Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:52, 17 March 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

• WT:NPOV

Archived discussions

Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004

Archive_002 Closing out 2004

Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005

Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005

Archive 005 to November 13, 2005

Archive 006 to December 4, 2005

Archive 007 to December 30, 2005

Archive 008 to December 27, 2005

Archive 009 to January 16, 2006

Archive 010 to January 23, 2006

Archive 011 to January 25, 2006

Archive 012 to January 26, 2006

Archive 013 to January 29, 2006

Archive 014 to January 29, 2006

Archive 015 to March 8, 2006

Archive 016 to March 10, 2006

Archive 017 to April 09, 2006

Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.

Archive 018: Apr 2006

Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006

Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006

Archive 021: Jun 2006

Archive 022: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)

Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006

Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006

Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006

Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006

Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007

Archive 28: Mar - May 2007

Archive 29: May – Sep 2007

Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008

Archive 31: Feb – May 2008

Archive 32: May – July 2008

Archive 33: July 2008

Archive 34: July – Sep 2008

Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009

Archive 36: April – Aug 2009

Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009

Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

A concern

This policy needs a serious rewrite. I hesitate to start it because this isn't a policy I've been much involved in. But the writing is really very unclear in places, and it's not even clear that it's correct e.g. the bit about stating facts but not opinions about facts. The reverse is true. We are always stating opinions about facts; that's basically all we do. SlimVirgin 06:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I will give it a try (as you can see I started a bit below), but I'm not sure how far I can get with it. The reason that the writing is unclear (IMO) is that this policy is at the center of some very contentious disputes, and different factions have made protracted efforts to 'queer' it to give themselves some sort of editorial advantage. The result is a muddle of conflicting, half-formed ideas. I suspect it will actually be harder to revise the worst-written sections, because those are the ones that have been most-heavily fought over.

plus, I have an academic perspective on these matters that no one seems to like at all... In truth, we don't state 'facts' or 'opinions'; we state ideas presented in reliable sources, and we ought to take care not to elevate them to the status of facts or reduce them to the status of (mere) opinions. but I don't think that perspective is going to meet with a lot of kindness here. --Ludwigs2 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. SlimVirgin 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that this was removed after an RFC as it helps to explain the current wording. -- PBS (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean Paraphrase the source and fit it into the article without injecting assumptions from yourself; where the source is trying to make a point, this is when you may post an opinion so long as it is clearly attributable to the source. From what I've seen: newer users post their own opinions (finding citations later) and have disputes about it; a bit older users post what they think the source says is and have disputes over it; really senior users (very few) post only the citation info or spend most of their time fixing simple content errors and resolving disputes. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, this page should be trimmed as much as possible without losing anything essential to the concept of a Neutral Point of View. Considering this principle's importance to the project, we don't want TLDR to be the typical reaction to the page which documents it, yet it's a safe bet that it is at present. There are sections which appear to be candidates for trimming, condensing, and merging, but I realize that any bold removals will almost certainly be reverted. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The first obvious example of a section which could be condensed, possibly without controversy, is WP:NPOV#Article titles. Could we reduce that to a couple of sentences and say "See Misplaced Pages:Article titles for more information"? PSWG1920 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree WP:AT relies on this for text. It could only be removed if it were added to WP:AT. In the past the consensus was to keep it here, but I suggest that if you want to trim it you raise the issue on the talk page of WP:AT -- PBS (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

mainsteam POV

Would it not remove much of the controversy about the "neutral" point of view policy if it was renamed mainstream point of view rather than neutral point of view? This may also ease Misplaced Pages's discrimination against non-establishment subjects. This seems to be especially true when dealing with emerging areas of knowledge such as alternative medicine where[REDACTED] can often become an attack site. Most people will accept that something is the mainstream POV, but find it affronting when it is masqueraded as a neutral POV. Just a thought. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's called "neutral" instead of "mainstream" because they don't equate as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned (although I suppose you could twist the meaning of words to satisfy any interpretation you'd prefer). The neutral point of view is not necessarily a single point of view, but the weighted and fair compilation of all significant points of view, which necessarily includes the mainstream, if there is one. In a sense, what I'm saying is that we don't call it the "mainstream" point of view because we aren't intent on discarding all other points of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if Misplaced Pages did indeed operate in the manner you describe. It's a work in progress I suppose. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC argumentum ex silentio - Policy/guideline or not?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Recently I and some other editors have been deliberating over whether or not Argumentum ex silentio has any place or justification on WP when editing articles, under any circumstance. Personally, I am one to give a resounding no. However, my knowledge of WP Policy/Guidelines is poor at best. (20040302 (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

There's certainly such a thing as necessary implication without explicit statement. If 25% of the reliable sources on a subject spend 20% of their time on a particular topic within that subject, & 75% don't mention it at all, then it should have 5% of the space in the article, ceteris paribus. That variety of a.e s. is a necessary implication of WP:DUE.

I could not accept a strong argument (that omission implies a disbelief) but I can certainly accept a weak argument (that there was nothing to be said on such an issue) or a mere absence of belief (an unknowning). I expect scholars to be explicit in their disbelief.

Argument from silence is only a proper fallacy in the context of pure logic; it is too reductive to call it a fallacy here, and can be a part of valid (abductive) reasoning. The distinction to be made (and Peter seems to have addressed this several times) is whether one can reasonably expect a source to have included the lacking information if it ahd been important to that source. The speculation necessary here is not on the same order as WP:OR, although it still rests on consensus. Reference to WP:UNDUE and WP:N has validity because those policies essentially rest on an argumentum ex silentio, although (again) of a slightly different order – i.e., if reliable sources don't raise something, we must assume as editors (even if it's not so) that it isn't important, until we've found an RS that states otherwise.

We cannot make or infer the argumentum ex silentio as that would constitute original research

If a textbook on a subject fails to mention something alleged to be a basic fact, I think that, in common sense terms, is clear proof that that author doesn't believe it to be a basic fact.

Argumentum ex silentio is a fallacy, and we don't use them here. And, to create one based on something a source doesn't say constitutes original research. I encourage you to bring this up on the original research policy page if you think it's a loophole. It can't be done here, and any occurrence of it in the article should be removed immediately.

What about the argumentum e silentio I've been mentioning a number of times in these discussions? The fact that sources say little or nothing about something can be strong evidence, but it's not verifiable in a lot of cases (how do you give the page number where a book doesn't say something?

Importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" is to be established by, among other things, noting how much space they spend on things. If they say little or nothing about something then that's a prima facie case for saying they don't think it important. That particular kind of argumentum e silentio is clearly supported by the above guideline & WP:DUE: Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

More relevantly to the context of most of these discussions, if a source says little or nothing about something, that clearly implies they don't think it's important in their context. Policy says that things should be given prominence according to their prominence in reliable sources.

This last statement is of real concern to me. All I believe that we can read from a source that does not say anything about something is that they have nothing to say about it, without prejudice. However it appears that others believe that silence indicates prejudice. I feel particularly uneasy about such an assertion. Moreover, I would have thought that often sources will NOT say something which is considered an obvious or required axiom within that area; ie on the assumption that everyone (within a restricted audience) accepts it already.

I am seriously interested in some sort of consensus regarding the issue and boundaries of Argumentum ex silentio on WP. Likewise I am loathe to cross-post, but maybe this extended question should be on the WP:OR, or WP:DUE policy pages instead of this one.

For those who are interested in context, this discussion is largely placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#WP:Buddhism_Policy_Proposal (20040302 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

"Moreover, I would have thought that often sources will NOT say something which is considered an obvious or required axiom within that area; ie on the assumption that everyone (within a restricted audience) accepts it already."

Sometimes. You have to look at the particular case to see what makes sense in the context. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As 2004 suggests above that a. e s. has no place on WP, I'll quote here one particular type explicitly given in policy (WP:REDFLAG):

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• ...

Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources"

I'm afraid I don't know how to blockquote lists. Peter jackson (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the types I've been suggesting are less extreme examples of the same thing:

1. if some sources say explicitly that something is important, but others have little or nothing to say about it, then the prominence it's to be given in WP should take into account not only the former but also the latter; of course, this depends on considering whether one could reasonably have expected them to do so in the context; this seems to me to be a sensible reading of WP:DUE
2. if some sources say something, but others don't, in a context where one could reasonably have expected them to do so, then the statement should be "According to" & have correspondingly reduced prominence; the latter is WP:DUE again, the former seems to me like just common sense (WP:IAR if you like)

Peter jackson (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The other type I've suggested is that, if no RS seems to have bothered to review a book or include it in their recommended booklists, then maybe the weight given to it should be somewhat reduced. Peter jackson (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, is argumentum ex silentio a form of WP:SYN? Yes or no? If not, why not? Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone were proposing adding statements to articles saying something isn't mentioned, or drawing conclusions therefrom, without citing RSs doing just that, I imagine that would count as synthesis. But I'm not aware that anyone's suggesting that. I've mentioned 4 types of a. e s. above. One is explicitly authorized by policy, one and a half seem to me to be implied by policy, a half seems to me to be common sense & the last is a more tentative suggestion. None of them involve adding any statements to articles. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example, not quite so explicit, which was in the policy page until a few weeks ago. It was deleted by Kendrick, & nobody seems to have discussed it here before or after:

"

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

" This is logically equivalent to the contrapositive: "If you can't substantiate/name, then it isn't" Another a. e s. Peter jackson (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The silence is underwhelming. Just the same three four(!) of us. I wonder if anyone would even notice if we changed the policy. (20040302 (talk))

For what it's worth, I'm watching, too... so just the same four of us :-) /ninly_(talk) 13:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Typical of RfCs, in my experience of both posting & replying. Peter jackson (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To draw conclusions from the fact that people aren't saying anything here would be, er, argumentum e silentio. Peter jackson (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

lol (20040302 (talk))

1) I'm not sure a rule should be made. 2) Possibly you would get more response if you put a nutshell version at the top. Maurreen (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, we're not quite sure what the quesion is ourselves. Everyone agrees that some argumenta e silentio are against policy. Nobody seems to have proposed changing the policy, though of course if anyone wants to this would be a good place for it. I've pointed out an example of such an argument actually in a policy page. I don't know whether anyone is actually proposing deleting it. Provisionally, the question is which sorts are OK & which aren't? Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read this a bunch of times, trying to see what the difference between argumentum ex silentio and WP:SYN is. I don't see the difference. Angryapathy (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read this a bunch of time too, and I'm really having trouble understanding exactly what it is that you want. If you're saying that information not included in a reliable source is evidence of its verity, then I must disagree, as that would be drawing your own conclusion, (synthesis). If you're saying that verities exist that aren't included in reliable sources, then I would agree, but would suggest looking into more sources. If you're saying that because someone doesn't speak up on talk that they must agree with you, I'd say that if you're the only one talking, then that might be a fair assumption, but if others are debating the point, then we should probably not assume. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In substance, I think AES may in fact apply many times. However, AES is without a doubt an interpretation (an interpretation of the silence); this is obvious, since other interpretations are conceivable. And it is not for a Wikipedian to forward his or her own interpretations into an article. If AES is the dominant interpretation of experts in the field, there will be SOME source - a history of the science, a memoire, what have you, that attests to this i.e. that points out to its readership that the reason no one debates "it" anymore is because most people agree. I strongly believe that if AES holds, one can find such a reliable source if one looks in the right places. The key here is doing good research and as suggested above I think this is one more case where an appeal to logic is really SYNTH and just a way to avoid doing more research. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note... Careful... this has an impact on our ability to label fringe theories as being such. Few mainstream sources bother to discuss fringe theories. That very silence on the part of the mainstream is a key part of what makes a fringe theory "fringe" in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Wegener's continental drift hypothesis was proposed in 1912, but for five decades was considered "lunatic fringe". Without good evidence supporting his ideas, Wegener was attacked on all sides by the scientific establishment, but eventually prevailed in the end. In hindsight, was the scientific community correct in labeling Wegener's ideas as fringe? We now know his ideas as plate tectonics, the "unifying theory of modern geology". If Wegener's uphill battle is any indication, it isn't silence that makes a theory fringe, but rather a lack of evidence and the unwillingness to accept its plausibility. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

precisely why we should not attribute to it meaning unless that attribution itself come from a significant view in a reliable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To me, prominence is a relative concept. In an article such as gravity, there are a lot of sources about the various theories out there, but two major ones really stand out. Alternative theroies aren't nearly as prominent, so there's no need to detail them there. Alternative theories certainly are of value to anyone interested, so a link to the various articles is provided. On the Brans-Dicke theory article, the measure for prominence becomes a whole different story. (An article, which I might add, has insufficient inline sources.) Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we have a number of other people here, but most of them complain they don't understand what it's about. Let me have another go at summarizing.

1. If a. e s. were used as the basis for adding statements to articles, that would be WP:SYN & against policy. Everyone agrees that's so, & nobody seems to be proposing to change it. (AA)
2. WP:REDFLAG explicitly uses a. e s. I'm not clear whether anyone's proposing to change this.
3. Closely related to that is the question of fringe theories. BB mentions this above.
4. More generally, I don't personally see how you could apply WP:DUE without some form of a. e s. My suggestion is that this is proper, when done with caution.
5. (Viriditas) Everyone agrees that what's a fringe theory now may turn out to be correct in the future (but probably won't). However, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on the state of scholarship now.
6. (SLR) Maybe you can find such sources, but at any moment WP has to be written on the basis of the sources its editors have found so far. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is, Peter, we don't need to use AES to identify a fringe theory; WP:FRINGE covers this in detail. There might be some confusion on this point by other editors. Why don't you get down to brass tacks, Peter, and explain why you raised this issue in the first place. REDFLAG and UNDUE have nothing to do with AES. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here once again is what WP:REDFLAG says:

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• ...

Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources"

"not covered by mainstream sources": silentium

"should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim": argumentum

What part of that don't you understand? Peter jackson (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE:

Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.

Another a. e s. Peter jackson (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Brass tacks: The only reason you brought this subject up, Peter, is because you've been arguing for a novel interpretation of using reliable sources on Misplaced Pages to introduce OR. You've repeatedly said:

The fact that sources say little or nothing about something can be strong evidence, but it's not verifiable in a lot of cases (how do you give the page number where a book doesn't say something?)...If they say little or nothing about something then that's a prima facie case for saying they don't think it important. That particular kind of argumentum e silentio is clearly supported...if a textbook on a subject fails to mention something alleged to be a basic fact, I think that, in common sense terms, is clear proof that that author doesn't believe it to be a basic fact. So it makes sense in such a case for the claim that it is a basic fact to be presented as "according to", even if no source has yet been found explicitly disagreeing with it.... If a textbook doesn't mention an alleged basic fact on the subject, that implies the author doesn't believe it's a basic fact. I agree it doesn't necessarily imply they disbelieve it...It's the job of a textbook to tell the reader the basic facts about the subject, don't you think? If they don't mention something then they don't think it's a basic fact...And let me repeat what I said about argumentum e silentio. If a source fails to mention an alleged basic fact, it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't believe in it...

What you are talking about is not related to FRINGE or REDFLAG, or even UNDUE. What you are talking about is using AES to make claims that are not found in the original sources. You're trying desperately to open a loophole to OR so that you can attribute claims to authors about something they never said in the first place. Even if a source fails to mention something, we cannot conclude an opinion about that source or depict it in an article. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:REDFLAG. IMO WP:REDFLAG's "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" is a bad policy, or poorly written. It invites WP:SYN at some level or another. I do not believe that WP:V needs that clause at all. In fact, novel discoveries made by good WP:RS could be unnecessarily subjected to it.
• WP:DUE. Unless I have completely missed something, I disagree that WP:DUE depends upon AeS.
• WP:RS I agree(?) with SLR above that if AeS is an implicit view among WP:RS]], then there will be WP:RS who will assert that view explicitly.
• WP:FRINGE I consider the quote above ...when the scientific community has ignored the ideas... deeply unsound. Far better to use existing policy based on WP:DUE. Of course I am assuming here that fringe beliefs are held by a tiny minority. When there is a significant minority, then fringe beliefs probably should be addressed on the article under normal WP:DUE guidelines.

It is because of the fact that, as PJ summarises, current WP policy implicitly allows for AeS in both WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG that there is a question for editors to comment on. I believe that the implicit inclusion of AeS in these policies is flawed, mistaken and obscures, rejects or ignores WP:V, WP:SYN, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. I believe that no WP policy should depend upon, or allow for, AeS.

So to rephrase the question, What is the justification for keeping AeS in existing WP:Policy? (20040302 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Viriditas, I've already told you at least 4 times that I'm not suggesting adding statements to articles on the basis of a. e s.:

Peter jackson (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

2004, thanks for clearing something up. You're definitely proposing changes to the existing policy pages. Let me just suggest what occurs to me right now. It seems to me that NOR can only be fully applicable to the direct writing of articles, but not to the process behind that. Examples:

1. WP is supposed to be based on reliable sources. What's a reliable source? One with a reputation for fact checking. How do you find out about that reputation? Original research. Ultimately, at least. You may well find an RS saying a source is reliable, but then how do you tell that source is reliable? ...
2. WP:DUE: How do you tell what's the appropriate prominence for something? Original research.
3. &c

Peter jackson (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As you're proposing changes in those pages, I've posted notices on their talk pages. Peter jackson (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What is being proposed?

I am at a total loss to understand what exactly is being proposed here (and by whom). What specific section of this policy is under discussion and what specific language change is being proposed? Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

At least one experienced editor reads sentence from WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG as supporting AeS. 20040302 proposes (after aforementioned thoughts):

1. Changes to both WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG which eliminate AeS from being either used as a part of either policy and eliminates any reading of AeS being allowable within them
2. That AeS is explicitly disallowed within WP:Policy

(20040302 (talk))

• Comment Can you list the sentence that supposedly supports AeS so we can discuss whther it is ambiguous, or an editor trying to Wikilawyer the language of a policy/guideline? Angryapathy (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's sentences. Peter? (20040302 (talk))

20040302... why are you asking Peter? If you are proposing that we change the policy, surely you know what part of the policy needs to be changed. Or do I have it wrong and Peter is the one requesting a change? Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think addressing Peter's specific arguments would risk bringing the whole contextual discussion here, where it doesn't belong. The comments above (italic, original RfC post) were stripped of their signatures, but mine involved both WP:UNDUE and WP:N, and I believe that forms of abductive reasoning involving argumentum ex silentio necessarily underpin both policy and the editorial process on WP as a whole. Particularly because we cannot say that xyz should receive nth share of coverage without agreeing that the RSes do not treat abc to the same degree. That argument is weak as stated here, but I think it bears out. A couple points about the discussion at hand:

• I think there's some confusion about what argumentum ex silentio really means in practice. It's largely been discussed as if it's a blatant piece of OR, drawing/implying an unstated conclusion more or less directly from an existing source. That leaves out a whole more subtle aspect of the concept, which involves the nominal forms of discourse in the source, and a reader's reasonable expectations of what it might discuss. Yes, there's some OR involved in that, but we can't read effectively without formalism and expectation.
• I also think a.e.s. has itself taken on some undue weight in the specific context of earlier discussions. Properly used, a.e.s. is a small point, demonstrable and clear to others in the discussion. Viz. Prominent Expert A says X, Y, and Z are very important to the Topic At Hand, while Prominent Expert B only mentions X and Y in her treatise. That leaves us, reasonably, to discuss whether Z was at all important to B, and the degree to which it should be treated in our article. That's it – there's no novel interpretation to make, only questions to ask.
• Finally, there seems to be confusion about the authority of policy. For example, Peter asks above "WP is supposed to be based on reliable sources. What's a reliable source? One with a reputation for fact checking. How do you...". Sure enough, ad infinitum. But ultimately, on WP, a reliable source is one that people agree is reliable (for a given purpose, and with policy/guidelines to inform the agreement, of course). Are there problems with this? Yes, but it's precisely what we have to work with.

My impression so far is that, while this discussion has raised some interesting questions about how to reach consensus, WP policy is probably OK as is. Argumentum ex silentio is not a loophole, it's a tool; if the argument doesn't convince you, that's OK. /ninly_(talk) 05:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AA, BB, the passages in question were quoted in the above discussion. Here again is the one from WP:REDFLAG:

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• ...

Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources"

Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE:

Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas.

I'd add now that AfD is also a. e s. If a topic isn't mentioned in RSs then the article is to be deleted. Does 2004 advocate abolishing notability?

I think OR in general, including a. e s., is banned only for direct addition of statements to articles. For work behind the scenes, such as WP:DUE, it can't be avoided.

I'm inclined to agree with Ninly to the extent that first-order policy is OK. The problem lies in its application. If a particular faction dominates an article, they can "interpret" policy to suit their POV, & then impose it by "consensus". In many cases there's no effective procedure for dealing with this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter asks: Does 2004 advocate abolishing notability? - No of course not. I am not advocating the presence of content for where there is no presence found. I am advocating exactly the opposite. I am proposing that we should never depend upon the absence of something for us to make an interpretation regarding it's meaning. In fact, if you think about it, WP:N is in exact accordance with this also. The absence of an idea in a RS is not in itself notable, so we certainly cannot imply some notability due to it's absence. Moreover, If the absent idea is notable (due to eg some bias of the author or editor), then other RS will remark upon it soon enough. Of course, WP:N is concerned only with articles, not of topics- so it is out of scope here.

Regarding the boundaries of logic, Peter suggests (AfD is also AeS: If a topic isn't mentioned in RSs then the article is to be deleted.) that something is an AeS when it's non-presence indicates a need for it's absence. AFAIK, such an interpretation of AeS would lead to it's identification as a tautology, which is absurd. My interpretation of AeS is ${\displaystyle (\lnot A\to B)}$, not${\displaystyle (\lnot A\to \lnot A)}$, which is how I read AfD. (20040302 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm afraid I don't understand the last para (not the symbolic logic notation, which I know), & I suspect you haven't understood what I was saying. AfD is saying, if RSs don't mention it, it should be deleted. That's a. e s. As mentioned in the actual article, the term covers a variety of things. What we're trying to sort out here is the boundaries between acceptable & unacceptable. Peter jackson (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How is "if RSs don't mention it, it should be deleted" a conclusion based on silence? My understanding of AeS in this case would be more like "It is notable because RSs don't mention it.", which is more or less the polar opposite. For me, the phrase AfD "if RSs don't mention it, it should be deleted" is basically a reformulation of (in positive terms) WP content must meet WP policy (WP:V)., which is a far stronger statement than AeS. I would be quite happy with rewriting any AeS statements within WP:Policy in such terms. Or "WP content that does not meet WP policy may be freely deleted". This is not AeS either. breaking policy is not silence. A policy (WP:V) that states that RS are necessary for acceptable WP content is not AeS. stating the effect of deviating from that policy is likewise not AeS. (20040302 (talk))

RSs not mentioning something is silence. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

AeS is, at best, weak. WP:Policy doesn't need to depend upon weak arguments. Ever. I don't see why anyone would think that it should. Instead, it is confusing and invites lengthy debate, and trouble. Peter, I know that you do not suggest allowing AeS within the editorial process. Why should be be using it within policy either? There are far stronger, more clearcut ways of delineating policy. (20040302 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

I am of the opinion that this is an example of WP policies having the possibility of quite improper consequences. While "majority" and "minority" opinions are of some value when determining what is "fact", the concept in regard to what are matters of opinion (including all religious, political, and economic topics "broadly construed") is flawed. Collect (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good to discuss all this in the abstract... but is anyone proposing a change to the language of this policy (and if not, why are we discussing it here)? If so, please post some initial suggested language so we have something concrete to discuss.

Otherwise, I would suggest that if you want to change WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, the place to discuss such changes is at WT:Verifiability (the policy that contains REDFLAG) and at WT:FRINGE. After all, even if you get a general consensus on AES here, you would still need to gain a seperate consensus from editors at those pages before such changes could be implimented. That said, it is my opinion that the two policy statements in question have very broad consensus in the context of those two policies... so I think you will have an up-hill battle trying to convince others to change them. But you always are welcome to try. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you split up the discussion of related issues you're liable to get inconsistent policies. Maybe this has happened already.

I'm not sure what Collect is getting at, though it looks interesting. Peter jackson (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I substantially agreed with your prior statement, and made it a tad more general. A.e.s. is, to me, a very weak argument which might be used by the "majority" to grossly underweigh legitimate "minority" views (which might in fact be representative of a large number of sources). And specifically noted the areas where I would suggest it is most weak as an argument. Collect (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hear Collect. Blueboar, sometimes we need to centralise, not decentralise, decision-making. If you believe that the editors of WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE should be involved, then invite them. Moving the problem around doesn't get rid of it, though it can definitely push it back under the rug. Maybe this isn't the right place for discussing combined policy issues - my bad. But this is where it's currently happening. If it needs to be moved, it can be moved. (20040302 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

I did in fact post notices on both those pages. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm afraid I still don't understand what Collect is saying. Peter jackson (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The real issue here

The issue here seems to be diverging from the main point: Are editors allowed to draw conclusions and edit based on the fact that a source doesn't mention a topic? Peter has been looking for a way to add this information for awhile now. Originally he tried to do so by arguing that syllogisms would allow such editing to occur. (See ) Currently, he is trying to interpret policies in order to support his view. Here's the key: policies are not written to be interpreted. They state the consensus of the community in a very straight-forward manner. I do not see the select passages having anything to do with argumentum ex silencio. I do see that WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN) more than adaquately cover that if a source doesn't specifically say something, we are not allowed to draw conclusions from it. Angryapathy (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A quibble... There is one occasion when we can draw a conclusion from the fact that sources do not say something. I am thinking specifically of situations where no reliable sources bother to discuss an idea, because it is completely dismissed by the relevant accademic community. We can reach the conclusion that the idea is rejected as being fringe or pseudoscience (and label it as such) even though none of the sources specifically use the word "fringe" or "pseudoscience". Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

An omission may be WP:N, however I do not feel we can safely interpolate from an omission without violating WP:OR. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the only conclusion we can draw from the apparent non-coverage of a topic is that it doesn't appear to be notable. Anything else would be WP:OR. Crum375 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with Blueboar here. We should not depend upon the absence of something as a demonstration of it's opposition. In general, where an idea is completely dismissed there are existing policies: Firstly, if the view is held by a significant minority (eg creationism) there will be plenty of RS that have responded to it. When the idea is held by a tiny minority, the view is already not relevant to WP. Therefore we do not need to depend upon the absence of an idea.

Moreover, one can easily construct an exactly diametric opposite argument to Blueboar's: - in some cases no reliable sources bother to discuss an idea, because it is completely accepted by the relevant academic community. Therefore, we cannot come to any conclusion based upon an absence. Instead, we should look to sources elsewhere. I guess I maybe missing something here, but to me it is quite apparent that if a RS has said nothing about it, all we can surmise from that is that the RS has said nothing about it. (20040302 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

2004, it's certainly possible to construct such examples. But equally it's possible to construct examples going the other way. A textbook should tell you all the basic facts about its subject. If something isn't mentioned the author(s) can't think it's a basic fact about the subject. Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I only have to find a single example of where a basic fact is considered universal by the author and the intended audience to prove you wrong here. Take "An introduction to the Sun and Stars (ISBN 9780521546225) - (disclosure: I'm doing an astronomy course) - The text does not state that the Sun can be observed by looking in a clear sky during daylight hours. I doubt that we can conclude that the authors don't think it's a basic fact about the subject. (20040302 (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

Interesting point. However, I did say in the earlier discussion that each case has to be looked at on its merits, to see what common sense suggests. In the case of a textbook such as the one you're talking of, It's a basic fact about the subject well known even among people who haven't studied the subject. So let me modify what I said before. If a textbook on a subject fails to mention a basic fact about the subject that readers couldn't be expected to know already, either from general knowledge or from previous studies presupposed by the textbook in its context, then it can be assumed the author(s) don't believe it to be a basic fact about the subject (if they mistakenly thought everyone knew it already they'd be incompetent textbook writer(s)). Peter jackson (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AA, you misunderstand what I was suggesting in the link you quote. All I was suggesting there, and all I've been suggesting all along in these discussions, is that a. e s. can be applied for purposes of WP:DUE. I don't know how you understand the term a. e s., as your understanding seems to differ from mine. In my understanding of the term, I don't see how that could be worked without it. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking back on that link, I don't think it's anything to do with a. e s. Peter jackson (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to 2004. You mention creationism, which is an interesting example. The fact is that it's not a significant minority view among scientists. It's a fringe view. But it's certainly a significant view among the wider population. I'm not clear what policy is about things like that. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And my point is made - scientists (see eg Dawkins) explicitly address it. We don't need to depend upon absences to come to conclusions. (20040302 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC))

That's too vague. Let me return to the main point. It's impossible to operate RS & DUE without OR of some sort. The question is, then, just what sorts of OR can be used in just what ways for just what purposes? Peter jackson (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Procedural aside. We may be getting something like the well-known cocktail party phenomenon: people talk louder in order to be heard over the noise of everyone else. Feedback. Here, the longer the discussion gets, the less people are inclined to read it all. They therefore keep asking questions that have already been answered, & those questions & the answers to them take up even more space. Peter jackson (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, it is ok to "do OR" outside of articles... we are allowed to raise and discuss OR points on the talk page, and to make decisions as to whether something should be discussed (and if so how) based upon our own research. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that OR in meta-editorial activity is necessary. However, I remain very concerned with WP:Policy depending upon AeS as core policy as used in the places you have highlighted. I am also concerned that AeS is still used in the editorial process where and when it has no place there. (20040302 (talk))

Re. the Procedural aside, if you are willing to synopsise maybe we can fold away some of the content? (20040302 (talk))

Some notes towards a possible summary of discussion:

1. We seem to have different ideas of what a. e s. means.
2. None of us has defined it.
3. It doesn't really matter anyway. The question is, what's allowable & what's not. What you call it isn't important.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Using the National Science Foundation as a reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm closing this as National Science Foundation is a reliable source. Editors should keep in mind, reliable sources may not be true and often may be lacking, but en.Misplaced Pages is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Reliably published outlooks on a topic not held by the NSF (religious ones might be among these) could and likely should be cited in articles, but only following WP:UNDUE. Lastly, WP:FRINGE is not policy and does not mean wrongheaded or false but rather, it can mean sundry things about an outlook, all of which have to do with published consensus. This is already handled in the written policies and arbcom has straightforwardly dealt with it, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Rfctag Please weigh in on whether a statement by the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Before proceeding, please read the short RfC which preceeded this one and layed the groundwork for it. (I wouldn't start an RfC if I didn't feel there was some chance of succeeding ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add an example as a reference in the Pseudoscience and related fringe theories section. This section contains wording from the ArbCom ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience.

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:

• Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
• Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.

The ArbCom ruling created four groupings which are found in the section mentioned at the start of this thread:

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I'd like to add the following reference as it is very specifically relevant to number two -- "Generally considered pseudoscience". In fact, I can hardly think of a better or more authoritative example:

• <ref name=NSF_2006>The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are:

• "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling." -- Source: "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006", National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Belief in Pseudoscience". (See Note 29)</ref>

What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To get an idea of how this would look, I'm placing it in its proper place, but leaving out the other groupings:

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.


And way down at the bottom of the page comes the reference:

References

1. The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are:

   • "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling." -- Source: "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006", National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Belief in Pseudoscience". (See Note 29)

That's all that is proposed. There is no change in the existing wording of the NPOV policy anywhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As an aid to understanding the source, I'll reproduce the exact quote, right after introducing it:

In their yearly Science and Engineering Indicators, the National Science Foundation always includes a section entitled "Belief in Pseudoscience". In it they wrote:

"Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001)." Reference 29 lists the "10 survey items": "Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."

Comments

Please remember to clearly label your comment as support, disagree (or a synonym), or comment.

• Geez, deja vu. weren't we just having this discussion elsewhere? oh wait, sorry; is deja vu considered pseudoscience? at any rate, Oppose as unnecessary CREEP. Not only is it uncommon to have outside references on policy pages, the reference itself - taken out of context of its minor and off-hand use in the original primary source - will cause more confusion than clarification, and will undoubtably be used in efforts to change the meaning and import of the ArbCom ruling. There's no need to fix what aint broke, particularly not if the fix is likely to break things on its own. --Ludwigs2 06:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Nothing is getting "fixed", since nothing is broken. It isn't unheard of to use illustrations and examples in policies and guidelines. Since this one is so fundamental, and this particular section has the backing of a whole ArbCom proceeding, it would be a shame not to use the most preeminent source we have to illustrate this point when they are speaking to exactly this point. This is exactly the type of situation the ArbCom wording refers to. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• looks like consensus is leaning towards in favor, so I'll bow to that, even though I think it's flawed. no need to get personal, otherwise. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• There was no personal attack in the hidden section above. Ludwigs2 apparently wishes conceal the substance of Brangifer's complaint. I feel this use of the hide feature is unwarranted and grossly misrepresents the nature of BullRangifer's comments. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse, me, the entire two paragraphs was about me and my actions, not about any relevant issue. if Brangifer would like to revise the section to talk about issues rather than editors, I have no problem with unarchiving it. however, I see no reason to allow a pure smear campaign to be waged on a policy page. --Ludwigs2 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rather than allowing this misuse of the hatting option to sidetrack this RfC, I'll just retitle the description so anyone who wants to read it will know what's really hidden there. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems entirely reasonable. Verbal chat 08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Why are we even having this discussion? That NSF is a reliable source for mainstream scientific thought would appear to me to qualify for the Blindingly Obvious Fact Of The Year prize. Obstructive holdouts should not change policy, though to be fair we have not yet found an effective way to deliver an official "STFU" to people who persist in circular discussion. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know the exact context here, but I may as well point out that the above are pseudoscientific only when they claim to be scientific. That doesn't apply otherwise. Some of them are religious beliefs, for example. This is something that perhaps needs to be made clear in the appropriate context. Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that this matter has no real relevance on the RfC at hand, but is an interesting side discussion. Peter, I understand what you're saying, because we normally define pseudoscience in that manner, and that's not wrong, but the NSF is more thorough in this case. Note that the statement is about beliefs, not claims, although claims are also part of all standard definitions of pseudoscience. The context of the NSF statements about pseudoscience, IOW the whole source page, would seem to indicate that they consider any false belief arrived at through a lack of understanding of the scientific method as a pseudoscientific belief. They are basically extending the simplistic definition we often use ("claims") so that it includes the very basis for pseudoscientific beliefs, which is a failure to understand the scientific method. They are using a more inclusive definition, rather than a superficial one. The whole page examines why people end up believing in pseudoscience. Terminology is important in this connection. While it is proper to label anyone who holds false beliefs, and then engages in scientific research in attempts to promote and prove those beliefs, as a pseudoscientist, it would not be proper to label ordinary, naive believers as such. They are simply people who hold pseudoscientific beliefs. If they have been presented with the evidence against their belief and persist in it, then they become true believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Further to Brangifer's coments I might add that there is a category of ghost-believers who employ sham-scientific methods. Given that these ghost-hunters believe that ghosts have been a subject of legitimate scientific inquiry the NSF's statement provides a clear corrective --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, Ghost Hunters are pseudoscientists, because they use poor scientific practices to justify non-scientific claims. This has nothing to do with the belief in ghosts, however; it has to do with bad science. do you see that distinction? --Ludwigs2 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is an excellent article on the pseudoscientific nature of ghost hunting: "The Shady Science of Ghost Hunting". -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Example are nice. A very good source. NSF lists 10 but we must make it clear that other reliable sources may list more. Agree with Peter however. However all it takes is a small group saying it is scientific for it to become pseudoscience. The major religions say their beliefs are based on faith and only fringe groups claim they are based on science so the term "pseudoscience" would not apply to them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• look at the dispute, not the misrepresentation of the dispute by BullRangifer. He isn't trying to use the NSF as a source, he is trying to twist the sense of the an NSF publication by excessively literal interpretation of casual wording. The point under discussion is the distinction between ghosts and "theories" relating to ghosts. The latter are pseudoscientific. The NSF has shortened this somewhat by listing "ghosts", understanding the "theories of" because the context was clear. BullRangifer is now trying to twist this into "ghosts are pseudoscience", which is patent nonsense, because a ghost isn't a theory to begin with and thus doesn't fit any of the four categories above. You might as well propose that "unicorns are pseudoscience", "hobbits are pseudoscience", "sadness is pseudoscience", or, for that matter, "pineapples are pseudosciecne". The question of "pseudoscience" arises with any "theory" or "theoretical formulation", as is made explicit by the Arbcom quote given by BullRangifer himself. If an entity isn't a "theoretical formulation" to begin with, there can be no discussion on its possible nature of "pseudoscience". What is happening here is that some people are trying to have this discussion regardless. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• What makes you think that the cited NSF paper contains 'casual' wording? The NSF do not need to be specific when distinguishing "ghosts" in general to "theories about ghosts" since it is the unambiguous opinion of the NSF that all notions pertaining to ghosts are scientifically vacuous. Your argument that NSF have made a category error mis-classifiying ghosts as pseudoscience and not mythical-beings is irrelevant since the citation is there to show what what the NSF have stated about ghosts and not what you think they should have said or may have meant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• No official statement of an organization such as the NSF is going to have "casual wording" in it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Dbachmann, this isn't about "ghosts", but about a clear statement by the NSF, taken in context, in which they state that "belief" in ten subjects can accurately be termed "pseudoscientific beliefs". Ghosts, per se, aren't pseudoscience (they don't exist!), but belief in them is. Considering your background in the events leading up to the previous RfC, I would also label your struggle against the NSF's view on this matter as a display of pseudoscientific stonewalling. You and Ludwigs2 were allies in that unfortunate affair, and now you are both bringing your disruption here. Your arguments are vacuous. You're welcome to disagree, but do it in a sober manner. Disagreeing with the NSF only places you in a bad light, and as an admin, makes one question your qualifications. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• this is idiotic, and a blatant attempt to impose idiocy by wikilawyering. Of course the NSF is a relevant source, support to that. That is, for any topic viewed within a context of the USA, as the "National" means "US national". There is no reason whatsoever to cite a United States government agency, a Ukrainian government agency, or any other government agency in a topic that does not have a scope specific to any given country. For general topics, we cite good old academia, not government agencies. The NSF is good for any section dedicated to "in the US". An explanation of what a "pseudoscientific belief" may be is not in any of the four points listed above, so this "proposal" really bears no relation whatsoever to the case at hand. Your sources can be ever so reliable, there is no remedy against confused or irrational editors abusing these sources. oppose to the WP:CREEP designed to give leverage to Brangifer in a specific unreasonable edit war of his. --dab (𒁳) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the NSF being identified as a USA organization speaking for the American scientific community. I'm sure some simple formulation using 2-5 words could do it. Problem solved. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The NSF are a notable and reliable source wrt to orthodox scientific opinion. Arguments that they are not qualified to speak out on matters which have a spiritual or explicitly non-scientific component are simply wrong. This organization has long been involved with science advocacy and the conflict between scientific and non-scientific thought. Finally, it's obvious that BullRangifier's citation of NSF is an accurate representation of their opinion on the matter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per JzG. NSF is notable, reliable, authoritative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Statements by the NSF are reliable and notable, and the one cited supports the statement in this RfC; in addition, the cited statement has been updated multiple times (2000 2002 2004 2006), underscoring that this is not an accidental or casual assessment. -- Scray (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report being cited is mandated by US statute and delivered to the president and Congress bi-annually, so I must disagree with those who feel it's a casually-worded document. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems to me they are RS (or as RS as a sciencentific body can be). Moreover they clearly say that belief in ghosts is Pseudoscience. If the belief in something is Pseudoscience then its existance is Pseudoscience.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support; this "short list" of 10 is, indeed, indisputably considered as pseudoscience by the vast majority of the scientific community and the NSA NSF is a reliable source to speak for "the general scientific community" which they are held to represent at large. — Coren  15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the NSA tried to keep mum in public. ;-) -- Scray (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. No reference to the NSA has been made. The NSA is not involved. — Coren  17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The NSF is about as reliable as it gets though I do have issues with the conclusion as it is presented in some of the reports is a little misleading. Believing that haunted houses exist as hallucinations, over active imaginations, misinterpretation of natural events, and yes even out right trickery is way different from believing that they due to the results of spirits or demons.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - be careful! That wording (did it originate with NSF or with BRangifer?) is sloppy. It should be very clear that to be pseudoscience, the theory has to purport in some way to be science, claim science supports its existence, attempt to use scientific methods to explain the phenomena etc. ESP/telepathy, modern mediumship/channeling and astrology clearly fall into this category, clairvoyance less so, because it also falls into the category of 'folk belief' which is non scientific. The big two failures are reincarnation and 'witches' (did the NSF really say witches?). Reincarnation is in most cases a religious belief. Most of the millions of the world's population who believe in reincarnation do so on a metaphysical, not a pseudoscientific basis, and it should only be described as pseudoscience in those cases where a scientific apparatus is being used to explore, capture or explain the process. Witches and witchcraft are even worse as an example. Both witches and witchcraft actually exist (bear with me here), forming both an expression of a modern or traditional religious practice, and a metaphysical or superstitious belief in the efficacy of magic. I imagine that what NSF meant is that a belief in the efficacy of magic is pseudoscience, but - as with reincarnation - this is only true of a subset of believers. For most believers, including 'folk believers', science is seen as opposed to magic, and magic exists 'out there', not 'in here' and subject to scientific inspection. This doesn't make it any more likely that I can turn Brangifer into a toad, but it does make my belief that perhaps someone could a metaphysical belief, and not a pseudoscientific one.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Forget about definitions, because that is not the subject of this RfC. Focus on grouping two above and note how the statement and source perfectly addresses the subject of the ArbCom's wording there. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as the NSF clearly is reliable as a scientific source. (The same would be true for any of the United States National Academies or major research institutes, such as the NIH). (Although Elen makes a valid point about not confusing metaphysics and pseudoscience). -- Bfigura 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Well, duh. Reliable source, clear reference. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Firstly the list of 10 pseudo-scientific topic is not an "official" NSF list; it is a list created for a Gallup Survey, which the NSF report is simply citing! Secondly, this is a matter suitable to be discussed and weighed on individual articles, and not imposed by policy, which is supposed to help determine how we treat sources, POVs etc, not decree on the subject matter itself. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Are you seriously suggesting that this quote mis-represents document's meaning? Or are you suggesting that the NSF included this list in their document without actually intending to suggest that the NSF took any position at all on these topics? The mind boggles! --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shall we look at the document itself to answer that question? pseudoscience is mentioned in two sections of one chapter dealing with 'Public Attitudes and Understanding' towards science and technology. it is clear from context that the authors mean belief in pseudoscientific claims made in public not pseudoscientific beliefs, particularly since the latter phrase has no real meaning or sense. I suggest anyone interested please read the linked source starting here - the misrepresentation of the NSF position being promoted here should be evident fairly quickly. --Ludwigs2 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course the statement "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs." misattributes views to NSF. The document says nothing about "scientific consensus", and NSF has not identified the 10 beliefs (Gallup has). FWIW, I think it is true that attempts to treat the 10 listed phenomenon as material facts are pseudoscientific (and it shouldn't be difficult to document the scientific consensus on this) - but it is academically dishonest to use just about any citation for this, and put words in NSF's mouth simply because it suits our purpose. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but the use of the phrase "pseudoscientific beliefs" does not appear to be an ill-considered or novel invention of the NSF. Under the heading "Belief in Pseudoscience", the NSF writes that "a recent study of 20 years of survey data collected by NSF concluded that "many Americans accept pseudoscientific beliefs"". The 'recent study' cited is "Losh SC, Tavani CM, Njoroge R, Wilke R, Mcauley M. 2003. What does education really do? Skeptical Inquirer 27(5):30-35" reprinted here, where the phrase "pseudoscientific belief" is used several times. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

LuckyLoouie, I don't disagree with anything you say. Could we be talking past each other here ?

Let me try to clarify my objection with an analogy: The NSF document says

Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (Shermer 1997, p. 33).

My point is that it would be wrong to represent this as "NSF defines pseudoscience as 'claims presented .....plausibility'" even though the document cites the definition (approvingly). Similarly it is wrong to attribute the definitions used in a Gallup survey that NSF cites to NSF itself. Does that make it clearer ? Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Shermer cites ghosts as claims that fall under the heading of pseudoscience in his book, WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, which only strengthens the notion that the NSF's position isn't misrepresented by the wording of BullRangifer's proposal. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the NSF "makes the Gallup report their own" by (1) quoting them favorably and (2) substituting Gallup's "paranormal" with "pseudoscience", thus equating the two. That's very interesting. We have the supreme scientific body in the USA essentially saying that paranormal = pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, just for clarity: This dispute originated on Talk:Ghost over the use of this cite to claim that the NSF is opposed to all pseudoscientific beliefs. This is (IMO) clearly not true in the broad sense in which it was being used. The NSF has demonstrated opposition to pseudoscientific claims - i.e. claims that ideas have valid scientific support when they do not - but there is no sourced evidence that the NSF extends this to beliefs more generally, except for this one minor passage. In fact, the NSF and the scientific community have always been circumspect about beliefs - even in the creationism debate they were uniformly careful to criticize creationists for practicing bad science and to refrain from criticizing Christian beliefs. I argued that this was a violation of synthesis - using primary sources to generate a new claim that is not itself supportable - that discussion is still not resolved; this is (again, IMO) an effort to bootstrap past it. I'd rather not see this quote included here (because I don't think it's appropriate), but even if it is it has little bearing on the substantive debate over at ghost. it's just going to create undreamed of avenues for wikilawyering. --Ludwigs2 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Remember, that particular argument failed because you failed to demonstrate that the cited document was indeed a primary source. As has been noted here, it was actually a summary of other studies commissioned by NSF or it's members, and hence could not possibly be considered a primary source. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Failed how? no one ever disputed the point. in point of fact, the document is social scientific research commissioned by the NSF to establish current trends in science and technology - it's practically the definition of primary research. or do you have some reason to disagree with that? --Ludwigs2 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• The cited paper on pseudoscience is obviously secondary source since it overwhelmingly relies on information which has been published elsewhere. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• you're talking about Shermer? Shermer is quoted as saying that pseudoscience isclaims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" whereas science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation". where does this talk about people's beliefs, except that he happened to use the word 'belief' in the article title? --Ludwigs2 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's now apparent that the list didn't originate with the NSF. It originated with Gallup, which explains the sloppy wording and the 'witches'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually Gallup are just the operators of the survey, from what I can tell they were comissioned by whose research is being cited by the NSF. Incidentally, the origin of the list of pseudoscientific is immaterial since the cited document is not a primary source, but intended as a summary of pseudoscience in America. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the link to the exact Gallup News Service report about the 2001 Gallup Poll. Gallup has been conducting these polls periodically since 1990 and here is the report on the 2005 survey. And none of these surveys were commissioned by Frank Newport and Maura Strausberg, who both are Gallup pollsters themselves. By the way, the quality of these polls in assessing attitudes and beliefs in US is not in doubt; the problem is with misattributing their questionnaire to NSF and scientific consensus. I do agree with you that the NSF report is a secondary source and a reliable one at that - it just needs to be cited accurately. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• It would definitely be best to mention the Gallup Poll's role in this. That doesn't detract from the statement in any manner. The NSF is using the Gallup Poll as one of its many primary sources and arriving at its own statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@Salimfadhley: the set of wording that you are trying to use originates with Gallup. I'm sure NSF would not be nearly so sloppy. It is useless as a set of examples - "I believe in witches" is not pseudoscience. I know any number of witches, and they practice what they call witchcraft. I can take you to meet them, they might even show you what they do. 'Witches' is such a vastly different concept from 'the efficacy of magic' (a belief in which may in some instances fall into the definition of pseudoscience - beliefs such as the doctrine of signatures, kabbalic correspondences or the effects of the phases of the moon do have a science-y look to them) that I entirely fail to see how it could be even remotely useful as an example. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This RfC is an attempt to obfuscate and nullify the consensus reached here. The view of the Misplaced Pages community is that a ghost or a belief in ghosts is not pseudoscience. Rather, a ghost or a belief in ghosts is non-science, which is better known as nonsense. The statement attributed to the National Science Foundation confuses the topics of pseudoscience and non-science in the same way that some people confuse astronomy and astrology. Characterizing Ghost as pseudoscience is inappropriate. Attempting to circumvent the consensus is inappropriate. PYRRHON  talk   17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• is most definitely pseudoscience! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question - :::* We've established beyond doubt that the origin of the list of pseudoscientific topics was Gallup and not NSF. The question remains, what (if any) is the NSF's position of the topics in the list. Is it safe to assume that this list was cited because NSF accept that these are indeed scientifically vacuous topics, or did they have some other reason? My previously stated position is that the NSF are using this list as an illustration of some of the topics which they consider to be pseudoscientific. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that NSF would take an institutional position on what exact topics fall under pseudoscience (in the US, the National Academy of Science is much more likely to produce such consensus statements). NSF's citation does help establish credibility for the Gallup survey (since its cited approvingly by a reliable source) and we are free to cite the Gallup survey itself as an indicator of public belief in the US. But we shouldn't read it as an NSF position. For example the 2002 version of the same NSF report says (pg 7-37),

According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Uri Gellar, alternative medicine, channeling, Carlos hoax, psychic hotlines and detectives, near death experiences, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), the Bermuda Triangle, homeopathy, faith healing, and reincarnation (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal <http://www.csicop.org>).

But again it would be wrong to attribute these views to NSF itself... especially given that its sister agency for health research, funds homeopathic research. The best example of NSF listing topics covered under pseudoscience in its own voice is the relatively brief discussion in the 2010 report where it says,

The pseudoscience section focuses on astrology because of the availability of long-term national trend indicators on this subject. Other examples of pseudoscience include the belief in lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), or magnetic therapy.

As one can see the NSF reports handle the issue differently from year to year, and the proper way to cite them would be along the lines of, "The 2010 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report listed belief in lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), or magnetic therapy as pseudosciences" or "The 2006 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report cited a Gallup survey which found ...". This content and discussion thus belongs on the concerned article(s) talk pages, and not as part of NPOV policy. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Everybody should be able to agree to this compromise. Can we put it to a vote? Furthermore, I agree that this discussion is no longer relevant to NPOV. The only disputed issue of any merit was the one which you seem to have addressed quite conclusively. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. But I'm looking at the Gallup Survey here and can't find the word pseudoscience in it. Looks like NSF decided to use that word to characterize the subjects in the poll. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow - LuckyLouie, you are absolutely correct! Gallup simply refer to the topics as "paranormal". They do not comment on scientific content. The pseudoscience label is clearly NSF's addition to the list. Therefore BullRangifer's position is vindicated. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No one was actually ever concerned about the NSF position on pseudoscience itself - the question was over whether the term could be reasonably extended to mere 'beliefs' or whether it should be restricted to claims purporting to be scientific. I saw (and still see) no evidence that the NSF means the former. however, I could reasonably accept something along Abecedare's line, since it's much more sensitive to what the NSF is actually doing than the rather ham-handed treatment the citation has been getting to date. --Ludwigs2 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Interestingly, the author also presents evidence that the majority of believers in astrology and fortune telling do not consider it scientific, thereby negating the contention that it is in fact pseudoscience according to his own definition of pseudoscience. More sloppy writing - I make no suggestion as to how one squares that circle. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Refer to para 2 of the section "Belief in Pseudoscience", I think the document makes it explicitly clear that they are indeed referring to "pseudoscientific beliefs". NSF clearly do believe that a belief can be pseudo-scientific even if Ludwigs2 does not. Quote:"Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items" --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote, right after my introductory wording (attribution):

In their yearly Science and Engineering Indicators, the National Science Foundation always includes a section entitled "Belief in Pseudoscience". In it they wrote:

"Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001)." Reference 29 lists the "10 survey items": "Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body."

I hope that makes it clear what they really wrote, which is exactly what Salimfadhley states. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support although the wording needs tweaking to avoid a claim that because some other item is not in the NSF list that therefore the item is not pseudoscience. Naturally there will be very few reliable sources that bother to make a declaration similar to the cited NSF statement, so the reference is useful. Someone declaring "I believe in ghosts" may be indulging in nonsense and not pseudoscience, but that distinction, while properly explained at Pseudoscience, is not important in WP:NPOV (Ghosts should be talking about serious beliefs, not whimsical statements made during lunch, and serious beliefs in ghosts are pseudoscience). I do not support wording such as that proposed a few lines above: "The 2010 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators report listed belief in..." because the NSF is clearly just picking some beliefs in one year and others in another year – there should be no suggestion that if ghosts are not mentioned in a particular year that therefore belief in ghosts ceased to be a pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose pseudoscience is an attempt to portray a theory or belief as a science, while not following the establised scientific method. Beliefs in a deity, a witch, a devil, a holy spirit, an angel, a tooth fairy, or a ghost, are all non-scientific, but only become pseudoscience when they are claimed to be science. We don't characterize religion as pseudoscience on WP, because generally religious adherents do not portray it as a science. Neutrality requires us to treat all other non-scientific beliefs the same, unless scientific claims are made. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is not about how "we" define pseudoscience, but about what a major scientific body (NSF) considers to be pseudoscience. Now do three things: (1) Note the original proposition above; (2) forget about definitions, because that is not the subject of this RfC; (3) focus ONLY on grouping number TWO. That is the subject to which the proposed statement and source (in some slightly tweaked form) is to be attached as a reference, not as part of the text. The text of grouping two will remain unchanged.

  The statement and source are about as perfectly suited for that statement, and the intentions of the ArbCom when they formulated that statement, as anything can be. It's simply perfect for this purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is a core foundation policy. If we call belief in ghosts "pseudoscience", we must also include beliefs in deities, holy ghosts, holy spirits, heaven, hell, and religion in general. We may not pick out certain non-scientific beliefs and call them pseudoscience, while implying others are not, as this would violate NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is about how we are to describe pseudoscience. The ArbCom made clear how we are to do this. This doesn't alter that in any manner. You are focusing on definitions, but that's another subject. Religions don't claim their beliefs are scientific, although certain aspects may be claimed to be pseudoscientific because those religions make scientific claims about them, for example Dianetics. In this RfC it's best to stay away from this subject as it only sidetracks the RfC. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• If we use the word "pseudoscience", we need to define it. The definition of pseudoscience is an attempt to portray a belief as a science, while not following the scientific method. We can call a belief in ghosts a pseudoscience only if there is an attempt to portray it as a science. Otherwise, if we don't make this distinction very clear, religion would also become pseudoscience. Crum375 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I know what you're saying and agree in part, but that's not the subject here. Definitions are taken care of elsewhere. Imposing them here would be to impose OR on the NSF source. The normal definition (claims of "scientificness") do apply, but the NSF (when one looks at the whole page at the source) seems to be including any belief arrived at through a lack of critical thinking or understanding of the scientific method in their understanding of what is "a pseudoscientific belief". Note that only those who make overt claims of scientific support for their beliefs can be termed "pseudoscientists", while any believer in such ideas can be called a believer in a pseudoscientific idea. But again, we are getting off-track here. Focus on grouping two and how this statement and source fit like pieces of a puzzle. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is just sowing confusion. Any article or policy have to start with a well defined premise, supported by reliable sources as applicable. In this case, if we mention the word "pseudoscience", it must be well-defined. It generally does not apply to ghosts, holy ghosts, or religion. To specify "ghosts" as an example of pseudoscience would be wrong, is not supported by a careful reading of the NSF source, and would violate WP:NPOV — a core foundation policy — if it is implied that religious beliefs are somehow different than a belief in ghosts or witches. Crum375 (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not as bad as you think. This is about a ref, not an article or statement in an article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• We include refs to support statements we make in the text. If the text says or implies that a belief in ghosts is "pseudoscience", it must also include all religious beliefs along with it, or it would violate NPOV. The NSF source, on careful reading, does not support such a distinction between religion and ghosts. Crum375 (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• At Misplaced Pages we don't force our personal ideas of how things should be onto sources, text, or references. We are to use text that is backed up by references, without forcing the text to say something that is not in the text, and we can't make it say something which isn't in the text, just because our worldview includes lots more than the reference mentions. "Follow the sources" isn't just a catchphrase, it's a safeguard against OR. This little diversion seems to have run its course and has long since diverged from the topic of this RfC. End of off-topic discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bangifer, please focus on the message, not the messenger. Personally attacking someone you disagree with, is not at all helpful. Now to the point: on WP we use our own words to summarize the best available sources, presenting them in a balanced fashion, per WP:NPOV. If we find that all sources agree that a belief in ghosts is considered "pseudoscience", while a belief in deities, holy ghosts, and religion is not, then we should say so. But at the moment, the most reliable sources generally agree that pseudoscience is an attempt to portray non-scientific beliefs as science. It is not just any non-scientific belief. If we were to say or imply that a belief in ghosts or witches is considered pseudoscience, while a belief in holy ghosts, holy spirits, or religion in general is not, we'd be violating NPOV, and not following what the best sources say. This is not WP:OR, it's WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and the latter is a core foundation policy which may not be violated. Crum375 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE THAT I HAVE DUPLICATED THE ORIGINAL NSF QUOTE ABOVE. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The NSF reference is flawed because the Gallup poll question asks whether the participant believes that witches exist when the intent of the question is probably asking whether the participant thinks witchcraft is effective or whether they can fly on brooms or boil babies or whatever. Like Elen of the Roads, I can take the NSF and Gallup principals to have tea with a number of self-proclaimed witches. We as Wikipedians can take or leave references—this one cries out to be left behind as poorly formed. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• That last argument does not hold; for example, we could also invite a few self-proclaimed Santa Clauses. That does not mean that "belief in Santa Claus" (as most readers would understand that phrase) is well-justified. That some people describe themselves as witches (or reincarnated) does not provide strong evidence for "belief in witches" (or "belief in reincarnation"), as most people would understand such phrases. -- Scray (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - It's a reliable source (if this isn't consensus in the U.S. then nothing is), and it is exactly what AbCom is talking about. It doesn't matter that there's a Gallup poll referenced, the point is the NSF considers the list illustrative. Even if that mattered, Gallup is reliable too. Finally, this all a bit too much trouble for what is in the end probably a meaningless change. But now that we're here, I have no problem with the edit. Shadowjams (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The NSF is a reliable secondary source. It has chosen to cite a primary source (the Gallup poll) as a relevant example for the topic. We use secondary sources because us choosing the primary sources would be original research. The NSF report is probably the best source available about what the scientific consensus considers to be pseudoscience, so I don't see the problem in using it as an example. In particular, it's a good example for point 2 ("Generally considered pseudoscience"). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose if the intent is to put the weight of the NSF behind a statement which was not made in a peer-reviewed journal or the like, as appears to be the case. The NSF is reliable on matters of statements made in such journals, but is not reasonably given equivalent weight for other statements, any more than any other organization is. I am, as a result of the colloquy above, now of the opinion that "pseudoscience" is not a well-contrued term, and likely should be excised from WP instead. Collect (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly! Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Truly bizarre! Collect appers to be arguing that the NSF is no more authoritative on matters of science than any other organization. If the NSF cannot be truted to speak with reliable authority on matters of science then who? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The answer is obvious....Binky and Collect! They'd even be able to do it without using the word "pseudoscience", since it's apparently a defective term that doesn't exist in the real world, isn't used by any scientists, skeptics, or national scientific bodies, isn't used in university courses, isn't used by a single V & RS, and therefore Misplaced Pages shouldn't use it. I think I can hear the sound of an owl echoing among the trees. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• no, what Collect is pointing out is that the NSF statement here is a primary source document that hasn't gone through peer review itself. I am simply amazed by your capacity to misunderstand plain english. it's a talent - have you applied to the GOP? --Ludwigs2 21:13, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for realizing what I wrote. Seems some find it more instructive to simply make fun of other editors <g> rather than read what they wrote. Material which has been peer-reviewed is to be distinguished from "Gallup polls." Collect (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course there's a difference. That isn't questioned. The question is whether it's relevant in this instance (this RfC). You seem to have trouble staying on-track. This RfC isn't about scientific research, which does involve peer-review. This RfC is about whether the National Science Foundation is qualified to make statements that represent the scientific consensus in the USA on scientific subjects, which obviously would include their opinions on what are pseudoscience (IOW non-science = nonsense). They seem unequivocal in their view, especially since they chose (not an accident) to cite a Gallup Poll which never used the word pseudoscience, but instead consistently used the word paranormal, and then, of their own volition (also not an accident) labelled those beliefs "pseudoscientific beliefs". They equate the paranormal with pseudoscience, a very interesting insight into the scientific consensus on those subjects.

  This RfC isn't about scientific research, or a WP:MEDRS matter, or a matter of definitions, so peer-review isn't an issue here. Statements of this kind are never peer-reviewed. That's like demanding that a website be peer-reviewed before we can accept it as a V & RS. (That may sound absurd, but that's actually been attempted here at Misplaced Pages!) While those are all very legitimate subjects which are related to many questions about science and pseudoscience, for the purposes of this RfC those are all off-topic diversions that only sidetrack this RfC from its purpose, and continuing to dwell on them is disruptive. This is about sourcing, and more specifically if the NSF statement, like a uniquely shaped puzzle piece, should be used as a ref in a specific spot, which happens to be another puzzle piece that very uniquely exactly fits the NSF statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• We're not talking about rocket science or a MEDRS situation here. Even a child should know that these things are obvious pseudoscience and peer review isn't necessary. You have been told again and again that it's not a primary source. They base their conclusions on numerous other sources and on another very important thing, they happen to know what science is all about and possess critical thinking skills, in contrast to present company. "I am simply amazed by your capacity to misunderstand plain english. it's a talent" -- Brangifer (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that you don't understand what a primary source is, BR, doesn't really give a lot of credit to your argument. this is a document written to argue for a conclusion about science education. primary sources can and do draw on other materials to make their points; that doesn't affect their nature as primary sources. --Ludwigs2 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Whether or not it's a primary source isn't really the primary issue here, it's your continued insistance that this is an improper use of a primary source. Upon which policy are you basing this suppostion, which nobody in the RfC at Talk:Ghost or here is seeing? Somehow you are right, and practically everyone else is wrong? I think not. So far, your interpretation would seem to prevent us from using any source. Please point us to this policy and show how we are violating it. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, have you aleeady forgotten that you redirected the Ghost RfC over here? my, what a selective memory you have... --Ludwigs2 01:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• What does this have to do with this RfC or "point us to this policy and show how we are violating it"? "Redirected"? I'm not sure what you mean. That was a different RfC. This one deals with some of the same stuff, but for a very different purpose. Once again I'm requesting, please point us to this policy and show how we are violating it. No more evasion and stonewalling. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I misunderstood what you said above. as far as pointing you to the policy that you're violating - I've done that at least six times. you apparently can't see it (which is a little odd), but I'll do it again here, in as simple terms as I can. first the facts:

1. The document in question is a primary source for the NSF's views on "some major U.S. and international science and technology (S&T) developments"
2. The document itself is not peer reviewed, and only some of the material it references is peer reviewed
3. The document is not primarily about pseudoscience, and the only section that deals with pseudoscience issues is primarily about the public's (rather poor) understanding of science
4. the citation you are using explicitly defines pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (from Shermer)

However, you are somehow concluding that these cites can be used to demonstrate that the NSF is willing to label mere beliefs (such as a belief in ghosts) as pseudoscientific. That conclusion can not be drawn from the document you've cited, except by carefully cherry-picking quotes and presenting them out of their proper context on the document. That is a textbook example of wp:synthesis (combin material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources), except that in this case you are using multiple citations cherry-picked from a single source.

Now, let's see how long it is before I'm asked to repeat this again - lol. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating it. I wasn't sure if you were referring to some other policies as well. You have mentioned SYNTH once in this RfC, and now you have explained more fully your understanding of how you believe the formulation of the statement and the use of the source violate SYNTH. Thanks. I obviously disagree, as do nearly all other participants here, because you are misusing SYNTH.

You have not demonstrated that I have engaged in a SYNTH violation. You are essentially accusing the NSF of engaging in SYNTH and faulting them for it. It is the NSF which has done what you describe. You don't agree with them, and therefore you've been blocking this. You claim that I am guilty of "(combin material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources), except that in this case you are using multiple citations cherry-picked from a single source." It is the NSF that has made that synthesis. I have used ONE source, which is the NSF quote. SYNTH refers to Misplaced Pages editors, not to external sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a technical point, the NSF cannot engage in synth (not unless they collectively start editing wikipedia). wp:SYN is a policy about how editors can and cannot use material found in published sources. what you meant to say (I think) is that you (and others) are not engaged in SYN because you are faithfully representing what the NSF is saying in this document. That seems to be the core of our disagreement, at any rate.

However, I am having a hard time understanding how you can make that claim, based on what the document actually says. I think the core of my objection revolves around this: If you wanted to use this cite to say that the NSF states that lay-people have a poor understanding of science (and thus that many people believe in things like ghosts and God and warp drives and creationism, which have no scientific standing) then I would almost certainly agree with you - that seems to me precisely what the cite is saying. That statement allows for both pseudoscience and non-science, and more accurately captures the NSF's practices, where they may condemn belief in creationism (because it's pseudoscience) but not condemn belief in God (because that's not-science). But you seem to turn the cite around to say that the NSF is actually condemning beliefs in general, whether or not they have any relation to science or scientific practice. On a page like Ghost, that causes problems, because many of the beliefs about ghosts are prescientific or non-scientific, and only a small part of the material is actually what can properly be called pseudoscience. I somehow don't think that the NSF is going to start asking that Hamlet be rewritten to use hallucinations instead of ghosts. The NSF would certainly (and rightly) poo-poo all of the various people who have tried to claim some scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts, but by all indications that's where they'd stop (well, except they'd encourage people to consider the issue scientifically and rationally. do you see the distinction I'm making here? --Ludwigs2 05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply to your "technical point". Of course they can't violate Misplaced Pages's SYNTH policy unless they do it here. That goes without saying, so we certainly agree on that! I meant that they, and any other author, usually engages in a synthesis of sources, and that's perfectly proper writing. I'm also saying that by quoting one quote from them I'm not engaging in synthesis, and my summary of that quote is also an accurate summary. You seem to be having more problems with whether the quote is being taken out of context. All I can say to that is they said what they said, and they did it very deliberately in a manner that reveals they did it consciously. They even substituted the word "paranormal" with "pseudoscience", thus placing the original Gallup Poll list into a new context, but not really, since they equate the paranormal with pseudoscience.

They also seem to be delving deeper into the essence of what leads to the holding of pseudoscientific beliefs. The whole article deals with why a poor understanding of the scientific method and a lack of critical thinking leads the public to accept such beliefs as truth. Thus they go further than a stiff and rigid definition that depends only on claims of "scientificness" and excludes any other possibilities. To them it includes such claims, and the reasons such claims can be made. Basically any falsifiable claim is a potentially pseudoscientific claim, even if the one who makes the claim is only repeating something they've heard. They may not be "the" pseudoscientist (whom they are quoting), but they are making a pseudoscientific claim and holding pseudoscientific beliefs. All parties involved in that process are in some way or other tainted with their association with pseudoscience, whether they are actual pseudoscientists or "mere" believers. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the 'They said what they said' argument just doesn't wash - it a wiki-lawyer claim. You can't take a statement out of context, re-interpret it in a preferred way, and then force that reinterpretation back on to the source.

Let me respond to your private OR (which isn't really private - a number of other editors have been making this argument explicitly for years OR) with some private OR of my own In some ways I sympathize with your position: People in general should have a better grasp of the fundamental of scientific reasoning and pragmatic logic. People reason badly, that's a given. but trying to force all bad reasoning into the category of bad science is an error (scientific reasoning is not the only - or even consistently the best - form of analytic reasoning). Further, scientists don't worry about potentially pseudoscientific claims; they worry about claims that are actually pseudoscientific, because those are the only claims they can actually dispute on methodological or evidentiary grounds. Scientists may not like beliefs that demonstrate a lack of reasoning, but scientists are not going to have anything to say about such beliefs except where they start trying to conflict with scientific research. Your 'private OR' is a skeptic's position - everything must have proof, or must be rejected. By contrast, scientists reject what evidence tells them to reject, and leave things that evidence doesn't speak to as matters of conjecture or opinion. it's a much more conservative approach to the issue. --Ludwigs2 19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the statement is taken out of context, and it's clear enough to stand on its own. We'll just have to disagree on that one and let others make their decision. As to the other comments, now we've both had our say, so let's end this little excursion. It was interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, and yes it was interesting. thanks for taking the time to talk out the details. --Ludwigs2 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per LuckyLouie. Durova 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The lengths to which the pro-supernatural biased editors have gone in an effort to censor the mainstream scientific view is absurd, and we see it on Talk:Ghost quite well. This change will make it more clear what the ruling was all about and hamper more such attempts to slant articles in the future. DreamGuy (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• well, only a congenital idiot would call me a 'pro-supernatural biased editor'. frankly, I'll confess on my side that I'm amazed by the number of supposed 'science' editors who lack basic reasoning skills. It seems that every time someone tries to start a discussion on a fringe topic, the people who are supposedly defending the scientific perspective break out in hissy-fits: they scream, call people names, start edit wars, make rude comments, whine and bitch and moan about how abused they are - it's a disgusting display of hysteria and immaturity. Sorry DreamGuy, but if you or your friends were willing to discuss these matters reasonably and intelligently, we wouldn't have these problems. don't blame me for your failings. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do I hear the crashing sounds of a pot throwing stones in their glass house? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• If so, it would be the first thing you've actually heard in the entire discussion, so I tend to think not. --Ludwigs2 01:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Pseudoscience is commonly and widely defined as a belief or methodology that purports to be scientific, but does not follow the scientific method. I don't think there is much dispute here about this point. The problem arises when people try to label beliefs in general as pseudoscience, when the believers don't make any claims that their belief is a science, or that they are following the scientific method. Most people who believe in ghosts, spirits, holy ghosts or spirits, devils or witches, or any kind of deity, don't generally see their beliefs as scientific, yet they still believe. To label what these people believe in, which in many cases amounts to their religion, as "pseudoscience" would require exceptional sourcing, and to make the claim that it represents the mainstream would require multiple high reliability secondary sources directly stating this claim, with no significant dissent. The NSF certainly makes no such claims. Crum375 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• yes, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, and exactly the point all the proponents are avoiding. sad commentary on[REDACTED] that they keep trying to confuse the issue... --Ludwigs2 21:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. If ghosts exist, there must be some means by which their presence can be detected and distinguished from natural phenomena. When people discuss ghosts, they cite anecdotes, read reports, peer at photographs, and study videos. Ghosts are said to possess various attributes and various behaviours, and these are tabulated in the same way that nocturnal animals' behaviour might be tabulated. People wonder whether they are spirits, or the mindless playback of a "stone tape". It seems clear that most people who believe in ghosts, believe that in principle they could be studied by scientific means, and that it is the pigheadedness or incompetence of scientists that prevents progress; also, these beliefs are only vaguely associated with religious doctrines. Believers also follow with interest the pseudo-scientific activities and reports of ghost-hunters. I would say that the classification of belief in ghosts as pseudo-scientific is reasonable. Xanthoxyl 07:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment about how I see this: This RfC can be likened to taking two puzzle pieces that have been found in different places and fitting them together, sort of like one person (myself) finding a girl walking down the street in NYC who has a unique half charm hanging around her neck, and that same person finding a guy in LA who has the totally unique other half hanging around his neck, and they don't know each other exists. I then bring them together and the match is perfect and everyone benefits. That's essentially what's happening here. The Psi ArbCom decision resulted in several decisions, including the formulation of four groupings that describe how we are to describe pseudoscience in an NPOV manner at Misplaced Pages. The second grouping has a unique wording which uses astrology as an example, but otherwise has no references. While references and examples aren't required in policies and guidelines, they do occur because they are considered helpful. The NSF reference happens to be the type of thing the Arbitration Committee would have eagerly grabbed and used to document an exact example of what they were describing if they had had it at hand during the proceedings. If this RfC succeeds (as it appears to be), there will be absolutely no change of wording in the NPOV policy, at least I don't currently see any need for it. Only the reference will be added to grouping two. That's all. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• The two charms do not fit as well as you picture. If the NSF were to carefully crafted a position statement on pseudoscience, they would not have shoved it into a footnote fueled by the results of an annual Gallup poll. They would have taken mainstream scientist opinions and contrasted those with popular opinions only for flavor—the notional opinion piece would mainly be about what established science thinks, and the conclusions made by science would be the main point of the piece. We do not have this piece as they have not seen fit to write one. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• PLEASE CLOSE THIS RfC and the one at Talk:Ghost, and then block those who then refuse to abide by the RfC consensus. This disruption, forum shopping, and the incessant harassment against myself here and elsewhere by these few editors are insufferable violations of multiple policies. This little gang needs to be placed in a wikijail for some time. How about topic bans for them all and letting them know that harassment, including revenge RfC/Us, will not be tolerated? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • excuse me, forum shopping? You're the one who started this, and the misbegotten RfC at Ghost, and most of the other places where you've been flailing around trying to push through an entirely nonsensical claim against reasoned objections. I say close this as NO CONSENSUS and be done with it. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Pseudoscience is non-science masquerading as science. From the present policy, Pseudoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence. Does anyone here disagree with that definition? I have not reviewed the NSF documents, but NSF doesn't have the authority to redefine the English language. Folk beliefs, intuitions, paranormal experiences, ghosts, etc., are not pseudoscience unless scientific authority is claimed for them. Someone, somewhere, got "superstition" -- a highly biased label, but at least it's more honest as to the attitudes involved -- confused with "pseudoscience." If the NSF accidentally makes an overstatement somewhere, outside its field of expertise, we are not obligated to give this prominence and enshrine it in a policy. --Abd (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. Well said. Crum375 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"...paranormal experiences, ghosts, etc., are not pseudoscience unless scientific authority is claimed for them" I agree... but... the problem is that there are those who claim scientific authority for them... or at least that they can be explained by and detected using science and scientific methods. Those claims are pseudo-science. What I am getting at is that we need to note the difference between "belief" in ghosts (perhaps superstition, but not pseudo-science), and claims that they can be detected, analyzed, studied, etc. (pseudo-science). Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Random break

• Comment. I have to agree they wording in some of these NSF articles is horrible. Take the comment from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal in the 2002 report linked above. Fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Carlos hoax, and Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) in the same "pseudoscience" category as yogi flying, therapeutic touch, astrology, and several others. But those first four are NOT pseudoscience.

• There have been many scientific studies as to why fire walking appears to work and various theories have been put forth. Willey, David (2007) "Firewalking Myth vs Physics" University of Pittsburgh gives a thumbnail sketch of these studies and came to the conclusion that yes it exist but there are perfectly scientific reasons as to why it works.

• Voodoo magical thinking appeared in Gino Del Gurcio's 1986 "The Secrect of Haiti's Living Dead" Harvard Magazine reprinted in the 87/88 Annual Edition of Anthropology as article 33.

• Carlos was a hoax orchestrated by James Randi to show how unsceptical people and the media were. Why this is even called pseudoscience I have no idea.

• Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) has to the layman become synonymous with ExtraTerrestrial Vehicles (ETVs) but they are two very different things. Project Blue Book did not say UFOs did not exist but rather they were mostly misidentifications of natural phenomena and conventional aircraft. "Aliens? No, just the Pentagon playing with its latest toys" is another example of real UFos--not aliens but the testing of aircraft unknown to the general public my the military. So it is NOT pseudoscience to believe in UFOs per say, what is pseudoscience is the idea they are ETVs.

The NSF really needs a better editor as they are clearly not explaining some of the claims they are reporting clearly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: (adding this on the bottom, as this section has got too long to manage threading well) Can I just say that the arguments of Brangifer and others only works in a certain western-centric context. Lethbridge and others attempted to find a scientific, non-supernatural explanation for ghosts, pendulum dowsing, ESP (a term coined to distinguish it from the old folk terms such as Second Sight) and other phenomena. In doing so, there is no doubt that they created research into the paranormal as a pseudoscience, and as a result, people who believe in ghosts, ESP and suchlike because they think there is some scientifically credible evidence for them, are believing in the claims of pseudoscience. However, people who believe, like Robbie Williams that the 'ghost' (or spirit, or soul, or angel-form) of their deceased grandmother watches over them, do not do so from any scientific basis, but from a primarily sentimental one, and no amount of education in the scientific method will remove this belief.

Even more significantly, history shows that it is possible to hold a strong religious conviction (any religion) and also be a competent scientist. Some religions (eg Shinto) require a belief in the spirits of the ancestors, who may appear or be communicated with, and Japanese scientists who hold religious convictions regularly square this circle. Catholicism requires a belief in a subset of the deceased known as saints, who are held to make appearances to the faithful from time to time, and Catholic scientists square that circle. By attempting to put everything into the category 'pseudoscience', we risk losing the perspective that such beliefs can also be religious, metaphysical (of spiritual or emotional philosophical content), cultural (folk belief, belief associated with one's cultural identity) or sentimental (beliefs held because they are comforting). In none of the latter cases is scientific veracity or lack thereof of significance to the status of the belief.

It still therefore remains that to determin a NPOV way of referring to such things, one must take account of the context. To say 'a belief in ghosts is considered pseudoscience by the NSA' would follow the source. To say 'the belief in ghosts is pseudoscience' because the NSA says that it is is to push the source too far. Shinto is not a pseudoscience. (eta) Should a visiting Japanese scientist take a break to burn incense to his deceased grandmother, I am sure that all but the crassest member of the NSA would mutter something about 'respecting cultural differences' and shuffle off to take the piss out of an episode of Most Haunted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Elen makes a good point... I think we do need to differentiate what we are talking about. Claims that the existance of ghosts etc can be proven scientifically, or claims that there is is a scientific explanation for ghosts etc., is clearly pseudoscience and should be labeled as such. But to say that all belief in ghosts etc is pseudoscience is simply inaccurate. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just an observation: I agree that the NSF's opinion would not be appropriate at an article such as spirit, which I think addresses Elen's concerns completely. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is my main concern, because this has somehow got NPOV mixed in with it, and it is important to point out that 'pseudoscience' is not an NPOV way of referring to to the whole gamut of belief in the supernatural, only to that component that features elements of science (or bad science) deployed to explain the phenomenon (eg Lethbridge's Ghost and Ghoul) or investigate the phenomenon (eg TAPS), or where there is the appearance of science (eg the doctrine of signatures, which was regarded as scientific for a good long time). As evidence of the attitude of the scientific community (at least in the US) it is a sufficient source, now that we appear to have sorted out who said what, although it's not an ideal source, since it includes things like 'witches' (which needed much more unpacking), 'firewalking' (which relies on the physics of heat transfer - the only pseudoscience is the psychological mumbo jumbo surrounding it) and 'yogic flying' (which is a plain old fraud). Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I can't help but agree with you. If we're going to use this cite (which I still oppose, mind you, but I'm open to the possibility) we should probably balance it with the actual definition of pseudoscience given in the passage before the quote - "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" - or by reference to the fact that the document itself is primarily concerned with critical thinking and not with pseudoscience. At any rate, some sort of clarification that pseudoscience only refers to misapplications, misrepresentations, or inappropriate assertions of or about science, not to poor reasoning more broadly put... In fact, that might be a useful addition to the section regardless; what do you think? --Ludwigs2 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Certainly, I think a definition of pseudoscience in respect of Fringe would be useful - and the NSF seems as good a source for that as any - and this would help to decide whether in any article/discussion Fringe applies. This would also benefit in respect of Fringe theories that are not apparently about the paranormal (those magnetic bracelets come to mind), but that still represent bad science. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have no objections to including the one definition they use in that article, although it's not necessary since this isn't about definitions, but about how we are to describe subjects that are "Generally considered pseudoscience". It's interesting to note that nowhere in the 2004 or 2006 versions of the article does the NSF actually discuss the idea expressed in Elen's edit summary "it is research into the paranormal that is the pseudoscience." They don't discuss it at all! While I think that most everyone here agrees that what she says is very true, and that the NSF probably does too, they don't touch that subject in either article. Unfortunately that idea has been forced upon the 2004 version of that source in the lead of the Ghost article in a classic example of OR using the wrong source which I tagged: "Beginning with 19th-century spiritism, various attempts have been made to draw conclusions about the existence of ghosts through scientific methods, but such efforts are generally held to be pseudoscientific." While it's a true statement, the source doesn't mention that at all. It has since been fixed by finding more appropriate references. When a statement is obviously true, the appropriate response is to tag it and then find better sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not always clear in the NSF piece what exactly they do mean, but it would not support the sentence you have quoted. I'm sure there's a better reference somewhere, because there is such a long history of searching for an explanation for ghostly manifestation in the realms of physics - all the way back to the Crookes tube (Carnacki uses a pentagram made of fluorescent tubes) - and there have been plenty of scientists eager to distance themselves from it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages: Part 42

Two competing camps here have good points:

1. Inasmuch as belief in ghosts is supported by a pseudoscientific gloss that probably got its biggest kick from the movie Ghostbusters, the NSF is a reliable source for describing how the current belief in ghosts represents a distinctly pseudoscientific aspect of our culture.
2. Ghosts, as a cultural phenomenon, extend way beyond the pseudoscientific trappings of ghostbusters. There are references to ghosts in all major religions except for Islam where the belief in ghosts is explicitly repudiated (though djinn are arguably "spirits") and ghosts are used as literary devices in major works of literature from Hamlet to A Christmas Carol.

Per WP:FRINGE#Evaluating claims, we must be careful to segregate these aspects of the subject. Modern ghosthunting is pseudoscientific. The modern secular belief in ghosts as entities is part-and-parcel to this activity (and all the parapsychology that is associated with that). Ghosts, as a subject, however, have literary and theological significance that is totally independent of the scientific content or the empirical questions of whether entities such as ghosts exist.

Misplaced Pages is under the obligation to report that there is no scientific evidence for ghosts, the ghosthunters use pseudoscience to support their claims of observing ghosts, and to the extent that modern beliefs in ghosts are centered around ghosthunting activities, such are pseudoscientific beliefs as outlined by the NSF.

Beyond this, Misplaced Pages is also under the obligation to report on what ghosts are as a cultural, religious, and literary device. This is essentially independent from the latter issue in all but the referent.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, quite true. The problem is that some editors conflate "beliefs" in general, such as personal beliefs in religion or the paranormal, with the attempt to couch such beliefs in "science". The former is part of human culture and affects in some way almost everyone, while the latter involves people trying to cloak non-science with a scientific mantle, i.e. pseudoscience. Since both topics are distinct and highly notable, WP should cover both, and clarify the distinctions where appropriate, relying on the best possible sources. Crum375 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quite. If the list had stuck to the likes of ESP/telekinesis, poltergeists and ghosthunting (which has a much older history than Ghostbusters), we wouldn't be having this discussion I suspect. It was adding in 'belief in ghosts', 'belief in reincarnation' and other such concepts that are much larger than just their pseudoscience aspect, that has muddied the water rather.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, the demarcation between pseudoscience and superstition is often less-well understood than the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. In theory, a pseudoscientist is either a charlatan or a true-believer in a superstition who uses the trappings of the scientific method and scientific jargon in statements that they make supporting their belief. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed - and many sellers of such snake oil do indeed seem to believe in the things that they peddle. And many of the superstitious have a pseudoscientific cause-and-effect approach to their beliefs. As I observed before, the doctrine of signatures was considered science for a long time, and works in exactly that way, endeavouring to identify a causal relationship and, from that, a set of principals which could be used universally. It was the periodic table of its day, and of course, it was right - by chance - some of the time.

"I have an earach"

3000BC Here, eat this root

1000AD That root is pagan. Here, say this prayer

1800AD That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion

1960AD That potion is ineffective. Here, take this course of antibiotics

2010AD It's well known that antibiotics don't work, and anyway, they're not natural. Here, eat this root. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Except for your last line (which is both true and false, depending on the cause), your other points are good. For a good laugh, the scientific method is compared to the pseudoscientific method (in this case creationism) in the cartoon here. Another good one is found here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Surely my last line is a classic example of pseudoscience :) Love the Trudeau cartoon. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree but we run into the problem of citation. When a reputable organization X says that {paranormal topic Y} is pseudoscientific then we can pretty much report that X says Y is pseudoscience without bothering of the nuance that Y may also be informed by spiritualism, insanity, literature etc. We must be careful not to interpolate what X may have have meant (the possible truth), just simply report what they did in fact say (the verifiable truth). --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No. We can't pick and choose quotes from sources, regardless of how "reputable" they are, unless the text we write, and the sources we provide represent all notable views about a topic. In other words, following WP:V alone is insufficient; anything we say must also conform to WP:NPOV, which means it must fairly represent all views. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, represent all views - but if we want to represent "mainstream science" surely statements by the American Academy for the Advancement of the Sciences, or the Royal Institute of Great Brittain, count for more than other reputable sources? I think that the statements of major professional associations may not speak for "science" as such, but do speak for "mainstream science." Slrubenstein | Talk 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, we can choose a small number of sources to represent "mainstream science", in principle. If we have a clear-cut opinion from the Royal Institute saying that, for example, a belief in ghosts is considered pseudoscience, but a belief in holy ghosts isn't, we could cite it. The problem is that we need to be very careful we don't pick and choose pieces from otherwise high quality sources to promote our own POV. Crum375 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, this is also about proper attribution, which is always a good idea. As to "represent all notable views about a topic", that is nonsense. There is no policy that requires a single source to represent all views. Per NPOV, an article should include all notable views from V & RS, but each source will usually represent one or more views, and very rarely "all" views (that's often impossible). A single source that represents all views is rare and usually worthless, because it isn't really shedding much light on the subject in an in depth manner. Individual sources from varying POV will usually present the case for their POV in a much more in depth manner and thus shed more light on the subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, I agree with you here. The NSF source is not NPOV - but it doesn't have to be. When talking about the broad context of 'a belief in appearances by simulacra of the deceased' one would not use this view as the only definition of the phenomenon. One could include it, but one would have to include other sources as well to reflect NPOV.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Crum375, I think you're wrong here. Sources don't have to be neutral (or one would never write a politics article!!!). One achieves NPOV by the accumulation of sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Elen, I have never seen a "neutral" source, and don't expect to any time soon. Where did I say or imply that a source has to be neutral? What I did say is that we, as WP editors, are obliged to strive for neutrality, per WP:NPOV, and must therefore present all notable views and sources about a topic, properly balanced. Crum375 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies. I (and apparently also Brangifer) read you as saying that each source must reflect all views, but reviewing your edits it is apparent that you meant each article must reflect all views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. Yes, exactly. Crum375 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing it. That makes a world of difference! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. Sorry for the confusion. Crum375 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need to keep on focus here. the question isn't really about whether the NSF represents all notable positions, but about whether this citation (as given) can really be used as representative of the NSFs position on pseudoscience. as it stands, it does not appear that this section of this document was ever intended to to be a definitive statement on pseudoscience - pseudoscience only enters into the discussion as an example of poor critical thinking, which is the main focus of the document. I mean, this is rather like taking Albert Einstein's famous statement "God does not play dice with the universe" and using it to claim that he was opposed to legalized gambling. see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not quite. It's like taking that quote of Einstein's and using it to point out his opposition to Deism. Philosophically, in fact, that's an underlying part of what Einstein was saying, and his objection to quantum mechanics can be seen as an implicit rejection of any theory that relies on a probability mechanism due to such philosophical difficulties. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's pretty much my point. Einstein was frank about his opposition to Deism, and if there were any question about using the quote to support his opposition to Deism, then other sources could easily be found which bolster the claim. I don't know what Einstein's position on legalized gambling was, and using this quote to demonstrate that he was opposed to it is questionable. The problem lies in taking quotes that were meant at to demonstrate point A and using them as though they demonstrated (some tangentially related) point B. The pseudoscience passages in this section are examples of poor critical thinking, not primarily definitive examples of pseudoscience - there's really no other way to read the section. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I fail to see a distinction between pseudoscientific beliefs and poor critical thinking in these cases. Attempting to parse the NSF statement like this when they actually use the term "pseudoscience" is like trying to argue that Einstein didn't really mean God when he said, "God". A bit originally researched. Let the quote stand in context, sure, but don't obstruct its use as a source for the fact that the NSF has criticized certain aspects of failure to critically think as pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with ScienceApologist. I doubt that NSF are speaking figuratively when they refer to "pseudoscientific beliefs". --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think that[REDACTED] would be best served by inline attributing the quote to NSF lest there be further confusion. To me, it reads like the final wording was either not by a scientist or at least not by a scientist with his 'scientist hat' on. I personally would rather not believe in ghosts, it sounds like a pretty boring to way to live out eternity, as it were, and find nothingness a bit more personally satisfying. Nonetheless, it is difficult to accept the tortured wording as anything but either confused or 'politically motivated'. Taking their wording to be 'fact' in our WP:RS sense rather than a fact that NSF have stated this seems to run counter to our interests. Unomi (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Have you actually looked at the proposed addition? It isn't designed to become part of the text, but only as a ref, where it has abundant in-line attribution. Your comment has now led to a mini-thread that's based on a misunderstanding of its intended usage. The only thing that is missing, and I don't know how I did that, is the quotation marks, since it's an exact quote. I'll add that now. --Brangifer (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have now added an exact example of how it would look above. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Summaries are generally better than direct quotes for encyclopedia articles. Of course, the problem with summarizing is you may get people who interpret a statement in different ways. However, we are equipped by a number of policies and guidelines to ferret out which of these interpretations are of possible nefarious designs and which are legitimate. If possible, avoiding particular attribution altogether is a good way of doing this. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• (E/c) Unomi - I agree. This isn't one of those grammar school arguments where 'you said it so you must have meant it' has value. add that the term 'pseudoscientific belief' doesn't actually mean anything when taken analytically, and this argument makes even less sense. I mean, I understand why people are putting so much effort into defending this snippet - this quote must be used on hundreds of fringe pages as a pseudo-argument against the various topics - but the fact that it's widely distributed doesn't make it correct. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know of any place this quote is used in an article other than Ghost, except for the talk pages of about 4-5 relevant articles. If the quote actually contradicted scientific opinions, then you'd have a case for it being taken out of context, but it doesn't, and it even provides further understanding of how deeply the NSF understands this topic. They understand that the obvious and simplistic definition we always use is still true, but they then go on to show how a lack of critical thinking leads to pseudoscientific beliefs. Yes, beliefs can be pseudoscientific. They didn't make a typo there, and we would all do well to add that to our understanding of this subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• To be honest, I have never been a big fan of WP:ASF, rarely is anything simple unless ones' appreciation of it is superficial. I also find it unlikely that people will find the passage from NSF less compelling when actually attributed to NSF compared to standing as an unattributed assertion by a random wiki-editor, ymmv. Unomi (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for L2 to start a new section in which he shows us the correct way to cite this document! --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The correct way would be to simply state that the NSF have said this. I don't see what the downside is to such a solution. Unomi (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution explains the downside. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Surely you don't consider fear of people understanding the NSF to be a minority view as a valid reason to not mention that this has been stated by a premier scientific body and government agency? Unomi (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Given some of the comments made in this discussion, I think it is justified to fear that particular attribution to the NSF could be used to construe their statement as a minority view. There are many people disparaging and berating the quotes as irrelevant, incoherent, incorrect, and inchoate. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) particular attribution is such a shoddy piece of policy; don't even get me started on it. I've made a new section below with a suggestion for how we can use this quote on the NPOV page, one which tries to incorporate the belief thing as much as I can without stepping into OR. I've temporized on how it can be used on other pages - that's an iffier venue. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ignore the consensus at your own peril, Ludwigs2. Actually, I note that you follow it with your suggestion below. Maybe you just haven't read it. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Sadly as James Burke pointed out in "Day the Universe Changed" science can and does reject viable hypothesis based on the "structure" of the day. The treatment of Gregor Mendel and Alfred Wegener are prime examples of when science not only does a spectacular fail but then decades later gets egg on its face. Miner's "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" is a satirical paper on how the hypothesis can drive what the "facts" are. Carl Sagan noted the sad case of Percival Lowell and his Martian canals noting that there was no doubt that they were of intelligent design but the issue was which side of the telescope the intelligence was one. "When we have strong emotions we can fool ourselves."--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but WP:CRYSTAL. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how WP:CRYSTAL applies to summaries of studies done that are so badly written that they give the wrong impression. "A recent study of 20 years of survey data collected by NSF concluded that "many Americans accept pseudoscientific beliefs," such as astrology, lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), and magnetic therapy (Losh et al. 2003)" (SEI 2006) But as I have shown above "the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)" in of itself NOT a pseudoscientific belief--only the belief that (UFOs) are ETVs which is a totally different thing is pseudoscientific.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a totally different thing, actually. Most people, when they discuss UFOs, mean exactly that -- a fact pointed out in the lead of our very own Unidentified flying object article! ScienceApologist (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to go back and reread the Unidentified flying object article because the very lead in states: "Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot be easily or immediately identified by the observer." and only later it states the connection and that was based on a 1990s article while I found a 2006 book that clearly states "Strictly speaking, ETV is a special version of the broader view that there are genuine unidentified flying objects (UFOs)." I have added that and reworked the UFO ETV connection because quite frankly it is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

proper usage of quote

in reference to Salim's above request about how to correctly use this document on the NPOV page, here you are. On this page the quote should be (as someone else pointed out) a natural extension of the second point in the ArbCom decision. it could be incorporated by adding a footnote to point two as follows:

This following the NSFs definition of pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility." This may refer to material that overtly mimics scientific procedures - such as more extreme forms of cryptozoology - or beliefs that are broadly promoted as scientific in the mass media - such as von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" or the idea of "warp drives" - despite having little to no valid scientific investigation.

This should incorporate the 'beliefs aspect properly, without allowing it to stray over into beliefs more generally put. I don't think there is a general way to use this quote on other pages. The Ghost page currently has a half-decent example of this at the end of the lead, but I think the matter would need to be addressed on a case by case basis. --Ludwigs2 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• These examples are not from the quote nor are they correct. The idea of "warp drives" is not pseudoscientific, nor has the mass media paid much attention to them. Von Daniken's ideas are surely pseudoscience, but not really connected to the mass media. "More extreme forms of cryptozoology" is ambiguous at best. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the proposition here, this seems to actually introduce a real change in the wording of NPOV, and even without using the quote we're discussing. This is pure unsourced OR. The use of the definition really adds nothing that isn't already included in the pseudoscience article. This seems like an attempt at an end run around this whole RfC in an attempt to not use the quote at all. To make sure I don't misunderstand this, please provide a real example of how it will appear, like I have done above. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I figured that would be the response. Note that I'm aware of this tactic; I'm just indulging it for the moment.

back on topic, the examples are irrelevant (use other if you like; it just threw those in there in a misguided attempt at clarity). to the substantive point that BRangifer made: I don't know whether this is a real change in NPOV or not. I was asked to provide the correct way of using this particular cite, and this is far more correct than then the version proposed above. again, examples aside, nothing here extends the NSFs position beyond what can reasonably be implied by the given document. Or are you asking me to use the lines about "pseudoscientific belief" without reference to the definition of pseudoscience given in the document? why would I take them out of context like that? --Ludwigs2 06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tactic? Color me confused. I'm pretty sure Ludwigs2 is arguing that this phraseology should be relegated to a footnote as opposed to being included in the actual text. I really don't care one way or the other, but I wonder, why throw out one part of the quote at all? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "tactic". AGF. I am truly confused by that wording. If he's relegating it to the footnote, that helps a bit, but it's still OR and leaves out the quote relevant to this RfC. As such it's a diversion and should not be listed here at all. If the quote isn't being used at all, then this subsection is misleadingly titled. Still confused by the unclear wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

assuming that you have a tactic does not violate AGF. I credit you all with the intelligence to plan out the arguments you are going to make - in fact, if you're not planning out your arguments to some extent, that's a far more serious problem (can't have a reasoned debate where people are consistently speaking from the gut). The tactic here, in case you want to know, is to get your opponent to say something that you can criticize unmercifully: it's possible to make even the dumbest idea look good if you focus all of your attention on making your opponent and/or his/her ideas look bad. it's ad hominem applied to an entire argument style: crude, but effective.

setting that aside, however... I don't really care about footnote or text (I had been assuming brangifer wanted his added as a footnote). I hadn't intended particularly to throw out part of the quote, but in the actual document, the 'pseudoscientific belief' stuff is clearly a subsidiary element to the given definition of pseudoscience. It doesn't stand on its own. my aim here was to wrap it into context with the definition of pseudoscience given and use it to enlarge on the ArbCom statement. I assume that was brangifer's intent as well, except that his use distorts the NSF statements significantly by taking them out of proper context. I can expand it a bit, if you really want to use those particular lines, but keep in mind that the source we are citing here is the document as a whole - the quotes we use need to reflect the meaning of the document as a whole, not the meaning of particular lines of the document. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, for all the words of criticism you gave of the way BullRangifer cited the document, this is far, far worse. It's OR, SYNTH and goes way beyond what the cited document actually says. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

how so? you keep saying that, but as yet I haven't seen you explain your statement. I'm betting that you can't. so, have at it: explain how this constitutes synth. (and don't harp on the examples or I'll simply remove them; stick to substance.)

For the reasons already stated by ScienceApologist and BullRangifer. It might help if you revised the citation text, imagine we were going to do-over the Ghost citiation,how could this be improved. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

excuse me, I didn't ask what Science Apologist or BullRangifer thought, I asked you to explain it. If you can't do it, don't lean on them (particularly since neither of them has given a proper explanation either). it's a real simple thing, Salim: you said it was synth, you explain why. And yeah, I don't think you can, and I'm sorry to push you on it, but I'm tired of playing this little tag team game. spit it out yourself, or suck it up. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be able to make heads or tails of the example given by Ludwigs2 above, let's try analyzing it. Maybe he will reword it, because it's very confusing to me. Here it is:

• "This following the NSFs definition of pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility." This may refer to material that overtly mimics scientific procedures - such as more extreme forms of cryptozoology - or beliefs that are broadly promoted as scientific in the mass media - such as von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" or the idea of "warp drives" - despite having little to no valid scientific investigation."

What does "This following the..." mean? It's an odd sentence structure. Maybe it's my speaking Danish (my second language) for 24 years that makes it hard for me to parse. My English is rusty, but even then others also have a hard time understanding Ludwigs2.

What does "this" refer to? Is it something assumed and not mentioned? I'm not concerned about the rest. It's understandable, but pure OR and has no relation to the NSF quote and even avoids using it. Getting that included, and without any reference, would take a request to get the ArbCom decision amended. We are dealing with an exact ArbCom quote. So, what do those first three words mean? It would sure be nice if Ludwigs2 created an exact example as I have done above. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a technical point of language 'this following...' is a somewhat standard usage in footnotes, the implication being that the footnote continues or explains a thought that was begun in the main passage. in this case 'This following the NSF's...' would be equivalent to 'The statement this footnote refers to follows from the NSF's...'. Just to avoid confusion, though, let's reword it (1) on the assumption that it's a footnote to bullet 2 of the ArbCom statement, (2) with some clarifications, and (3) without the examples, which seem to annoy people. The rewording: "Aside from obvious pseudoscience - i.e. fake science - the NSFs defines pseudoscience as "claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.". This may refer to material that overtly mimics scientific procedures, or to beliefs that are broadly promoted as scientific in mass media, but which lack valid scientific methodologies or proper systematic investigation." The wording on the last phrase is open to discussion. I considered using 'skeptical detachment' rather than 'proper scientific investigation'; I could make a case for skeptical detachment because the document is clearly more concerned with critical thinking (which involves skeptical detachment) than actual scientific procedure. but... --Ludwigs2 06:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Thanks! I think I understand now. I wasn't familiar with that phrasing in the absence of what it was referring to. It seemed to just hang there in midair, so to speak. That's a legitimate literary device, but I didn't know for sure what it was you had "hanging in the air." I needed to have you clarify that point. I wasn't about to buy a bag, without seeing what kind of cat was in it. It would really help if you created an actual example for us to read, like I did above. It's not that hard to do. Note that even if you did, you'd be involved in OR and creating rather radical new content, which is hard to do with this policy. Such an addition should be attempted separately from this RfC, as it disrupts this and muddies the waters.

Where we differ is that "you" are the one who is "annoy"ed by the list of examples, while the majority of partipants in both RfCs are not. Your statement is therefore misleading ("the examples, which seem to annoy people"). That's just plain deceptive. The majority clearly support the statement, while you still wish to avoid using it.

On another point we also disagree. I'm not saying it would be actually "wrong" to use the definition, but it's completely unnecessary in this context as it adds absolutely nothing new. It is the standard, rigid, definition we always use. Its addition is therefore not an improvement.

The definition is not the missing puzzle piece that exactly fits the ArbCom statement in group 2. What is refreshing about using the portion of the statement by the NSF, as I have proposed, is that it's an "exact" fit. In fact it couldn't be better. Take a look at the actual wording in group 2 (with my added numbers):

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: (1) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are (2) generally considered pseudoscience by the (3) scientific community (4) may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

On ALL four points it fits: (1) The NSF identifies even more subjects/theories/items than the one, very lonely, example used (astrology). (2) It very clearly identifies those ten subjects as subjects that "are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." (3) The NSF represents the "scientific community". (4) Thus the ten subjects are eligible for "properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

That's just how precise a fit their statement is. Just like a unique puzzle piece, it fits exactly with the ArbCom statement in group 2, but not the other groups. My proposition also has the advantage of not using any OR, or of changing a single word of policy. Everything stays the same. This is only added as a ref that backs up the policy, and shows an actual application of the policy to ten different subjects. As long as this section of the NPOV policy stands, it will clearly identify and justify placing each of those ten subjects in the Category:Pseudoscience. This section of NPOV can always be used to end edit wars over the classification of these subjects. The net benefit to Misplaced Pages is less disruption and more peace on those articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The examples that annoyed people were my examples, which I removed from the revised version, not the NSF's examples. bit o' confusion there.

To the second point: The problem with what you've presented is that it takes that list of ten items out of context, and makes it appear as though the NSF is saying something far more extreme than its real position. I don't doubt for a moment that those '10 items' have been presented in various contexts as scientific truths, and that the NSF objects to that presentation, but you seem to want to use that out-of-context quote to imply that the NSF objects to people's beliefs more generally, which isn't supportable from the document in question. The version I gave (while not perfect, of course) makes it clear that the NSF is concerned with 'beliefs promoted as scientific' - please recall that this quote comes from a chapter on 'Public Attitudes and Understanding, and the section in question is concerned specifically with "the public's susceptibility to unproven claims"

I'll also point out that you are using an older version of the Science and Technology Indicators. This document is revised every year, and in the the current version of this chapter - http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm#s2 - doesn't mention 'pseudoscientific beliefs', and has revised the footnote you are referring to read as follows: ''The pseudoscience section focuses on astrology because of the availability of long-term national trend indicators on this subject. Other examples of pseudoscience include the belief in lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), or magnetic therapy." This would seem to indicate that I am correct that the NSF didn't mean anthing analytic by 'pseudoscientific belief' and has backed away from the terminology. agreed? --Ludwigs2 09:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(for reference) PDF version of 2010 report --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 report lists only Astrology because it's the only one where they have recorded long term trends. Then they give four more examples of pseudoscience. They have dropped "ghosts" as an example. I don't see how this invalidates what they said at the 2006 report. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

it's the same document revised yearly - the fact that they had the comment previously and removed it is a pretty clear sign that they decided it was incorrect, misleading, or otherwise removable. I mean (at the very least) if the phrase were as important as the proponents of this RfC have been arguing, the NSF would have preserved it (or amplified it) over revisions, but they did the opposite. I see no reason why we should preference an older version of the document over the current version, since we can expect the current version to be a more accurate reflection of the NSF's view. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the NSF could have intended the omission to signify a secret retraction of their incorrect or misleading position on ghosts and haunted houses. But that seems very far-fetched to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point LuckyLouie. Ludwigs2, this is not about scientific research, where new findings replace old and outdated ones. The NSF report changes slightly from year to year. In the absence of any evidence that they have changed their POV, the contents of ALL the NSF reports are legitimate sources. The part that's relevant and fits the ArbCom wording exactly is found in the 2006 version and possibly others. Just because the NSF declared belief in ten concepts to be "pseudoscientific beliefs" in 2006, doesn't mean they are suddenly not pseudoscientific beliefs today. (In fact other versions add even more ideas that they declare to be pseudoscientific beliefs, and they are STILL pseudoscientific beliefs!)

What you say above really doesn't matter. It's just another diversionary attempt (by substituting a different version for the one which contains the content overwhelmingly approved by two RfCs). You don't really think that you can fool people with such a tactic, do you?

The National Science Foundation is a legitimate source and my simple formulation from that source has overwhelmingly passed muster in two different RfCs found at Talk:Ghost and above. There are two overwhelming consensus against you.

I implore you once again to bow to the consensus as any good Wikipedian does. Your continual violation of consensus isn't taken lightly. You have caused serious disruption many places now, including noticeboards, and you are planning an RfC/U against me as revenge for losing two RfCs. You have just been blocked and unblocked for edit warring over this issue, and your unblock is based on a promise not to edit the Ghost article, but your disruption is still very evident on talk pages. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and editors who continually resist, edit, and argue against consensus are classified as tendentious editors: "On Misplaced Pages, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." That's exactly what you've been engaged in. Please drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse.

I encourage editors to comb through the later parts of Ludwigs2's contribution history. You'll find plenty of disruption making for a very long rope. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I glanced at the contribution history and I don't see "disruption" in the last 50 edits. What I do see going back to the NSF papers is very poor wording: belief in something does not make it psudoscience (as nearly all the papers imply) but rather improperly or incorrectly using science to explain it. As I have shown with the 2002 report four of the things presented as psudoscience (Fire walking, voodoo magical thinking, Carlos hoax, and Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)) simply are not. Another problem is the reports say 30 percent of the people surveyed said "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations." but it doesn't tell you how many many of the 70 percent that did not think UFOs were ETVs believed they existed.

The 2000 report shows the problem in that it states (I've added percentages) "Between one-third (33.3%) and one-half (50%) of Americans believe in unidentified flying objects (UFOs). A somewhat smaller percentage believes that aliens have landed on Earth." But if only 30 percent thought UFOs were ETVs then what did the remaining 3.3 to 20 percent that believed UFOs existed think they were? The 2000 report doesn't say but it does show as I stated before "Do you believe UFOs exist?" and "Do you believe UFOs are vehicles operated by aliens?" are two different questions and thanks to the poor way these reports are worded it is not clear how the data was structured.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating your OR and personally inaccurate interpretation of the report here. We've read it before. There are other, less simplistic ways of understanding the report, but that's not the issue here. We have a national scientific body, the National Science Foundation, and their wording was anything but carelessly written. I trust they understand this matter better than any of us, and it is irrelevant to this discussion whether any of us considers them to be right or wrong. That question is totally irrelevant to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies, which operates on "verifiability", not "truth". Your speculations may be welcome on some personal talk pages, but not here, as they are off-topic. This discussion is about our sourcing policy, not the "truth" or falsity of the NSF. Even if I initially considered them to be in error, it would likely be wise for me to start revising my opinions and bringing them in line with the NSF, which is more likely to be right than I am on such subjects. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• brangifer's position: Assume that the 2006 wording was the NSF's actual position on the matter, and that all prior or later omissions from revisions are oversights or mistakes.
• ludwigs2's position: Assume that the absence of the language from all prior and later revisions is the NSF's actual position on the matter, and that the 2006 statement was an oversight or mistake.

Basically you claim that the NSF got it right once and screwed it up numerous other times, where as I claim that the NSF screwed it up once. read Occam's razor. further, instead of discussing the issue towards some kind of agreement, you misuse policy, insult people, run misguided RfCs and try to manipulate the results, and generally play politics to get your way over any kind of common sense. You are the very definition of a tendentious, POV-pushing, single purpose account, and the thing that amazes me is that you've managed to hoodwink so many otherwise decent editors into thinking you are reasonable. it's damnably funny. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Third possibility: Assume that the 2006 wording reflects the NSF's actual position at that time... and that subsequent wordings relfect the NSF's subsequent position.

If we accept this possibility, then it is logical to infer that the NSF might have changed its position... but we can not make any inference as to what position they changed it to, or what position they currently hold (as they chose not to discuss it). Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ludwigs2, your statement is a blatent misrepresentation and personal attack. You have the nerve to make fun of me because we don't agree. There is only one reasonable interpretation of the fact that versions differ since there is no evidence that they represent a change of position, and that wouldn't even make sense. They just choose to word their statement differently. Big deal. The NSF hasn't screwed anything up at all in any version, and I have obviously never even intimated such an absurd idea. You, by contrast, are the one who has been warring against the NSF and actually stated "that the NSF screwed it up once." That's a pretty bold statement to make without any evidence other than that they don't agree with your beliefs. You don't like their clear statement, so you attack me and the NSF. This is incredible! They understand this better than any of us. I have learned from their exposition on that whole page and have long since enlarged my understanding, while you choose to maintain a limited and rigid understanding and say they have "screwed it up" because they reveal a very deep understanding of the issues that lead to the holding of pseudoscientific beliefs. I choose them as authoritative over your simplistic and shallow OR. Your disruption needs to be stopped. I suggest a topic ban from all fringe topics and all talk pages (IOW no mention anywhere at Misplaced Pages), and if you take revenge by starting the threatened RfC/U, a complete ban for extreme disruption. -- Brangifer (talk)

the problem, Blueboar (which is really the main point I've been trying to discuss in this entire debacle) is that there's really no good evidence to assume that the NSF ever had a position on 'beliefs'. Bullrangifer has (as I've pointed out numerous times) taken one passage from one section of an older revision of one document (a document which is actually written for a different purpose entirely), and parlayed it into a definitive claim that the NSF labels all non-scientific beliefs as pseudoscience. it's ridiculous on the face of it, and the only reason its gone this far is that Bullrangifer has put an extensive effort into distorting the issue and discrediting me in order to keep it from being discussed properly. I mean really - why would the National Science Foundation take a stand on non-scientific beliefs? I understand the pseudoscience problem on wikipedia, but there are better ways of dealing with it than making the NSF look like a bunch of idiots. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ludwig on this. We can't take a single quote out of any source, regardless how prestigious, and use it to promote a POV, because that would violate NPOV. I don't believe the NSF would consider religion as "pseudoscience", yet the way this quote is being used, it is so broad as to paint most religious beliefs (many or all of which include some combination of ghosts, spirits, devils, deities, miracles and other super-natural phenomena) as pseudo-scientific. So I suggest we get off this direction, which is fruitless. Crum375 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point Crum... I was not trying to promote my possible scenario as being realistic... I was trying to show that both of the scenarios Ludwig was presenting were flawed. You said it better. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs2's campaign is totally off track and fruitless and their attacks on the NSF and myself need to stop. They should allow the consensus to rule. Crum375, as the fourth add-on to the gang of three, has repeatedly tried to insert religion into the discussions, when neither I nor the NSF have done so. It's Crum's OR. It appears that two admins may need desysopping. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Blueboar: I see your point, and I will admit that my comments were a bit clouded by irritation. my apologies, and yes, let's leave go with Crum, who said it better than either of us. --Ludwigs2 18:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem. :>) May I suggest that it does not look like either side in this discussion has a remote chance of convincing the other to change its mind, and so further discussion of this is sort of pointless. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

well, I have no intention of giving up on the issue, if it continues to be an issue, but I'm doing my best to regain proper perspective. I'll do a better job of keeping composure, but if you think I'm failing please leave a note on my talk page and remind me. --Ludwigs2 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Funding for lobby / interest groups.

Would it be fair to say that funding for such groups is inherently significant? Unomi (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, sometimes lobby / interest groups receive funds from a variety of grants. Sometimes funding comes with no strings attached. It all depends. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Away from the political agenda, interest groups can be grant funded or have a role in delivering commissioned services (I'm thinking Age Concern SCOPE MIND Shelter type groups here. That wouldn't be particularly notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-NPOV by proxy

Here is a situation that I encounter with some regularity. There are two opposing points of view, say one holds that a frog spell can be countered by the kiss of a full-blood princess, while the other point of view dismisses this as superstition, and holds that only reconstructive plastic surgery supplemented by speech therapy will be effective. Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm is a main proponent of the frog-kissing camp, while Heinrich von Pfolspeundt has written an oft-cited treatise criticizing the frog-kissing remedy as superstition. All of this is duly noted in our article on frog spells, with proper NPOV attributions supported by reliable citations. So far, so good.

Now as it happens, Emil Fröschels has written a publication in which he states: "In his magnum opus Sinn und Wahnsinn in der Therapeutik des Frosch-Zaubers Prof. Heinrich von Pfolspeundt proves conclusively that Grimm's tales are just fairy tales". So now an editor adds the following to the frog-spell article: "Prof. Heinrich von Pfolspeundt has proved conclusively that Grimm's tales are just fairy tales.<ref> {{cite journal |author="Emil Fröschels" |title=Frog Kissing in Perspective |journal=Speech Therapy Today |year=1938 |volume=1 |pages=23-45}}</ref>".

Now on the face of it this seems to satisfy the NPOV requirements; after all, the statement is properly cited. But this is only appearance; it is essentially just another shot fired from one of the two camps, and should not be presented as a fact but as an additional opinion that supports one point of view. And, unless the cited author adds something to the discussion beyond stating their agreement, this support is only worth mentioning at all if the author is truly notable, or a recognized expert in the area.

Question. Should we somehow describe this situation and make clear that adding such opinions as if they are facts – even when properly cited – still violates the NPOV policy? (It would help if there is some authoritative text to refer to when reverting such pseudo-NPOV additions.) And if so, what is the proper spot?  --Lambiam 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The very next section has a bit about this; Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq is quite correct. Prof. Froschels has stated an opinion that Pfolspeundt has proven a thing conclusively. That's a judgment, and should be attributed to the judge, Prof. Froschels. How this would all be presented depends on the overall context. In this case, Jacob Grimm died a long time ago and did not pretend to be making anything other than fairy tales, there is no source evincing belief in "frog spells," and Prof. Pfolspeundt is a stuffy pedant for even claiming to prove the obvious. Probably, both Pfolspeundt and Froschels are pulling your (frog) leg. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of "A Simple Formulation"

Someone on a talk page mis-understood this sentence Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." to mean that an assertion of fact did not need a reference, even though a couple other editors explained it did need one. I think you have to make it clear at top of the section, instead of the bottom, that reliable sources are needed. Part of the confusion is that you mix two examples that don't need referencing (Mars and Plato) with one that clearly could produce disagreement ("a survey produced a certain published result"). Now unless I am mis-understanding the meaning of the section myself - and someone would need to clarify it in that case, I'll change it to end possible confusion. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be resolved by simply changing it to "Assert verifiable facts, including...." with a link to WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted here that the definition of fact is incorrect. A fact is a piece of information that can be proven, in this case, by verifying in reliable sources. (Synonym: verity.) This definition can also be verified in reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are confusing veracity and verifiability. Veracity means the fact is provable... verifiability means we can prove that someone (a reliable source) says it is a fact. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

personally (and as I've said elsewhere) I dislike the whole 'fact' terminology. really what this passage should say is something like: "Assert verifiable statements, including statements about opinions—but do not assert the opinions about statements." The whole 'fact' nomenclature tends to lead editors down the wrong path into making value judgements about (as blueboar says) veracity. --Ludwigs2 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm confused here, unless Misplaced Pages has concocted its own definition for that as well. Verity is a synonym of fact. The two are directly interchangeable in a sentence. (ie: "Assert verifiable , including...." From Merriam Webster:

"Verify (transitive verb) to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of."

"Verity (noun) the quality or state of being true."

"Veracity (noun) devotion to the truth. Something true."

"Verifiable (adjective) capable of being verified."

"Fact (noun) the quality of being actual."

"Opinion (noun) A view." (As in "point of view.")

"Neutral (adjective) not engaged in either side."

My question is, if Misplaced Pages is about reliable sourcing, why don't the policy definitions match them? Is it intended to make things confusing and to promote wikilawyering? is it just a misunderstanding or an inability to find the correct word? Zaereth (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not care if something is True™; it only cares if something can be verified.

And, yes, Misplaced Pages has its own jargon and assigns particular meanings to these common words. For example, not everything that is wikt:notable is WP:Notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the fundamental flaw. What is achieved by removing fact from verifiability? Without it, the word has no meaning, except whatever meaning the writers decide to make up. That sounds a bit fishy to me. Everybody here can feel free to make up whatever they want. You won't get any further interference from me. I try not to get caught up in the groupthink, but look for reality-based solutions to problems. The idea that Misplaced Pages is not about fact leaves only the assumption that it is about fiction, and as anyone who has tried to wade through all of this policy-mess can attest, it is quite a tangled web that we've woven. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Might it help to replace the sentence {By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."} by {By "fact" we mean here: "a piece of verifiable factual information about which there is no serious dispute."}?  --Lambiam 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What is achieved by removing fact from verifiability? We achieve the very desirable elimination of a certain class of unresolvable disputes: Does God exist? Is multiple chemical sensitivity a "physical" disease caused by chemicals? Are <name of group> 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists' or 'legitimate soldiers'? Does your personal experience with baking cakes tell us something about cake baking, or about your individual skill?

As a practical matter, "verifiability, not truth" belongs to WP:V, and no conversation here, at WT:NPOV, will have any practical impact on changing the text at WP:V. If you want to make a case for elevating Misplaced Pages's goals to Truth™, then you will have to present your arguments over there. (I suggest reading the archives first: You are certainly not the first person to inquire about this phrase. Also, given the overwhelming support for the phrase, I suggest that your carefully consider whether making a doomed effort to change a widely supported phrase is worth your time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and the very definition of groupthink. As I've said before, nothing on Misplaced Pages is worth my time. And, yes, I tend to avoid circular discussions such as this one. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the policies, and you can do with it what you wish. I'm taking all policy pages off of my watchlist now. Sorry to bother you with facts. Zaereth (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

wow, and people think I have a bad attitude... --Ludwigs2 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary attribution is a violation of WP:ASF policy when no serious dispute exists among reliable sources (an objective fact that is not a serious dispute). WP:ASF does not require in-text attribution for information where there is no serious dispute. Requiring in-text attribution for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on in-text attribution for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Misplaced Pages would require in-text attribution, even if only one Misplaced Pages editor insisted on it, which is not the intent of WP:ASF or of WP:CONSENSUS. QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't pass muster.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. This is a completely different concept than alking about simple clear facts like "there is a planet called Mars" and "Plato was a philosopher" which do not have to be sourced. Two different concepts are confusingly merged. Lets decide WHICH is the simple formulation.

By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. Again, how many hours have[REDACTED] editors argued about what a survey REALLY said, even WITH attribution? Only the most simple "Sky is blue" statements should be included as examples - except the sky is not always blue! So that wouldn't even fit. So let's at least take out the first example of the survey.

Re: This brand new addition Adding inline-text attribution is unnecessary when the information is not seriously disputed and is well sourced. It depends on what you mean by "seriously disputed." And editor disputes it and wants a source? Or only the highest quality WP:RS can dispute it??

Again, whatever happened to the first line of WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true. Not to mention Misplaced Pages:PROVEIT#cite_note-1: When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Adding inline-text attribution is unnecessary when the information is not seriously disputed among reliable sources." I think this will work. QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Except certain editors may Wiki-lawyer that to mean that any opinion can be represented as fact, as long as no reliable source contradicts that opinion. For instance, an article could say "Darwin is a beautiful city", as long as no one had a source that contradicted it, even though it is CLEARLY an opinion. DigitalC (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, User:QuackGuru has gone on to do exactly this, and has stated that WP:ASF defines an opinion as "a matter which is subject to dispute.". There may or may not be reliable sources that deal with such dispute, and if I find a source that says "The Beatles are the greatest band in the world", I should attribute that opinion before including it in an article, whether I have seen reliable sources that disagree with it or not, because it "very clearly express values or opinions". Is there a way to make this more clear in the policy text? DigitalC (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What about what I write below to define FACT so that fact and opinion do not get confused?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two relevant proposals

After coming back a few days later I see this issue more clearly and propose:

• Somewhat expand the previous “Bias” section so first sentence reads:

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. Forms of bias include gender, racial, nationalist, religious, class, commercial or political bias.

• Fix the first paragraph of “A simple formulation” to read:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By fact we mean a piece of information which can be verified. In Misplaced Pages most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source.

Hearing no dissent, I'll for for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for my rudeness. I often forget that when writing in a bad mood that the tone is often conveyed to the reader. I have taken quite a bit of time to study these policy pages, and to compare what I've seen with my own research and experiences. I usually feel a sense of cooperation around here if someone offers up a bandaid to fix a problem, but utter revoltion if a change is offered up for discussion in the hopes of solving the problem. Nobody wants to hear it.

What puzzles me is, has anyone else researched how other media outlets and reference sources solve these problems? This is what I mean when I say "reality-based solutions." In the interest of reliable sourcing, to show that I'm not making this stuff up, and in hopes to see Misplaced Pages improve itself, here are some good books on the matter:

• On writing well, the classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinnsser.
• Stein on writing by Sol Stein
• McGraw Hill concise guide to writing research papers by Carol Ellison
• A journalistic approach to good writing: the craft of clarity By Robert M. Knight

From the last one:

We journalists often take ourselves too seriously and, when we do, we talk about our mission to communicate truth and our duty to report with objectivity. Truth, however, is elusive. Because truth deals with conclusions and values, each of us have a different idea of what truth is and what it isn't.

It is journalism's job to provide facts, concepts, ideas and emotions --as we sense them-- but not conclusions. Conclusions are what the reader, listener or viewer comes to.

Objectivity, which is supposed to be the soul of journalism, simply does not exist. The moment a reporter uses his or her sense of newsworthiness to decide what to keep in his story and what to leave out, objectivity has vanished. What passes for objectivity becomes the reporter taking the job of a tape recorder, methodically taking down what was said and making no effort to check its veracity. Nor does such a "reporter" make any effort to get another point of view.

Better that we, as journalists, pursue attainable goals; accuracy, balance and fairness without bias. That we can do. Not only can we; we must.

Anyhow, since I have finished my study of these policy pages, I am simply going to leave with my own conclusions. I hope these references help, and I'll be happy to provide many others if anyone is interested. Again, I apologize for my outburst, and will leave these pages to you all. Zaereth (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbering of the four guidelines

Note that this proposal includes a test and self-revert. I would like to add numbering to the four guidelines found in this section. It was reverted as part of a larger revert because of refs to the Psi ArbCom. Apparently ArbComs are deprecated as sources on policy pages, even if only for historical purposes. I don't see how only adding the numbers is a policy change since they are only a minor formatting change. I'll also bold the relevant words per the original version of this content, since those words get lost in the mass of text. They should stand out.

The reasoning is this. Those four guidelines are often referred to in discussions regarding the editing of pseudoscience subjects, but there is no official numbering, so confusion can occur. Numbering them will help to avoid confusion.

To understand this one has to see it, so I'll make a trial edit so editors can see the real effect. Then I'll self-revert and add the link here. Compare it to the existing version. Which is easier to read?

What think ye of that edit? Is it disruptive? Does it "change policy"? I think not and obviously think it improves the readability and usability or I wouldn't propose it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I'll make the edit and let's see if people think it's an improvement. It makes absolutely no change in the meaning. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. --Ludwigs2 03:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only seems fine... I think it is helpful. Blueboar (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Objective fact differs from a subjective fact

I explained the difference between an objective fact versus a subjective fact. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you attribute it to yourself? Unomi (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the edit history the edit is attributed to QuackGuru. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that your statement qualifies as ASF tbh, it reads like a tautology. I think you should self-revert and perhaps stir up some discussion on a proper wording. Just to be clear, any opinion can be asserted as fact, that doesn't make the asserted opinion true or justified. Unomi (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

This is already part of policy. You wrote "any opinion" can be asserted as fact. This is not the intent of ASF. Any opinion cannot be asserted as fact. I was clarifiying the difference between an objective opinion and a subjective opinion. The sentence summarises ASF policy. In some cases we assert the text and in other case we attribute it to the source such as so and so said. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• An objective fact is an opinion that can be asserted as fact. A subjective fact is an opinion that is possibly attributed.

I propose we include this in Misplaced Pages's WP:ASF policy. Some editors are confused that "any opinion" can be asserted as fact. It is an opinion when the Beatles are the greatest band. But what type of an opinion is it. It is a subjective opinion. Clarifying the intent of ASF by explaining that there is a difference between an objective opinion and a subjective opinion will clear up any misunderstanding editors are having with ASF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, could you give examples of what you mean by objective facts and subjective facts as they might be used in an article? I am quite honestly confused by the language, is there a different between a subjective fact and an opinion as it relates to what might reasonably be thought introduced to an article? Unomi (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. These are objective facts. I previously gave an example of a subjective fact. ASF policy explains the example. If you are still confused this shows there is a need to clarify policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If by subjective fact you refer to the Beatles are the greatest band then this is what I understand to be opinion, if subjective fact is indistinguishable from opinion then I see no reason to introduce the (somewhat confusing term) and even less for the idea that it should possibly be attributed, opinions should always be attributed, and to my peculiar way of thinking so should facts. Unomi (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Does consensus rule here or not?

Crum375 has now twice reverted edits approved by a consensus. I have explained it on their talk page, but they reverted again without doing their homework. That's edit warring. From their talkpage:

• Crum375, things have changed since you last reverted me. The changes I made were clearly backed by consensus on Talk:NPOV. The RfC has closed with an overwhelming consensus supporting my use of the NSF as a reference, as I proposed in the RfC. The numbering, a very uncontroversial matter, was also approved in another section.

Reverting without reading edit summaries and checking to see if they are true is disruptive. Their edit summary proves they didn't do their homework, because it is factually incorrect:

• "(Please stop edit warring; there is no consensus on talk to use this reference)"

Obviously the consensus in a very notable RfC on this page approved of using this reference in this manner.

Crum375 happens to be one of the few editors who !voted against the clear consensus in two RfCs on this subject, and I fear this is clouding their judgment. Maybe they should leave it alone and see how editors who don't have such a COI deal with this. Editing against consensus isn't very wikipedian. It's disruptive edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any consensus, and certainly not on this talk page, to use that reference in the NPOV policy page. If there is such consensus, please point us to it. Crum375 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't followed the links I have provided on your talk page and right above in this section? This is incredible! You're an admin. You should know better. -- Brangifer (talk)

I haven't seen any consensus either, and I have seen/made some very good arguments that the source is drastically misused. --Ludwigs2 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - I don't mind the numbering system at all, personally speaking, but let's not push it beyond that. --Ludwigs2 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From the RfC: "Please weigh in on whether a statement by the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy." Further down in the introduction I make it even more clear.... "I would like to add an example as a reference in the Pseudoscience and related fringe theories section. This section contains wording from the ArbCom ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience." I then created a very clear example of exactly what I was proposing. If you missed it, that's not my fault. I was very, very clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, please show us where you see a consensus to use this reference in this policy page — none of the links you provide above show such agreement. If it exists, it should be easy for you to point us to it. What you quote above are your own words, and not something that has gained any kind of consensus. Crum375 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Read! It's right above your comment. How easy can I make this for you? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, it was closed as National Science Foundation is a reliable source. The closer made no comment as to whether there was consensus for adding the text to this policy page, and in going through the discussion I see very very few that focus on the issue of inclusion vs the issue of RS. Unomi (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. BullRangifer, please show us where an uninvolved person has said that there is consensus to insert that reference into this policy page. All I see are your own words, and someone uninvolved confirming that the source is reliable, which was never at issue. Crum375 (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it suddenly my fault that you didn't read? Besides, what harm does it do? It fits the wording exactly as an example of what guideline 2 is talking about. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's rather (un)remarkable, that those who object !voted against the RfC, so no real objection is being raised here. If those who !voted for the RfC objected, then we'd have to start another RfC over this small bit of improvement. Only those who objected before are objecting now, ergo the negatives remain unchanged, and the positives remain unchanged. Status quo. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the way WP works, you need to gain consensus for these types of changes on a core policy page, whether you personally think they are correct or not. Crum375 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC clearly established that consensus. It was closed in favor of the proposed meaning and use of the source. You may not agree with it or like it, but that's a fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ah, Jesus Christ... I told you that the RfC was malformed, I told you that it was going to cause confusion, I told you that (because of the malformation and the confusion) it would solve nothing. Why are you pretending that you're surprised that it's caused confusion and solved nothing?

now that we have that settled, why not have another RfC on the correct issue, rather than trying to morph this badly formed RfC to the issue you wanted to ask about in the first place?

Socrates spent his life trying to get people to reason correctly, and failed. now I know why... --Ludwigs2 06:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you have carefully crafted a misleading RfC, one that made a strong impression that it was about one thing (whether NSF is a reliable source) but really was about something entirely else (whether to add a certain footnote containing an NSF misquotation to the policy). It is no wonder that you confused everybody; it's all your work. You can't complain now that you confused even the closer. This is yet another example of what I meant on your talk page and on ANI by your problematic relation to truth. Hans Adler 10:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect, and acknowledging that I have not been very involved in any of this, I think we should retain AGF, I have no reason to believe that brangifer was not simply confused with regards to how the RFC would be received or understood. I think brangifer meant to make a clear and transparent rfc and was unable to see how muddled it became. I agree that brangifer should probably have considered a cold reading of the NSF text and reconsidered how and if it should be used. Unomi (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, extreme incompetence can be indistinguishable from lying and intentional deceit, especially if someone continues doing the wrong thing after several people have explained why it's wrong repeatedly over several days. But I have intentionally chosen the expression "problematic relation to truth", because I think it is wide enough to also cover the repetition of untruths in the face of contrary evidence, even when it happens in good faith. If I don't notice that my wife is standing right in front of me and talking to me, then I would think it's safe to say that I have a problematic relation with her. Hans Adler 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To focus on the edit and not the editor... I have to admit that I too thought the AfD was about using the NSF generally, and missed the part about adding it to this policy page. I think there is a consensus on the first issue... I do not think there is any consensus for the latter.

I, for one, don't think the footnote should be added to this page. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, this is a first. You are the only editor who !voted for the proposition who now expresses disagreement, so I'm really interested in your reasoning. After going back and reading my proposition more carefully, do you agree that I did state my reason, but that you apparently didn't notice it? If so, you are AGF, and I can respect that. OTOH, some others are stating that I was deceptive, when that isn't the case at all. They are violating policy by failing to AGF.

You can accurately say that you have changed your mind, but you can't speak for others, since the consensus still stands even with your change of mind. Please explain your thinking. I really want to know. This is probably very tightly linked with your answer to my question below, so please repeat your answer here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• The RfC specifically stated to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy. Further, a number of the support votes referenced the possible wording or the ArbCom statement so saying now that editors were confused and claiming this makes the consensus invalid seems rather silly. If you're really that concerned, I'd suggest either working out wording for another RfC that everyone could agree to or considering some kind of mediation, but in the meantime, perhaps leaving it alone rather than edit warring? Shell 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• How is "Please weigh in on whether a statement by the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy." a neutral summary of an RfC about the question whether a specific footnote should be added to a policy? Either way the RfC was defective. Hans Adler 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you have suggested as a neutral summary? Shell 14:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is my suggested wording of a hypothetical RfC: Please weigh in on the following questions: "1. Should references to outside sources be added to the pseudoscience definition(s) in the NPOV policy? 2. If yes, how many such references would be needed to cover the prevailing views on this topic? 3. If yes, how (in principle) should such views be presented in an NPOV manner? 4. If yes, which specific sources should be cited, and what format and phrasing do you suggest, to conform to NPOV?" This would do for starters. Crum375 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

All relevant questions, but probably too complex for an RfC. Would it be possible to hash out some of those issues first with the regular participants here and provide something more concrete for an RfC? Shell 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with the first question, and it doesn't need to be an RfC. Crum375 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "It has been proposed to add a footnote with a list of pseudoscientific beliefs to WP:NPOV. Please weigh in on the following questions: 1. Does the footnote accurately represent the content of the source or is it a misquotation? 2. Should the footnote be added?"

The key fact to remember is that the entire dispute started with Ludwigs2's observation that this is a misquotation. See Talk:Ghost#Context of NSF statement. Note that in that original section there was a consensus against the abuse of the NSF source. (It was more or less about the same misquotation that we are dealing with here, but at Ghost.) Then Brangifer started an RfC about whether the NSF is a reliable source for such a statement. Almost everybody agreed, only a few protested and said that while they agree with the RfC, the RfC had nothing to do with the original dispute. Then Brangifer decided to change policy to get an advantage, was reverted, and started this ambiguous RfC. How much more does the gaming have to see so that Brangifer's friends recognise it as such? Hans Adler 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on editors isn't going to help resolve the dispute. Shell 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The dispute has been manufactured out of thin air by a single editor. This kind of dispute is best resolved by focusing on the instigator. Hans Adler 18:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, please AGF. This constant harping on me as a bad person just doesn't cut it. On top of assuming bad faith, you have made a serious charge that requires proof. You wrote: "...Brangifer decided to change policy to get an advantage..." Please prove that with precise diffs. That's not true. I never have tried to change policy, and it isn't my intention to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. You made a totally false accusation, now prove it or apologize. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, why were arbcom findings deprecated? I personally would think that these are the most pertinent references, I mean really, why are we referring to outside sources for our policy? Unomi (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I too wondered why Crum375 deprecated the ArbCom as a source. Using a source on a policy or guideline page doesn't necessarily mean the source dictates the content. In this case I only intended it as a point of historical interest to show that the wording originated with an ArbCom ruling. The ArbCom ruling did became policy very quickly. The outside source (NSF) is intended to be used as an example of what the wording was referring to. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not clear that this source was what Arbcom was referring to, this is the problem of using outside sources, we simply should not need them. If we want to make a list of examples we as editors are perfectly able to simply write one. Policy mandate comes not from outside sources, it comes from its status as consensus positions of editors. Also, please, please, move your discussion argument to the discussion section. Unomi (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

First question: Should references to outside sources be added to the pseudoscience definition(s) in the NPOV policy?

The first of several questions suggested by Crum375 as a way to resolve the dispute. In order to help work towards a consensus, please limit yourself to a statement on this issue and keep any threaded discussion for the discussion section (or elsewhere on this page as appropriate). Shell 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC) -- Just to clarify, you're welcome to put your reasoning with your answer, but limit replies to other people's reasoning or other discussion to the discussion section (sorry about the confusion!) Shell 17:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• No Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• No. Unomi (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• No. Per Blueboar and others below. Crum375 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• No. --Ludwigs2 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral.Hans Adler 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, of course The NSF reference is a perfect match, providing precisely what the wording refers to. Similar statements from Academies of Sciences and other national scientific bodies would also qualify. The NSF happens to be the supreme body in the USA, with the leaders of all scientific bodies as members. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• No Misplaced Pages sets Misplaced Pages policy, not outside sources or authorities. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I have no problem calling the NSF reliable, or citing the NSF in an article to support the statement that the NSF considers a topic (or an aspect of a topic) to be pseudoscience. But I see no reason to cite it, or any other outside source, in the NPOV policy itself. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have read, or at least understood, why I added the NSF statement to the wording in guideline 2. Why do you think I added it? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages policy should be informed by consensus statements by editors, to the extent that sources are deemed necessary it seems more appropriate to reference internal findings or examples. Unomi (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Policy pertains to editing practices: It is not the correct venue for trying to mandate specific article content. --Ludwigs2 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't care either way about this general point. However, if any references are added it's important that they have a wide consensus. If we had an excellent summary of the various approaches to the demarcation problem and what they say about specific fields, this might be a very useful thing to link to. But there is no reason to be desperate and use an obviously flawed list based on someone from the NSF casually endorsing a list that came originally from Gallup. Hans Adler 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

*Hans, It seems to me that all of that is better done in the Pseudoscience article itself, and not in policy. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The point for me is that if we find a source that competently and uncontroversially explains (some of) the distinctions that Arbcom made, then it would be a good idea to add them. The pseudoscience article has slightly different needs and may need different sources. But this is all purely hypothetical because we don't have such a source anyway and I doubt it's easy to find (if it even exists). Hans Adler 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• If we should come across a source which everyone agrees contains the perfect wording then we simply plagiarize it ;) A truly convincing source will let us IAR. On the other hand setting the bar such that one might reasonably expect outside sources to constitute RS for guiding[REDACTED] policy then we could be involving ourselves in more heated debates than it seems worth. Unomi (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) myself, I would appreciate a source that clarified this issue once and for all, because I am tired of wrangling with all the misbegotten petulance paranormal topics tend to accrue. I'm not sure you'll find a proper source for it, though. Most scientists don't waste ink on the pseudoscience issue because they see it as non-problematic (for them there's science and there's crap, with very little grounds for confusion). Most of the pseudoscience writing you'll find comes from people with an axe to grind (people who are angry about cheaters, charlatans and quacks; people trying to defend something from skeptical attacks, people more interested in playing politics than in thinking about things clearly). some philosophy of science scholars might have a handle on it, but philosophy of science is itself a bit marginalized in modern academia (it was bigger in the 70's and 80's). Fact is, pseudoscience is just a pejorative term from the start, and most reputable scholars prefer not to use it. I really have no idea how it got so entrenched in[REDACTED] - I don't think I've ever heard one of my colleagues use the term in an academic setting. --Ludwigs2 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• So what happened to the arbcom finding wording? Unomi (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think the root of the problem is that one of the few (if not the only one) content-related decisions that Arbcom has ever made is related to pseudoscience. There is a good reason: Genuine pseudoscience presents a certain danger to the encyclopedia in that a too sympathetic description can easily be misunderstood as an endorsement. The pseudoscience decision has given editors certain tools for dealing with a particular type of crap. (It also included instructions not to overdo it, but they are usually conveniently ignored.) They naturally try to expand the scope of the ruling as broadly as possible.

It's basically the same effect as with terrorism. Nowadays if you want to have a window replaced fast because it's getting cold in your office, claiming that the terrorists might enter the building through it is the most effective strategy.

Of course this is all just laziness. I think I never felt a need to appeal to the pseudoscience ruling for dealing with crap. (Perhaps I did this occasionally, but it didn't really help.) And when editors start compromising article space by dropping their absurd original research there in order to score wiki-internal points, then it gets really problematic. Hans Adler 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of the above. Regarding why WP has to deal with "pseudoscience", here is an example of an article I waded into (as an informal mediator initially) and almost drowned in it because various SPA promoters and their socks fought tenaciously to keep their preferred version, eliminating all criticism. It ended up on ArbCom due to the abusive behavior of at least one editor, who eventually got perma-banned. The point is that even in that article, I wasn't enthused about using the term "pseudoscience", because it's like saying "crap science", and that's not very NPOV. I think a major problem is when some editors fight hard to apply that term to things they don't like, while excluding other things, like their religion or other personal beliefs. If it were up to me, we'd use the term extremely carefully, and only to report when reliable third parties are using it, like "terrorism" and other WTAs. Crum375 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, that BDORT thing is hilarious. that's a technique that's been used in TCM for a millennium or so as an informal diagnostic tool (roughly equivalent to your GP testing your reflexes with a rubber hammer). unless Dr. Omura is really old I don't see how he can claim to have invented it. That whole article looks promotional to me; I may need to pull out my hedge clippers and give it a trimming. let me look it over... --Ludwigs2 20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Wikilinking to Category:Pseudoscience in this policy

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Maths, science, and technology Language and linguistics Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Proposal:

I'd like to add direct wikilinks to Category:Pseudoscience at three spots in the section entitled Pseudoscience and related fringe theories. No change of wording is proposed and thus no change of policy. To ensure that misunderstandings can't be used against me, I'll make it clear that this entails decisions about the (1) intent of the existing wording, and approval of the (2) addition of a wikilink in three spots. Please weigh in. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Background:

In the section entitled Pseudoscience and related fringe theories, four guidelines are listed. The introduction immediately before the guidelines and the first two guidelines contain wording regarding "categorize" as pseudoscience. If I recall the Pseudoscience ArbCom correctly (and the wordings of the first two guidelines came directly from it (Guideline 1 and Guideline 2), this wording refers to the use of Category:Pseudoscience. Not all editors may realize that this was and is the intended meaning, and I'd like to add category wikilinks in the appropriate places to make this intention explicitly clear.

Here is the current wording: (bolding added)

The following guidelines may help with deciding whether something is appropriately classified as pseudoscience:

Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labelled and categorized as such without more justification.

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

What this will look like with the wikilinks:

The following guidelines may help with deciding whether something is appropriately classified as pseudoscience:

Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labelled and categorized as such without more justification.

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

This doesn't represent any change of policy or any change of wording, but only makes the original intention of ArbCom and the current intention of this policy clearer. That whole section isn't so much about defining pseudoscience, but about how we are to present, describe, classify, and categorize pseudoscience at Misplaced Pages, which obviously includes how we use Category:Pseudoscience.

What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• ATTENTION! The proposal above mentions two issues to consider. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference NSF_2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment