think. I will post on WikiProject Astronomy to see what they want to do about Zodiac, e.g. take it over completely and remove all the astrological content, split the astrology off into Zodiac (astrology) or take out the astronomy so it is all astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Zodiac is actually a fairly decent article, balancing a lot of history, and straddling the astronomy/astrology divide. We shouldn't overload it with too much woolly astrology, particularly as the astrological star sign ones are pretty crap. How about Astrological sign? 86.** IP (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not that I'm surprised, but there is a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard where my suggestion that the claim that Scorpios are dark and sexy should be supported by evidence that Scorpios are darker and sexier than the other 11/12 of humanity, rather than just that astrologers claim them to be, was met with the accusation of scientistic bias[6] and the suggestion that such a claim need not actually be true, since it isn't on a science page. Agricolae (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- ROFL. Yup, the same old 'ownership' arguments. I'm thinking of applying this to the Trepanning article, and insisting that nobody can edit it until they have a hole drilled in their head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- The more I write articles for Wikipedia, the more I am convinced that the vast majority of statements should be presented in the form "According to X, A is so", rather than "A is so"<add link here indicating X is the source>. Even in the relatively mainstream world of history, there is a surprising amount of disagreement between the experts: while not all of it approaches the level of "Was there a historic King Arthur?" -- or the real date St. Patrick lived -- when one starts writing articles at the fine granularity that our history articles are at on an increasing basis, expert disagreements become more & more obvious. (And then there are the POV issues wriggling out of each newly opened can.) Speaking for myself, I'd have no problem if the assigned values of astrological signs were explained as Agricolae suggests they should be above viz., "this astrologer claims that Scorpios have these qualities, while that astrologer claims they have that one". -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, what I was actually asking about was what sources would be considered adequate to show that Western astrology held that belief as an 'astrological commonplace'. For, in fact, this is what the majority tradition of Western sun sign astrology claims. The idea that it cannot be added to an article on the astrological meaning of Scorpio unless it has been scientifically proven continues to strike me as unhelpful. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- In-universe sources, of course, are flat out, unless the source and and material it is used to support are discussed in high-quality real-world reliable sources. If an author, a source or a topic has not received significant serious coverage outside of the "astrological community", they don't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Mention in book reviews, opinion pieces, blog entries, astrological websites, and less serious "for-entertainment-purposes-only" parts of news sorces like "variety", "life", "people" or "society" sections of otherwise serious newspapers do very little to bolster claims of notability or noteworthness for inclusion in WP.
- The basic problem we're facing is that the real world seldom takes serious notice of astrology. This is especially true for the scholarly community, which almost entirely ignores modern astrology. This isn't simply because they consider astrology of little use, but because they consider knowledge about astrology of little use. The distinction is important. The scholarly community also considers creationism of little use, but nevertheless considers knowledge about creationism as very useful in understanding the political aspects of the topic. The debate about astrology is essentially resolved and not all that interesting from a scholarly point of view, and hardly so from a serious journalistic point of view. That is why there are abundant scholarly sources for what creationists believe, and very few for what astrologers believe.
- Read my answers above for more reasons why in-universe sources are unacceptable, including their self-promotional character and propensity for authors to misrepresent themselves and their beliefs, as well as it being nigh impossible to determine how widespread any belief or practice is within the astrolgical community. There are no widely acknowledged authority figures or "canonical" books, and the few scholars in that community, like Campion and Curry, adamantly state that they are not representative of the astrological community at large. In fact, they describe astrology as they think it should be in the future, rather than as it actually is.
- What astrology actually is is therefore extremely difficult to do because of the lack of serious reliable sources on the modern astrological community. Forming a picture based on in-universe sources would be OR and SYNTH, and in violation of WP policies. If material can be supported relying solely on in-universe sources, that's a good sign that the material does not belong in WP at all. In short, a lot of the material in the astrology-related articles is simply WP:CRUFT of little or no encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- For info, Tetrabiblos has been put up for FA. I and some others have commented. And the template Zodsign1 is at templates for discussion, likely to be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu - The notion that astrological texts are "in universe" and therefore unusable as references does not seem to be supported by the actual WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources content guideline, which says:
Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed in order to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it; and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.
Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.
Astrology texts have been published by reputable mainstream publishers. Academic sources are not required. The guideline also suggests that the level of detail in coverage should be guided by the amount of available material. This too supports the idea that detailed coverage of the substance of astrological belief about signs, houses, and planets is appropriate and desirable: there is quite simply a lot of material available.
The notion that astrological ideas are somehow random, idiosyncratic to every astrologer, or made up on the spot for commercial gain is simply not true. Our article on pseudoscience helpfully points out that "Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia." Western astrology has a traditional core in which some elements are remarkably consistent over time. It is in fact possible to speak of a mainstream astrology as well as a fringe astrology.
I know @itsmejudith was talking about opening some kind of RfC on the subject. I suspect the way forward here might be to move for clarification of the several ArbCom rulings on fringe theories and pseudoscience. (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases). I really don't see anything in the text of the prior rulings that goes as far as some have gone: specifically the claim that all texts made by astrologers for astrologers are inherently unreliable, or that we should minimize our coverage of this fairly extensive subject as "cruft". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)- Your reading of the policies is in gross error. Read them again, this time paying very careful attention to the word "independent", which excludes in-universe sources. There is nothing to discuss in an RfC or at ArbCom. The policies are very clear. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Should we start removing material on physics that's written by physicists for physicists on the same ground of lack of independence? After all, C. S. Lewis, a non-physicist but a respected academic, summarized everything worth knowing about physics in The Discarded Image. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)The RfC would have been on the template question, and that is on its way to resolution through Templates for discussion. Personally, I think we have to keep two issues of sourcing separate. One is history of astrology, when sources should meet WP:HISTRS (as it evolves, in any case, should be of academic quality). I think we all agree on that. The other is what astrologers today say. That's where there's still disagreement, and I find myself swayed by arguments on both sides. However fringe we think astrology is, it is notable fringe belief and should be described using those writers who describe it best. There is an academic field to which that question belongs, which is sociology of science (of ideology, of religion even). Texts from that academic field should be prioritised as sources, if they are available. Surveys of opinion are also relevant and reliability can be judged according to usual criteria for surveys. "Cruft" applies to detail that isn't even notable belief. We don't cover every single urban myth, for example, only the ones that have received lots of attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seems a fair statement to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- But an incorrect one. We as WP editors are not allowed to evaluate in-universe sources and the material they contain, to decide what is representative and widely held, and what is not. To do so would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. All of our information about astrology must come from reliable INDEPENDENT sources. In-universe sources can only be used to illustrate what the independent sources have to say, and only then if the in-universe source and the material it contains is specifically mentioned in reliable independent sources. I'm puzzled why Judith draws a distinction between history and sociology, if that is in fact what she meant to do. There is no reason to set the bar lower for sociological material than for historical material. Yes, that means that vast tracts of astrology cannot be covered in WP because no reliable independent sources exist. The omission, however, does WP readers no diservice. Quite the opposite, in fact. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Here's an idea though I don't know how helpful it will be: my reading of the situation (between studying for finals) is that there are few, if any, reliable sources that talk about modern astrology. However, I'm guessing that there are plenty of sources on historical astrology, yes? Well, if this is the case, then why not focus our astrological articles mostly on the historical aspects and then focus very narrowly on modern astrology. Pretty much stating that astrology has been taken increasingly less seriously since the split of astronomy and astrology, and that it is no longer dealt with in academia but has a large number of people who engage in it casually (via horoscopes and the like). I don't think we'll ever be able to find RSs for modern astrology because there is nothing to study; if there was something to study then it would have been studied, published and would stand on its merits if there was good evidence that it accurately reflected reality. Since it doesn't, there isn't much we can talk about as far as modern astrology goes except for the casual aspects of it. The people that actually take it seriously aren't especially qualified to do so (one cannot attain a doctorate in research of astrology, for instance) so what possible source could we find? Noformation Talk 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- But an incorrect one. We as WP editors are not allowed to evaluate in-universe sources and the material they contain, to decide what is representative and widely held, and what is not. To do so would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. All of our information about astrology must come from reliable INDEPENDENT sources. In-universe sources can only be used to illustrate what the independent sources have to say, and only then if the in-universe source and the material it contains is specifically mentioned in reliable independent sources. I'm puzzled why Judith draws a distinction between history and sociology, if that is in fact what she meant to do. There is no reason to set the bar lower for sociological material than for historical material. Yes, that means that vast tracts of astrology cannot be covered in WP because no reliable independent sources exist. The omission, however, does WP readers no diservice. Quite the opposite, in fact. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seems a fair statement to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)The RfC would have been on the template question, and that is on its way to resolution through Templates for discussion. Personally, I think we have to keep two issues of sourcing separate. One is history of astrology, when sources should meet WP:HISTRS (as it evolves, in any case, should be of academic quality). I think we all agree on that. The other is what astrologers today say. That's where there's still disagreement, and I find myself swayed by arguments on both sides. However fringe we think astrology is, it is notable fringe belief and should be described using those writers who describe it best. There is an academic field to which that question belongs, which is sociology of science (of ideology, of religion even). Texts from that academic field should be prioritised as sources, if they are available. Surveys of opinion are also relevant and reliability can be judged according to usual criteria for surveys. "Cruft" applies to detail that isn't even notable belief. We don't cover every single urban myth, for example, only the ones that have received lots of attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Should we start removing material on physics that's written by physicists for physicists on the same ground of lack of independence? After all, C. S. Lewis, a non-physicist but a respected academic, summarized everything worth knowing about physics in The Discarded Image. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Your reading of the policies is in gross error. Read them again, this time paying very careful attention to the word "independent", which excludes in-universe sources. There is nothing to discuss in an RfC or at ArbCom. The policies are very clear. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu - The notion that astrological texts are "in universe" and therefore unusable as references does not seem to be supported by the actual WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources content guideline, which says:
- For info, Tetrabiblos has been put up for FA. I and some others have commented. And the template Zodsign1 is at templates for discussion, likely to be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
@Noformation: Why do you say that there are few, if any, reliable sources about modern astrology? Did no one follow through with my suggestion here?[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can I clarify my argument. I am just trying to cut the problem down to size. 1) On historical issues, there seems to be no argument. "Kepler's writing on astrology" isn't a fringe topic. It's a mainstream topic that historians of science and other historians have written on, perhaps not as much as we might wish. We use history sources to explain this topic. 2) What astrologers argue today is a fringe topic. The main criterion is notability. We cover what people believe about astrology, whether their beliefs are true or not, but only to the extent that their beliefs are notable. In our coverage of those, we use the best sources available, prioritising academic sources but not necessarily ruling out non-academic sources so long as we attribute carefully and never report fringe ideas in Wikipedia's voice. We don't cover non-notable fringe beliefs at all. We make sure we aren't an astrological compendium (WP:NOT). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I checked those sources, and they are all pretty much in-universe. The Astrology for Dummies book had caught my attention before. Yes, it's true that the publisher does publish reliable books in technical and academic subjects. However, it would be a stretch to say that they conducted any serious review or fact checking for a non-academic woo hobby like astrology. It's difficult for me to see this as anything but yet another "for entertainment purposes only" pop-lit book rather than a serious attempt at reliable reporting or scholarship, based on the marketing material [[8]]. But of the lot, this is probably the best we have. For now, though, I'd treat it as in-universe fluff. The author has no qualifications to write authoratively on the subject except for entertainment purposes. There is no indication that her treatment of the subject is representative, or even intended to be so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is what I was trying to get at in my post: who could speak with authority? Any random person can write a pop book and get it published so long as a publisher thinks it will sell, but those books can only be notable for their sales figures. Anyone with enough skill in cold reading can pretend to predict the future or ascribe personality profiles to consumers, but that's not a reliable source either. Astrology is conjecture, non-scientific and thus has nothing to study. There is no "bible" of which to speak, just a vague idea with a lot of people who have their own ideas about it. If there was, perhaps, an organized body of some sort then we could use them, but as it stands all we have are opinions from multiple people, none of whom are notable "out"-universe.
- Yes, I checked those sources, and they are all pretty much in-universe. The Astrology for Dummies book had caught my attention before. Yes, it's true that the publisher does publish reliable books in technical and academic subjects. However, it would be a stretch to say that they conducted any serious review or fact checking for a non-academic woo hobby like astrology. It's difficult for me to see this as anything but yet another "for entertainment purposes only" pop-lit book rather than a serious attempt at reliable reporting or scholarship, based on the marketing material [[8]]. But of the lot, this is probably the best we have. For now, though, I'd treat it as in-universe fluff. The author has no qualifications to write authoratively on the subject except for entertainment purposes. There is no indication that her treatment of the subject is representative, or even intended to be so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Further, we have two types of people interested in astrology today: those who read horoscopes, and those in the fringe. What's interesting in the case of astrology is that while it is hugely popular casually, the fringe aspect of it is probably even more fringe than something like creationism (in the sense that those who read horoscopes aren't interested in the merit of astrology, they're just uneducated about physics, et al). We've been debating how to include fringe views of modern astrology, but perhaps the answer is actually that modern astrology (not popular, but the serious folk) is so fringe that it doesn't even warrant mention. Perhaps the popular aspect is the only thing that should be talked about in the modern sense, with maybe an ancillary mention that a very small, unconnected fringe still takes it seriously, in which case we can use substandard sources to substantiate the claim that "there are a few people who take astrology very seriously." A claim like that doesn't need anything close to academic as the simple existence of, say, Robert Curry's website is enough to just state the fact that some people actually do take this seriously. Thoughts? Noformation Talk 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can't get blood from a turnip. If there are no scholarly sources, then there are no scholarly sources. A "for entertainment purposes only" pop-lit book was pretty much all I was expecting. All we can hope for is that the publisher at least selected someone who knows about astrology and who's take on astrology is somewhat representative or somewhat popular amoung people who follow astrology. According to the back of the book, Rae Orion has been a professional astrologer since 1973 and has been writing the astrology column for New Woman magazine since 1996. So, it looks like they did their homework and didn't select someone at random. The other way to find sources is to find out who writes the astrology column for the New York Times or the Washington Post (or whatever major newspapers you want) and see if they've ever published a book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The ONLY reason there are astrology columns in newspapers or magazines is to entertain. It's on the same level as the funnies section or the crossword puzzle. To give the reader something to do when taking a break from serious reading so they don't put the newspaper down. The ONLY reason they take into consideration when employing an astrologer is their qualifications as an entertainer. That's the same reason why the editors of the For Idiots series chose Rae Orion, and why they decided to publish the book as well. For shits and giggles. WP strives to be a serious encyclopedia, and there's no room in it for shits and giggles. Last of all, being a self-described or in-universe expert does not translate into being a real world expert. Astrologers do not have any special insight into the topic simply because they are astrolgers, even professional astrologers. Their expertise means little here on WP, or anywhere else except perhaps in-universe. Unless published in a serious outlet, their books are worthless as sources here on WP. Even a real academic expert on astrology like Nicholas Campion turns into a blithering idiot when not subject to the scrutiny of peer-review. Like Judith said, we are looking for experts that can furnish reliable knowledge about the topic, like real sociologists and historians, and serious journalists, publishing in serious outlets. Pop lit, self-published books and pseudoacademic "journals" need not apply. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- This "in universe" business only has meaning here in the context of writing about fiction. Like it or not, you share the planet with people who believe in astrology. "In universe" doesn't even mean anything in this context. It's only purpose is to make it practically impossible to develop content describing the tenets of astrology. Ultimately, if you accept this line, it doesn't matter how many degrees the author of a source has: if he's writing about astrology for astrologers in a way that takes the notional content of astrology seriously, that's always going to be "in universe". That's just bias talking. Removing astrology content, you've already told us, is doing the encyclopedia a service. If we allow people to read content that says, "hey, I'm a Scorpio, and that's me," they might be tempted to believe in astrology, and that's unacceptable. They might even be tempted to move on to harder stuff like.... say, believing in God. St. Richard Dawkins, defend us!
The whole point of this exercise is to lawyer up some rules that make it impossible to say anything about astrology other than "Science has discarded astrology. This is all you need to know about it." And obviously, there is a lot more to be said about the subject than that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- This "in universe" business only has meaning here in the context of writing about fiction. Like it or not, you share the planet with people who believe in astrology. "In universe" doesn't even mean anything in this context. It's only purpose is to make it practically impossible to develop content describing the tenets of astrology. Ultimately, if you accept this line, it doesn't matter how many degrees the author of a source has: if he's writing about astrology for astrologers in a way that takes the notional content of astrology seriously, that's always going to be "in universe". That's just bias talking. Removing astrology content, you've already told us, is doing the encyclopedia a service. If we allow people to read content that says, "hey, I'm a Scorpio, and that's me," they might be tempted to believe in astrology, and that's unacceptable. They might even be tempted to move on to harder stuff like.... say, believing in God. St. Richard Dawkins, defend us!
- The ONLY reason there are astrology columns in newspapers or magazines is to entertain. It's on the same level as the funnies section or the crossword puzzle. To give the reader something to do when taking a break from serious reading so they don't put the newspaper down. The ONLY reason they take into consideration when employing an astrologer is their qualifications as an entertainer. That's the same reason why the editors of the For Idiots series chose Rae Orion, and why they decided to publish the book as well. For shits and giggles. WP strives to be a serious encyclopedia, and there's no room in it for shits and giggles. Last of all, being a self-described or in-universe expert does not translate into being a real world expert. Astrologers do not have any special insight into the topic simply because they are astrolgers, even professional astrologers. Their expertise means little here on WP, or anywhere else except perhaps in-universe. Unless published in a serious outlet, their books are worthless as sources here on WP. Even a real academic expert on astrology like Nicholas Campion turns into a blithering idiot when not subject to the scrutiny of peer-review. Like Judith said, we are looking for experts that can furnish reliable knowledge about the topic, like real sociologists and historians, and serious journalists, publishing in serious outlets. Pop lit, self-published books and pseudoacademic "journals" need not apply. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can't get blood from a turnip. If there are no scholarly sources, then there are no scholarly sources. A "for entertainment purposes only" pop-lit book was pretty much all I was expecting. All we can hope for is that the publisher at least selected someone who knows about astrology and who's take on astrology is somewhat representative or somewhat popular amoung people who follow astrology. According to the back of the book, Rae Orion has been a professional astrologer since 1973 and has been writing the astrology column for New Woman magazine since 1996. So, it looks like they did their homework and didn't select someone at random. The other way to find sources is to find out who writes the astrology column for the New York Times or the Washington Post (or whatever major newspapers you want) and see if they've ever published a book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: I think you give newspapers too much credit. They publish horoscopes to make money. No more; no less. And they do so knowing full-well that some segment of the people who read them do so because they actually believe they are (or might be) true.
- Please, please, please, please, for the love of god(s), stop asking for experts when by your own admission, there don't seem to be any.
- Sure, Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia, but we cover lots of topics where there is no scholarly research. Tell me, what peer-reviewed, academic journals exist for South Park (season 13) or Fuck the Millennium? The fact is that Wikipedia covers lots of topics where there is no scholarly research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely they're in it for the money. It's a business, after all. WP does take articles on non-academic subjects quite seriously, and the sourcing policy for them is a lot more rigorous than you might think. Everything in an article on, say, South Park, is, or at least should be, supported with reliable and authoratative sources. In-universe fancruft is not allowed, nor is OR or SYNTH. Arguments over sourcing on those articles can get quite heated at times. Bottom line: if it hasn't been seriously discussed in reliable independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Spend some time at AfD, and you'll learn a lot about sourcing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: So, nominate Astrology and every other astrology-related article for deletion. According to you, "Bottom line: if it hasn't been seriously discussed in reliable independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned." Let's see how far it gets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is enough material on astrology in reliable sources to justify an article. Even so, huge parts of the Astrology article were removed about two months ago because of bad sourcing. As for the sign of the zodiac articles, that is being seriously debated. It has already been suggested by other editors to delete them and merge what little reliable information we have on them into a higher order article like Zodiac. I'm on the line on that one, basically because the mythology sections are big enough to justify a seperate article for each sign. But a lot of the cruft and OR still has to be cut out. Some other astrology-related articles are eventually going to be nominated for deletion, namely those based solely on poor-quality, in-universe sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Quest, re: south park. Two things: The South Park article doesn't make ridiculous claims about biology, astronomy or physics so it's not covered by WP:FRINGE. Secondly, if we had the kind of non-academic sources for astrology that we do for south park then we could use them. The problem is, as I wrote above, that no one aside from a very small fringe takes astrology seriously. Most people "into" astrology don't know two shits about it or physics, they just like to read horoscopes. So no one writes about it, not in academia, not in popular print, not in notable books, just nothing but in-universe, not notable, never talked about, laughed at fringe "journals." This ties our hands. It's not an anti-astrology thing, believe me, I think there are dumber beliefs than astrology, like creationism for instance, but creationism has plenty of RSes so things like this just don't come up (except when the brigade wants to use creationism sources to debunk science, but that's a totally differnt beast). Noformation Talk 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is enough material on astrology in reliable sources to justify an article. Even so, huge parts of the Astrology article were removed about two months ago because of bad sourcing. As for the sign of the zodiac articles, that is being seriously debated. It has already been suggested by other editors to delete them and merge what little reliable information we have on them into a higher order article like Zodiac. I'm on the line on that one, basically because the mythology sections are big enough to justify a seperate article for each sign. But a lot of the cruft and OR still has to be cut out. Some other astrology-related articles are eventually going to be nominated for deletion, namely those based solely on poor-quality, in-universe sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: So, nominate Astrology and every other astrology-related article for deletion. According to you, "Bottom line: if it hasn't been seriously discussed in reliable independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned." Let's see how far it gets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely they're in it for the money. It's a business, after all. WP does take articles on non-academic subjects quite seriously, and the sourcing policy for them is a lot more rigorous than you might think. Everything in an article on, say, South Park, is, or at least should be, supported with reliable and authoratative sources. In-universe fancruft is not allowed, nor is OR or SYNTH. Arguments over sourcing on those articles can get quite heated at times. Bottom line: if it hasn't been seriously discussed in reliable independent sources, it doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Spend some time at AfD, and you'll learn a lot about sourcing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: If we're citing a source, then it's not WP:OR. This doesn't have to be as difficult as you make it out to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Evaluating non-independent sources to decide whether they are reliable/representative or not is indeed OR. It really is a lot more complicated than you think. Unless a non-independent source and the material it is used to support are discussed in serious reliable sources, we have no way of judging the value of the non-independent source. We can't make that judgement for ourselves, and we can't use other non-independent sources to do so, either. It has to come from reliable independent experts.
- Note that this thread is primarily about the interpretation of the signs, specifically the material in the "Characteristics" and "Compatabilities" sections of the article: WP:Scorpio (astrology. These sections are sourced with non-independent or primary sources that are not recognized as reliable or authoratative or serious by anyone outside of the astrological community. A lot of these sections is OR and Synth, including the choice of sources. This is what I mean by cruft. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: If we're citing a source, then it's not WP:OR. This doesn't have to be as difficult as you make it out to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Dominus Vobisdu: If by OR, you mean our policy on WP:OR, it's only a violation if we say something that's not supported by a source. As long as it's supported by a source, we're fine. Unless you're claiming that John Wiley & Sons[9] is somehow affiliated with astrology, please stop saying that there are no independent sources. All you have to do is summarize what the source is saying and use in-text attribution. Period. Why are we still discussing this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Quest, I do not think that is so. The issue here is synthesis, which is right smack in the middle of WP:NOR. The issue that has been raised here, as I understand it, is that there isn't one set of meanings to the astrological signs that can be picked up from a single, mostly consistent set of reliable sources; instead, we are determining what the signs mean in our attempts to assemble the various sources into a coherent whole. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: It's only WP:SYNTH if you state a conclusion not stated by two (or more) sources. Aggregating multiple sources in determining WP:WEIGHT is, unfortunately, a normal part of Wikipedia editing. Yes, it sucks, and it's the source of a lot of POV disputes, but it happens all the time on Wikipedia. It's an imperfect system. I'm not sure what more I can say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Noformation: I don't think that most horoscopes make ridiculous claims about biology, astronomy or physics. IIRC, most just give benign advice. I haven't read my horoscope in probably 10-15 years, but I will make an exception for this discussion. According to this,[10] "Don’t retaliate. Instead, do your best and let your actions be your voice." That's good advice regardless of which day someone was born on. The fact is that we're trying to write an article about what astrology claims about scorpios. Just find some sources and write what they claim with in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, your claim that "So no one writes about it, not in academia, not in popular print, not in notable books, just nothing but in-universe, not notable, never talked about, laughed at fringe "journals." " (emphasis mine) is blatently false as I already proved a couple weeks ago.[11] Please don't insult my intelligence. I am not an idiot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Template troubles
There seems to have been quite a large volume of text in Template:Zodsign1 which is consequently included in the articles on individual signs.
- This is silly, as the text is about the Zodiac in general and rightly belongs in that article, not replicated across a dozen others.
- Also, the text had a whiff of synthesis and cherrypicking of sources; it gives some historical background but it's definitely not neutral.
So, I trimmed most of the text and left the initial paragraph, although tbh I think the whole template should be removed from articles on individual zodiac signs. All comments / criticisms welcome... bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- ...and it was reverted. I firmly feel that this stuff doesn't belong in such a template and have removed it again, but have no doubt that this will be temporary as another astrology editor will come along sooner or later. bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Cleanup reverted Attempts to prune {{zodsign1}} (which is absurdly duplicated in multiple articles) have been reverted, and removal of the template from articles like Scorpio (astrology) has also been reverted. An Astrology WikiProject discussion is the justification, and there are more astrological enthusiasts than editors with wider experience who are prepared to engage. Many enthusiasts are accustomed to using Wikipedia to elevate their chosen topic, and are padding numerous articles with in-universe devotion. It's going to take quite an effort to shift them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion on WikiProject Astrology has been blatantly vote-stacked by canvassing. I am posting on WP:ANI about this. In fact, it was I who suggested discussing the template on the WikiProject, in the expectation that some normal discussion would ensue. The result is extremely disappointing. It reminds me of the way WikiProject World's Oldest People was used by a group of editors, most of whom were eventually banned after a protracted ArbCom hearing. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Compatibility
Astrological compatibility looks pretty bad too. Any others? bobrayner (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Reboot
What is the point of this discussion? Are we trying to find a way forward, or just complain about how astrology is stupid and that there are no expert sources to cite? If the former, I and I'm sure many other editors are willing to help, but if the latter, this thread is a waste on this board's time and resources and should be closed. Maybe try informal mediation or formal mediation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
cold fusion
MIT offers a lecture on Cold Fusion: "Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments".
This lecture clearly propagates the notion that cold fusion experiments yield excess heat, ie cold fusion is real.
Is cold fusion still fringe or is it becoming protoscience ?
--POVbrigand (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- That lecture is not an official part of the MIT curriculum, and that's all I am going to say. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Cold fusion as a process describes numerous phenomena, including well established science into muon-catalyzed fusion as well as the more common popular use describing the phenomenon P & F investigated in palladium/deuterium cells. I assume you mean the latter. Hype aside, almost from Day 1 experiments into the energy flux (at least those not done by P & F) in a PdD cell have been pursued by the scientific method, the primary debate being whether the result was due to nuclear or chemical processes or an artifact of flawed apparatus. See Cold fusion#Ongoing scientific work. That such experiments represent the fringe of the field is not going to be changed by 9 seminar sessions on someone's own work, even at MIT. (And I am underwhelmed by the ability of these descriptions to adequately categorize the perception of scientific theories. It looks sort of like protoscience to me.) Agricolae (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of clear distinguishing between protoscience, fringe science and pseudo science in the WP-policies gives rise to so many unclarities that many editors will quench any elaboration of the topic, because "it is fringe". The Cold fusion#Ongoing scientific work is completely underdeveloped. Please see User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers for an overview of what is really going on in the field. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are after here. Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Agricolae: I feel that WP should make a clearer distinction between pseudo, fringe, proto science. Currently anything which is not within mainstream can be deleted at will. At least that's the way some editors interpret the policies. If the policies would be clearer it would avoid endless "delete this for FRINGE, WEIGHT, OR, ..." edits. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are after here. Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I don't think there is a clear distinction to be made between fringe science and protoscience, or that it is a helpful distinction. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if you are proposing to move the list into article space, I'd point out that per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, there is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about the list: we don't have lists of scientists working in other fields (or can you provide a contrary example?) If you aren't proposing to move it into article space, it has no business being in your user space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- How utterly wrong you are: Category:Lists_of_scientists. I will move it into article space eventually. What I have in my user space is of no concern to you. How completely wrong you are, so very contrary WP spirit. Disgusting. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Really? I suggest that people take a look at Category:Lists_of_scientists, and see if they can find anything remotely like your list (which seems to consist of everyone you can find, based on your own research and criteria, often cited from primary sources, or from dubious websites - or is New Energy Times RS when it suits you?). And what you have in your user space is covered by Wikipedia policy - this isn't a free web-hosting service. The only 'disgusting' thing is that people are abusing Wikipedia to push fringe 'science' that never seems to actually result in 'results', and to help dubious characters hawk their magic teapots to the gullible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am doing nothing wrong, go complain somewhere else, preferably not on WP. You are making baseless conclusion, assumptions and convictions. This is what userspace is for and you already start to rally for AfD while the page is still in my userspace. You are totally anti WP spirit and you think you are saving the whole damn planet. I think that is clear to everyone else. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't want comments on the validity of User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers, don't cite it as evidence. And if you have any evidence I'm doing anything 'anti WP spirit' raise it at the appropriate place. You started this thread here in an attempt to boost your pet theories, and have got no support. Cold fusion/LENR research is marginal science at best, and needs to be treated appropriately - not boosted by misleading head-counts and speculative hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is no misleading headcount. So far there are 43 scientists on the list. The rest of the page and the names further below are only on a working sheet and currently not sufficiently source to put them on the list. Read first, then think, then comment. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the list states that the names below your newly-added divider [12] are a work in progress - it didn't when you cited it as evidence though. Anyway, this is a pointless debate. You've been told how Wikipedia policy relates to cold fusion research, and you can't change policy here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- The list is work in progress. I added the divider to avoid further misunderstandings from other editors. This debate is not at all pointless as it shows what the unclear pseudo-, fringe-, proto science definitions in the WP policies lead to. Endless discussion full of useless arguments why this topic cannot be discussed in WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, we have an article on Peter Hagelstein. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
We have no obligation to pay any attention whatsoever to preliminary research. If it escapes into the MSM, then we have to deal with it because our hand is forced, as we can see with the ongoing Energy Catalyzer rubbish. Ideally in the latter case we would just ignore it until the thing came to some sort of resolution, but there's too much precedent for not waiting, and therefore we are stuck with some sort of speculative article. But with research that isn't generating a lot of publicity, we can wait until something really substantive is produced. Sure, people research cold fusion because it would be wonderfully convenient if it could be pulled off; but it's no concern of ours until they come up with some results that are generally accepted. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to be accepted by ENEA (Italy), who also develop hot fusion technology. In the foreword of their book "COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy" the president of ENEA Luigi Paganetto writes: "However, the importance of results lies not only in the fact that reproducibility was more than satisfying and measurements carried out in different laboratories have reached a higher order of magnitude than measurement uncertainty. It also lies in the mutual result check based on the fact that only specific material lots prepared by ENEA gave evidence of excess power production in both Institutes: ENEA and SRL Energetics. In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon."
- --POVbrigand (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This list User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers seems like a BLP issue. BLP applies to user space. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The question is: "Is ENEA a mainstream research institute ?"- If "NO" then why are they cooperating in the ITER project. If "YES" then why does the PRESIDENT of ENEA state: "Government programs ... have proved the existence of this phenomenon".
Kindly explain why you think that Luigi Paganetto does not represent mainstream science ?
I guess all the pathological skeptics currently go through a moment of cognitive dissonance. Enjoy it. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- "pathological skeptics"? Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Marcello Truzzi - Read first, then think, then comment. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fruitcake - Read first, then think, then comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I take that as an insult. Will the rest of the noticeboard just stand by and watch ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Given that you implied anyone who disagrees with your POV is a pathological skeptic, and then that Andy would comment without thinking, well . . . . yes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I intend just to stand by and watch. That being said, if you feel you have been the victim of a personal attack, WP:NPA provides some guidance on how best to respond. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- First Andy accusses me of trolling and he insults me. I did not personally attack you or Andy. I did not imply that anyone who disagrees with me is a pathological skeptic. I did not call you nor Andy a pathological skeptic. Pathological skeptics exists and debunk cold fusion without knowing anything about the subject and refuse to look into the subject. You are just providing wind in the sails for editors who think that insulting is in accordance with WP spirit. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. You are completely innocent. The "pathological skeptics" bomb was just hypothetical and "think first" was only intended as a helpful suggestion. Whatever. If you think you have been mistreated, Wikipedia has a process and structure to deal with such circumstances, and I encourage you to utilize it. (Just be aware that a complaint of 'Mom, he hit me back!' tends to have a different outcome than the complainant intends.) Whether you choose to pursue it or not, this is not the place. This noticeboard is for discussion of Fringe theories, not discussion of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I am not completely innocent. Neither are you here supporting Andy's conduct. So you want to discuss Fringe theories ? Then kindly answer my question: explain why you think that Luigi Paganetto does not represent mainstream science ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Luigi Paganetto is one scientist. You're cherry-picking comments from individual scientists and pretending that these carefully chosen excerpts somehow represent "mainstream science". MastCell Talk 22:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia:Fringe theories: " It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact". Does Paganetto's research represent "scientific consensus"? No. Or can you provide a source that states otherwise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am not supporting Andy's conduct - I am not even addressing Andy's conduct. My only point was that when you sow the wind, you may be 'shocked, . . . shocked!' by the all too predictable consequence of your own behavior, but you won't find me stepping in to shield you from your whirlwind coming home to roost. As to who represents 'mainstream science', the question is misplaced (and to be clear, I have not given an opinion on Paganetto). One can do mainstream science on a fringe question or to reach a fringe interpretation. For about three decades, the hypothesis of pre-Clovis settlement in the Americas was fringe even though the scientists favoring the opinion were using perfectly respectable mainstream approaches. It is just that the scientific mainstream insisted that it had to be wrong. Doesn't matter if its fair. Doesn't mean that they were questioning the scientific credentials of the people favoring the alternative proposition. They just refused to accept the interpretation - on a smaller scale this happens all the time, with individual research groups not accepting some of the conclusions of their rivals, but here it was writ large. 'Fringe' in no way implies that the scientists doing the research are not using mainstream scientific techniques and approaches, or that they do not hold a respectable position in a respectable research institution. If their conclusion differs significantly from the consensus of the community, and the community is unwilling to admit the possibility of their alternative, it is fringe. Arguing the standing of a given scientist in no way changes this. Complaining about pathological skepticism doesn't change this - it takes a change in the consensus. Agricolae (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Luigi Paganetto is one scientist. You're cherry-picking comments from individual scientists and pretending that these carefully chosen excerpts somehow represent "mainstream science". MastCell Talk 22:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Mastcell & Andy. Luigi Paganetto is not one scientist, he didn't even do cold fusion research himself. He is the president of ENEA and he states that ENEA has conducted experiments that proved the existance of the phenomenon.
- @Agricolae. I mostly agree with that. But how does one change a consensus if one part is unwilling to listen ? Cold fusion is a fringe topic and arguably in the midst of becoming protoscience, several top notch research institutions have given credit to the existance of the phenomenon. ENEA has a host of "real" hot fusion scientists and that organization openly backs the cold fusion phenomenon. It is not yet accepted fully, but there is certainly an ever increasing willingness to accept the idea of the phenomenon. It appears to me that you will not be able to find many informed scientists nowadays who will denounce cold fusion outright like they did in 1989, but you will be able to find a host of uninformed ones I guess.
- We are doing our editing work for the WP-reader and not for ourselves. So I believe the information of the status of cold fusion should be presented here in WP in a fair and NPOV way. And in this case, coming from the dark ages of the early 1990s, NPOV means adding content instead of deleting. The problem I have is not so much with the outside real scientific world, but with the way the fringe label is misused by some editors as a carte blanche to just delete any content and call other editors fruitcakes and POV pushers of pet projects, like Andy does. WP does not allow for an agenda to keep WP fringe free. --POVbrigand (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- The 'fruitcake' comment was about Truzzi, not you. As for the rest of your comments, as I've repeatedly told you, if you want Wikipedia policy changed, this isn't the place to do it. For now, anything not accepted as mainstream science is fringe science, for Wikipedia purposes - though you seem to be keen on pushing the E-Cat, which isn't 'science' at all, as far as any reasonable definition of the term can be concerned. That is POV. If you want cold fusion/LENR research to be taken more seriously, don't confuse the issue by bringing in dubious contraptions that seem to exist only in the mind of the inventor. As long as Rossi refuses to allow proper independent examination, there is no more reason to assume the E-Cat produces heat by cold fusion than by burning unicorn poop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- So you go on record for calling the man who coined "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." a fruitcake.
- I am not pushing POV on Rossi, the device isn't scientifically proven yet. I have stated that several times, but I do not expect your to read all the comments I make. On the other hand you seem to be claiming that Rossi is a fraud. Pathological skeptic make claims without showing proof. So if you are not a pseudoskeptic, then you will certainly now show us your proof. --POVbrigand (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, Jesus Christ, proof of what, brigand? You sure know how to take a discussion down a rabbit hole. Either you have some idea how you'd like to edit an actual article based on a reliable source or you don't. If you do the place to discuss it is at the article's talk page. If you don't, please bugger off and stop trolling this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Steven, parts of this thread might have been avoided or put on an article talk page. In hindsight the pathological skeptic wording took this discussion in the wrong direction. I was actually hoping for a discussion in the form that Agriclae is currently doing, which I appreciate very much. I think that part of this thread is worth it and appropriate on this noticeboard --POVbrigand (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm calling a man who believed in ESP and "psychic detectives" and became "an advisor to IRVA, the International Remote Viewing Association" a fruitcake. And he didn't invent the 'extraordinary claims' concept either. As for whether Rossi is a fraud, is self-deluded, or is indeed on to something, clearly only time will tell for sure, but the evidence is that he's been involved in making similar claims before - which have come to nothing. The evidence is that 'free energy' schemes are two-a-penny, and they've always led to nothing in the past. The evidence is that Rossi has made multiple promises to permit proper scientific tests, but always backed off so far. The evidence is that he is touting for 'investors' and 'customers' for a device for which he makes extraordinary claims and provides no proof whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Time will tell, the rest of the Rossi drama we can discuss on the talk page. I certainly didn't want to discuss here about Rossi. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, Jesus Christ, proof of what, brigand? You sure know how to take a discussion down a rabbit hole. Either you have some idea how you'd like to edit an actual article based on a reliable source or you don't. If you do the place to discuss it is at the article's talk page. If you don't, please bugger off and stop trolling this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Paganetto is not an independent source - he is supporting the work done by his own institute. It is somewhat circular to use his statements as a basis for cold fusion achieving mainstream (not that it hasn't happened before, but would you expect him to say the work of his people is nonsense?). For better or worse, the whole P&F fiasco has tainted the field, and what it will take to rehabilitate it is to have reviews and commentaries, preferably written by experts in the field (or by scientific journalists relying on quotes from such experts) who have no connection with the research, concluding that it is real and respectable. A commentary in Nature or Science saying that in spite of the initial nonsense, there appears to be something there. A formal review accepted by a major physics journal. Something like that. It inevitably is going to be treated with more skepticism because of the perception left in the wake of the UU circus. Is it fair that it now has a higher hurdle? No, but who said life is fair? A good start would be a detailed mechanism that can and has been tested quantitatively. That would start things in the right direction. Then maybe it starts to get mentioned in textbooks, for the science and not for the controversy. At some point enough of the community will start to see it and learn it as established, valid science, and then the consensus will have changed. Bear in mind though that a lot of valid and accepted science is still so non-notable that it doesn't bear detailed mention on Wikipedia anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- With Paganetto I wanted to present an authorative mainstream organization that is openly backing the phenomenon, like the recent quote from Bushnell. Naturwissenschaften is a major journal who have published a review: "Naturwiss., 2010. 97(10): p. 861-881". It is mentioned in Wiley's nuclear energy encyclopedia published this year. Rob Duncan turned from skeptic to supporter after he informed himself on the topic for the 2009 ABC 60 minutes program. So to me it seems times are already a-changin'. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but the times haven't changed yet, and there is always the possibility of retrograde motion. Had you followed the case I mentioned earlier, of pre-Clovis settlement, you would have seen it on the verge of acceptance twice, only to recede again as the status quo reasserted itself and found reasons to dismiss or ignore what had seemed incontrovertible evidence, so WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL must be invoked. Agricolae (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- With Paganetto I wanted to present an authorative mainstream organization that is openly backing the phenomenon, like the recent quote from Bushnell. Naturwissenschaften is a major journal who have published a review: "Naturwiss., 2010. 97(10): p. 861-881". It is mentioned in Wiley's nuclear energy encyclopedia published this year. Rob Duncan turned from skeptic to supporter after he informed himself on the topic for the 2009 ABC 60 minutes program. So to me it seems times are already a-changin'. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- The 'fruitcake' comment was about Truzzi, not you. As for the rest of your comments, as I've repeatedly told you, if you want Wikipedia policy changed, this isn't the place to do it. For now, anything not accepted as mainstream science is fringe science, for Wikipedia purposes - though you seem to be keen on pushing the E-Cat, which isn't 'science' at all, as far as any reasonable definition of the term can be concerned. That is POV. If you want cold fusion/LENR research to be taken more seriously, don't confuse the issue by bringing in dubious contraptions that seem to exist only in the mind of the inventor. As long as Rossi refuses to allow proper independent examination, there is no more reason to assume the E-Cat produces heat by cold fusion than by burning unicorn poop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I am not completely innocent. Neither are you here supporting Andy's conduct. So you want to discuss Fringe theories ? Then kindly answer my question: explain why you think that Luigi Paganetto does not represent mainstream science ? --POVbrigand (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. You are completely innocent. The "pathological skeptics" bomb was just hypothetical and "think first" was only intended as a helpful suggestion. Whatever. If you think you have been mistreated, Wikipedia has a process and structure to deal with such circumstances, and I encourage you to utilize it. (Just be aware that a complaint of 'Mom, he hit me back!' tends to have a different outcome than the complainant intends.) Whether you choose to pursue it or not, this is not the place. This noticeboard is for discussion of Fringe theories, not discussion of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- First Andy accusses me of trolling and he insults me. I did not personally attack you or Andy. I did not imply that anyone who disagrees with me is a pathological skeptic. I did not call you nor Andy a pathological skeptic. Pathological skeptics exists and debunk cold fusion without knowing anything about the subject and refuse to look into the subject. You are just providing wind in the sails for editors who think that insulting is in accordance with WP spirit. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Given that you implied anyone who disagrees with your POV is a pathological skeptic, and then that Andy would comment without thinking, well . . . . yes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I intend just to stand by and watch. That being said, if you feel you have been the victim of a personal attack, WP:NPA provides some guidance on how best to respond. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I take that as an insult. Will the rest of the noticeboard just stand by and watch ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fruitcake - Read first, then think, then comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Marcello Truzzi - Read first, then think, then comment. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Luigi Paganetto is a professor of economics. [13] He is not an expert on physics or chemistry, so I have no idea why POVbrigand is citing him here or anywhere else on wikipedia as if he were an expert in that area. That has already happened in the article cold fusion and will only mislead readers. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- He is the president of ENEA, A credible organisation that is also involved in hot fusion projects like ITER. As a president he is representing his organisation in backing the existance of the phenomenon, thus ENEA backs cold fusion phenonemon. What his qualifications are that made him president of ENEA and if these qualifications allow him to personally review the work is irrelevant. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that at all; it is certainly not how wikipedia is edited in science. ITER is an international project run by physicists here in the South of France. Where results are expected only after 20 or so years from now, they are very cautious with any pronouncements or predictions. Perhaps things are done differently in Italy. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- "ENEA’s Fusion Division participates in the design of ITER through the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) and has made substantial contributions in the fields of superconductivity, plasma-facing components, neutronics, safety, remote handling and physics." Your innuendo towards Italian research is quite nasty. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- What innuendo? ENEA is an Italian government agency and what you have reproduced is just their own blurb from their website, i.e. a primary source. As far as new energy is concerned, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the MagneGas of Ruggero Santilli and the Energy Catalyzer of Andrea Rossi. Mathsci (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Forget the innuendo, maybe you meant it differently. It is not just a blurb. ENEA published a book where they discuss all cold fusion research in Italy including research not done by ENEA, thus the book is not merely primary source. In the preface of that book the president of ENEA makes a statement that based on the evidence the phenomenon is proved to exists and that they think that "The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon." If it is hard for you to see any difference between ENEA and the other stuff you mentioned than discussing further with you will be a waste of our time. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are referring to conference proceedings published by ENEA. That is a primary source and not usable on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not conference proceedings. It is a book about the cold fusion research history in Italy published by the ENEA. And in the foreword of the book the president of ENEA states something. "Primary source not usable on WP" that statement is not correct. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are referring to conference proceedings published by ENEA. That is a primary source and not usable on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Forget the innuendo, maybe you meant it differently. It is not just a blurb. ENEA published a book where they discuss all cold fusion research in Italy including research not done by ENEA, thus the book is not merely primary source. In the preface of that book the president of ENEA makes a statement that based on the evidence the phenomenon is proved to exists and that they think that "The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon." If it is hard for you to see any difference between ENEA and the other stuff you mentioned than discussing further with you will be a waste of our time. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- What innuendo? ENEA is an Italian government agency and what you have reproduced is just their own blurb from their website, i.e. a primary source. As far as new energy is concerned, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the MagneGas of Ruggero Santilli and the Energy Catalyzer of Andrea Rossi. Mathsci (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- "ENEA’s Fusion Division participates in the design of ITER through the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) and has made substantial contributions in the fields of superconductivity, plasma-facing components, neutronics, safety, remote handling and physics." Your innuendo towards Italian research is quite nasty. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that at all; it is certainly not how wikipedia is edited in science. ITER is an international project run by physicists here in the South of France. Where results are expected only after 20 or so years from now, they are very cautious with any pronouncements or predictions. Perhaps things are done differently in Italy. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Look, if ENEA is endorsing this, it means that they aren't a reliable source. When this thing starts producing commercial power, then it will be proven and the considerable consensus against cold fusion will be overturned. The long sequence of questionable demonstrations does not cut it. All of the little teaser "someone might buys this" don't cut it. When it produces significant power in a situation not controlled by its inventor, then it can be treated as a proven concept. Right now it's still in the "probably a scam" state. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- ENEA is not endorsing Rossi, where did you get that from ? ENEA is "endorsing" the existance of the phenomenon based on the results from experiments that several renowned research institutions have done in the last couple of years. The existance of the phenomenon has nothing to do with the claims of a working commercial device that Rossi makes. The fact that the phenomenon is real does not mean that the Rossi device is actually working. There are worlds apart between what ENEA is stating and what Rossi is claiming. You must differentiate between the two, or better, you must leave the whole Rossi story out of this, because for now nothing is scientifically proven about his device. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing in what I just said that restricts it to Rossi's device. I remember some twenty-thirty years ago when magnetohydrodynamics was going to solve our power problems. Well, it didn't, and now it has been reduced to a tiny paragraph in an article that's largely about the solar wind. Cold fusion hasn't even gotten as far as MHD ever did; if ENEA is endorsing even the existence of the phenomenon, they are out of line and have to be treated as fringe-mongers. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
List has become infected with a number of badly sourced claims, or claims flatly described as fact, e.g. "Guy Hottel investigated for the Air Force the recovery of three flying saucers" and "Alien abduction of victims who were fishing on the Pascagoula River." Needs trimming. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that someone delete the sightings for which there is no Wikipedia article. For example, the Guy Hottel claim mentioned above doesn't even have a wiki article about it - there is no "Guy Hottel" article. It seems that a number of the badly-sourced claims/sightings are the ones with no wiki article about them. It looks as if someone has just added in random UFO claims/sightings to the UFO sightings list, regardless of whether there is a Wikipedia article about them or not. If the stated incident doesn't have a link to a wiki article, then it probably shouldn't be listed. Just my suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011
- I fail to see why not having a wiki articel makes one iota of differance. But its does seem unsourced, this needs changing.
Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the List of UFO Sightings was set up to provide wiki users who are interested in UFOs with a list of links to UFO-related Wiki articles. Looking over the list, it seems as if some people have randomly added in UFO incidents for which there are no wiki articles. Thus, if there's no wiki article on the sighting, it shouldn't be listed, as there is no way for the user to get further information on the sighting on Wikipedia. Also, if every UFO sighting/incident random posters considered important was listed, then the list would be so long as to be virtually worthless, IMO.
- Trying to fix things results in insults like this: [14]. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- The list has been trimmed down of non-notable events and seems a lot better now for it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I started checking the text against the sources cited. Why was I not surprised to find exaggerations and fabrications not contained in the sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Repeat report - not what this noticeboard is about |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yep. Still problems. Current ones are:
Ridiculous article, talk page is basically nothing but trolling. How long before this goes to AfD again? 86.** IP (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
CETI Patterson Power Cell
More 'cold fusion' shenanigans at the CETI Patterson Power Cell article. Wild claims based as usual on fringe sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#George_H._Miley_and_the_Patterson_Power_Cell for part of the discussion, but we also have an anon SPA IP reverting crap back in, with no edit summary. Needs help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The anonymous IP is still trying to revert crap back in. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No scientific consensus on UFOs?
Apparently there is "no scientific consensus" on UFOs. I was surprised to learn this, but it is, in fact, the name of a section of our UFO article: UFO#No_scientific_consensus.
69.86.225.27 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is true - there is no scientific consensus on UFOs. Because UFOs aren't science. There is likewise no scientific consensus on Fairies, on the relative merits of Bob Dylan vs Wordsworth, or on which end of a boiled egg one should cut open either. The section title is misleading, because the premise is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone could change the section title then? As an anon IP, I cannot. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think most of this section could simply be refactored upward into the lede on the investigations section, but the section as a whole is such a disorganized mess that it's going to take more than that. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- For now I've renamed the section as 'Scientific studies', which is at least less misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um, aren't UFOs, by definition unexplained objects? Which means it's a catch-all for all aerial phenomena, whether actually extraterrestrial in origin, natural phenomena which has not been identified, or simply vague reports of something no one can usefully identitify? So UFOs do exist & are routinely studied by scientists & academics; it's the UFOs-as-flying-saucers which scientists offer no opinion on. The article does make this distinction, but it should be in the lead followed by a comment stating something along the lines of "In the rest of this article, 'UFO' is used in its more limited meaning of a flying saucer." (This would then allow a section about the difficulty of visual identifications, or maybe link to eyewitness memory & unusual natural phenomena like the green flash.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, no. UFO's are by definition unidentified flying objects... not unexplained ones. Indeed, UFO sightings are rarely unexplained (and, in fact, they are usually explained in several different ways, depending on who is doing the explaining. Some will explain them as being visiting space aliens, others will explain them as top secret government test flights, yet others will explain them as being hoaxes and/or delusions, etc. etc. etc.) Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- "it's the UFOs-as-flying-saucers which scientists offer no opinion on" -- In almost every undergraduate non-major astronomy text, the authors (normally bona fide scientists) offer their opinions that UFOs are NOT flying saucers piloted by aliens. That is pretty much the consensus of the vast majority of the scientists who comment on this nonsense. Shouldn't Wikipedia at least acknowledge this? I see that mention of this fact has been routinely deleted from the page as has most of the mainstream astronomer commentaries on the subject. Seriously, folks, at almost every single public lecture relating to anything vaguely astrophyiscal we get some nutjob asking us about UFOs. You don't have to look very far for sources that show how we respond to these types of inquiries. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Scientists do not use the term "unidentified flying object". TFD (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- If we look at this Google scholar search for the term... at least some scientists do seem to use the term. They may do so in the context of debunking fringe theories, but they use the term. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's common knowledge that science has complete consensus on the question of UFOs. The consensus is this. Sometimes people report seeing things in the sky (or in the air), and they say they don't know what those things are. Those reports might then be called "unidentified flying objects". If the report is investigated an object might be identified, usually a bird, bat, aircraft or cloud. The UFO then becomes an identified flying object. This doesn't always happen. It might not be worth investigating the report. Or there might not be enough evidence to go on for the object to be identified. Some aircraft flights, especially military flights, are kept secret. Or perhaps there was never any object and the person making the report was hallucinating or lying. Then the UFO remains a UFO and is of no interest. That's the consensus, and it's not only held by scientists; it's held by all sensible journalists and lots of other people too. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- If we look at this Google scholar search for the term... at least some scientists do seem to use the term. They may do so in the context of debunking fringe theories, but they use the term. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Scientists do not use the term "unidentified flying object". TFD (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- "it's the UFOs-as-flying-saucers which scientists offer no opinion on" -- In almost every undergraduate non-major astronomy text, the authors (normally bona fide scientists) offer their opinions that UFOs are NOT flying saucers piloted by aliens. That is pretty much the consensus of the vast majority of the scientists who comment on this nonsense. Shouldn't Wikipedia at least acknowledge this? I see that mention of this fact has been routinely deleted from the page as has most of the mainstream astronomer commentaries on the subject. Seriously, folks, at almost every single public lecture relating to anything vaguely astrophyiscal we get some nutjob asking us about UFOs. You don't have to look very far for sources that show how we respond to these types of inquiries. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, no. UFO's are by definition unidentified flying objects... not unexplained ones. Indeed, UFO sightings are rarely unexplained (and, in fact, they are usually explained in several different ways, depending on who is doing the explaining. Some will explain them as being visiting space aliens, others will explain them as top secret government test flights, yet others will explain them as being hoaxes and/or delusions, etc. etc. etc.) Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um, aren't UFOs, by definition unexplained objects? Which means it's a catch-all for all aerial phenomena, whether actually extraterrestrial in origin, natural phenomena which has not been identified, or simply vague reports of something no one can usefully identitify? So UFOs do exist & are routinely studied by scientists & academics; it's the UFOs-as-flying-saucers which scientists offer no opinion on. The article does make this distinction, but it should be in the lead followed by a comment stating something along the lines of "In the rest of this article, 'UFO' is used in its more limited meaning of a flying saucer." (This would then allow a section about the difficulty of visual identifications, or maybe link to eyewitness memory & unusual natural phenomena like the green flash.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I mean, is anyone with half-a-brain even reading the UFO article or checking the sources? It is absolutely a mess. It makes wild, claims and tags obvious statements with "citation needed" to make it seem like there isn't any evidence for basic facts like the ones Itmejudith are outlining. It relies almost exclusively on UFO-proponent literature as the best sources and has totally shunted or eliminated all sane commentary. The article is almost absolute garbage and, looking back through the history, has been garbage since the beginning. Why don't you guys stub it and start over? It needs to be trashed. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Biography of an astronomer, whose work on palaeoastronomy is described with what may be a fair representation of its acceptance. People might want to have a look at that. But it's the material on crop circles that really needs urgent attention, doesn't make explicit that these are hoaxes. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just boldly deleted the last five paragraphs, which was added a little over a month ago in a single edit. We'll see what happens next. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Climate change alarmism
It seems the article Climate change alarmism was closed with merge but it seems some editors have decided to remove all mention of this rather than bring it to a deletion review. I reverted the deletion of the merge tags. What is the correct response now? Some diffs: [15] [16]. Talk page section: Talk:Climate_change_alarmism#Inappropriate_merge_tag_removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly is the relevance of raising this here? I hope you are not canvassing for support, instead of discussing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not implicitly accuse me of canvassing. I am asking what to do in a situation where the closure of the AfD for a article was overruled without going through any of the appropriate channels. Since the article is fringe and has been mentioned here previously it is of issue here. No deletion review discussion has been brought forward in the four days since closure either. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the appropriate channel... Since i really really doubt if the concept in any way or form can be construed as fringe. (Hint: It is a sociological/political concept/claim - not a scientific one). So my question is very much relevant (as is the question about canvassing): Why are you bringing it here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- If an AfD results in merge, merge away. It's appropriate to raise it here since it has been discussed here before. Thank you for updating us. In sociology and politics it is a neologism that hasn't caught on, therefore merge sounds like a good solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- That it has been raised here before, doesn't make a precedence (or make canvassing Ok). As for being a neologism - that is incorrect (and as mentioned in the AfD: A strawman). The subject is alarmism (and alarmism claims) within the topic of climate change, which most certainly is a rather large concept... in fact a topic/claim that you can find mentions of each and every day in your google news updates.
- My original take on this, was to let the editors on both articles figure out what to do (as the closing admin suggested[17]). But it seems that this is not an option. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the AfD result was merge, the article should be merged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- If an AfD results in merge, merge away. It's appropriate to raise it here since it has been discussed here before. Thank you for updating us. In sociology and politics it is a neologism that hasn't caught on, therefore merge sounds like a good solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the appropriate channel... Since i really really doubt if the concept in any way or form can be construed as fringe. (Hint: It is a sociological/political concept/claim - not a scientific one). So my question is very much relevant (as is the question about canvassing): Why are you bringing it here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not implicitly accuse me of canvassing. I am asking what to do in a situation where the closure of the AfD for a article was overruled without going through any of the appropriate channels. Since the article is fringe and has been mentioned here previously it is of issue here. No deletion review discussion has been brought forward in the four days since closure either. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Racist fringe
An editor appears to be inserting racist fringe into the article Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology. Diff: [18]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- What a hopeless article. Completely unsourced and full of OR and POV. After reading this article unsuspecting readers would be left with the impression that this racist nonsense is still scientifically valid. It seems to me the best solution would be to turn it into a stub and then watch every piece of information that is inserted to see if it complies with the Wikipedia neutrality and verifiability standards. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Boldly redirected to William Herbert Sheldon, which is where this belongs. If that article gets too long (at present, it's minimal in both length and sourcing), we could consider spinning this back out. More eyes would be helpful, as always when it comes to race/intelligence/eugenics material, given the small fringe of dedicated POV-pushers active in this area. MastCell Talk 00:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- An anonymous ip reverted it without providing any reasoning. I've reverted it back to the redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Boldly redirected to William Herbert Sheldon, which is where this belongs. If that article gets too long (at present, it's minimal in both length and sourcing), we could consider spinning this back out. More eyes would be helpful, as always when it comes to race/intelligence/eugenics material, given the small fringe of dedicated POV-pushers active in this area. MastCell Talk 00:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Editor75439 has reverted the redirect without providing any reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, it's a notable enough theory (very popular in its day), so I'm not sure a redirect is appropriate. it needs some revisions, not deletion. --Ludwigs2 14:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Leary, B, Lorentzon M & Bosanquet, A, 1998, It Wont Do Any Harm: Practice & People At The London Homeopathic Hospital, 1889–1923, in Juette, Risse & Woodward, 1998 Juette, R, G Risse & J Woodward [Eds.], 1998, Culture, Knowledge And Healing: Historical Perspectives On Homeopathy In Europe And North America, Sheffield Univ. Press, UK, p.253
- ^ Leary, et al., 1998, 254
- ^ Sharma, Ursula, 1992, Complementary Medicine Today, Practitioners And Patients, Routledge, UK, p.185
- ^ "PHOTOTHÈQUE HOMÉOPATHIQUE". Retrieved 2007-07-24.
- ^ "Homeopathy Commissioning Review: Conclusions & Recommendation – September 2007". West Kent Primary Care Trust. Retrieved 2011-08-27.