Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David in DC (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 17 November 2013 (→Rupert Sheldrake (again): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Rupert Sheldrake (again)

Need to bring this to attention here. Problems are:

1. The "neutrality is disputed" by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash criticism from Sheldrake's page in violation of WP:FRINGE. Fans of Sheldrake seem to be incapable of rationally judging the state of his career progression and incapable of comprehending the clear WP:FRINGE state of this article. This is despite many clear criticisms. It is very difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page.
2. The "neutrality dispute" is entirely frivolous - no objection has been made with a clear and full understanding of policy. The notice however has been edit-warred onto the top of the article.
3. I think that WP:ARB/PS needs to be applied.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, having a NPOV tag is an important indicator when a dispute is ongoing (as this one is). It should be used whenever there is a coordinated editing effort to alter the content of an article in light of a claimed "bias". So the dispute exists and I think that resolving it is going to require simply more editors who insist that the article not fall into credulity traps when the mainstream understanding of the claims of Sheldrake are so clear. One option is to start removing the discussion of his ideas which haven't received outside notice. jps (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea of Sheldrake's fans is that the article should be whitewashed as much as possible. Such an article would not be in line with policy. Unfortunately, I cannot see there is any way of resolving it, when some people have basic WP:COMPETENCE issues caused by having a mental block on understanding basic policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing is not okay. Paring down might be fine, however. Maybe the easiest way to resolve this is with a well-sharpened cleaver. jps (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs), previously banned for edit warring on this article, has submitted an entirely frivolous complaint to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's what's really happening. The neutrality of the Sheldrake article was overturned by a small but very determined band of editors who want to whitewash the Sheldrake page in violation of NPOV. Opponents of Sheldrake seem incapable of rationally judging what constitutes balanced presentation of his work. Though it's already been repeatedly explained to Barney, WP:FRINGE clearly has no applicability. Sheldrake's article is about his life and his views. The task of editors is to present those views and responses to them fairly. Given his fringe status, to discuss his views on a page devoted to, say, ontogeny would indeed be inappropriate. To prevent a balanced discussion of his views on his own page is scandalous. It is indeed difficult to carry on a reasonable discussion on the talk page, but the real difficulty is translating problems raised on that page into changes in the article, and this is because Barney and friends revert every edit that would restore balance.

The credulity trap is precisely the problem. Sheldrake draws hostility from materialist ideologues because he's skeptical of the idea that causation is limited to contact mechanics. Once we recognize the possibility of action at a distance, already well established in physics, we no longer need to rely on genes to carry a blueprint from parent to progeny. Organisms might be able to connect both across generations and across space without material intermediary. What Barney represents is a fear of science, a fear that scientific investigation will reveal that his pre-scientific prejudices will be proven wrong.

I was banned for three days because I was seeking to restore a description of an experiment conducted by neuroscientist Steven Rose that was intended to falsify Sheldrake's hypothesis of long-range causation among organisms but instead seemed to verify it. Given their fear of science, it was inevitable that the anti-Sheldrake editors would revert the edit. I was blamed for the edit war only because I was acting alone in the face of a tag-team determined to keep any mention of real science out of the Sheldrake article.

As I demonstrate on the NPOV noticeboard, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article, Barney's previous complaint against me for edit warring was not only frivolous but based on an obvious falsehood, one that Barney himself should have seen. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We now have more of this nonsense on the whitewashing noticeboard WP:BLP/N. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green, you have my sympathies. There is no reason not to discuss the man's views in his article. Some people want to put in only the criticism without bothering to even explain what the views are, which is absurd. CM-DC talk 21:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To discuss the man's views in his article we need good sources. Is there any specific proposal to improve the article using good sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are almost 100 references in the article. The Guardian and Observer sources are online. The only major archive source I don't have access to is New Scientist from the 1980s. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that refer to Sheldrake as a biologist or biochemist. There are others that do not. Both sets of reliable sources should appear in the article. Since this is a BLP, it's especially important that this living person's biography include the fact that he has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cambridge, in the lead, and not just in an infobox, as if it were history. It's not. He remains, to this day, a biochemist and very recent reliable sources call him a biologist. However, militant FRINGE-fighters delete biologist, biochemist, or scientist every time someone inserts it into the lede. The rationale is usually that the BBC, the Guardian and other reliable sources of general circulation are WRONG, and that the specialized scientific press is RIGHT, and so we must ignore the former and rely exclusively on the latter, because that's the truth. Of course, that's not what the RS, BLP or NPOV policies actually say, but, what the hell, readers are stupid and if we allow even the smallest smidgen of reliably sourced reference to Sheldrake being a biologist in the lead, they'll be hopelessly misled and start communing with their dogs. (I'll provide reliable sources for "biologist" shortly.)David in DC (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Human Sexuality

Over on Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, a new editor is very keen on including a review of said book by Neil Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality, which is published by NARTH, a so-called "ex-gay" therapy organisation that offers treatment to try and change people's sexual orientation, a process considered to be at best unscientific and at worse abusive by a number of prominent professional mental health organisations including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain.

The Journal of Human Sexuality seems to me to be in the same ball-park when it comes to sexology and study of human sexuality as, say, publications of the Institute for Creation Research—far on the fringe. I am posting here to seek clarification: is the Journal of Human Sexuality a valid source for critiques of Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why given the WP:FRINGE and WP:RS policies? Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A case could be made for including Whitehead's review, and a case could be made against it. I don't feel strongly about the issue. The Journal of Human Sexuality could be considered fringe, but not necessarily to the same extent as a creationist publication (claiming that sexual orientation is not innate is not scientifically on the same level as claiming that the Earth was created in six literal days circa 4000 BC). Whitehead apparently does have scientific credentials relevant to reviewing LeVay's book, and that should count for something, even given that the Journal of Human Sexuality is arguably fringe. If the Journal of Human Sexuality is fringe, that's more because of the claim made by its publisher NARTH that sexual orientation can be altered through conversion therapy than because of the claim that sexual orientation is not innate. These issues are often confused with each other, but they're in fact quite different. The former of the two claims is by far the more controversial.

Beauvy's insistence on including the review, despite opposition from several other editors, is part of a pattern of disruption, and that needs to be recognized. The disruption isn't simply the result of inexperience; it seems increasingly to be deliberate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything is saying pseudojournal to me. I can't even find a website. Not to be confused with the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality or the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Its website is, as you would expect, part of NARTH's website. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Chopra on skepticism in Misplaced Pages

And he is not amused as you can read here. Note that this may make editing even more difficult.

(C/P: Talk: Rupert Sheldrake#Chopra on skepticism in Misplaced Pages)

jps (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been smouldering away for months and is likely to continue yet. Does Chopra make any points we should reflect on? It is important his article in scrupulously neutral & fair. Alexbrn 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just repeating the guff one of our "psychic" editors said on the Sheldrake talk page. It even links to his blog. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

He's unhappy that we're accurately reporting that his views aren't mainstream. Actually, Chopra's biography is surprisingly kind to him. Sheldrake's is more along the lines of what we're looking at although it still needs some more work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Poor, deluded Deepak Chopra. He wants Misplaced Pages to allow claims that cannot be verified, and he imagines that somehow magically this will allow only the unverified claims he likes, while -- again magically -- excluding the unverified claims of scientologists, holocaust deniers, or partisans on both sides of such issues such as abortion and gun control. Let's hope he never gets what he is asking for, because he definitely won't like it if he does. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Relatedly, perhaps: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra. Alexbrn 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Inedia

Do you need to eat and drink to survive? Apparently not. Do you need to have reliable sources to back claims inserted into Misplaced Pages articles? Apparently not.

Recent edits could benefit from a wider consensus. Alexbrn 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS denialism

A series of recently proposed edits seem to indicate an attempt to reduce the appropriate portrayal of HIV/AIDS denialism as fringe. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing of LewRockwell.com AIDS denial

I hope I'm not intruding here (will revert if asked to), but an illustration of what OP talks about can be seen in the wiki entry LewRockwell.com. The website has repeatedly published articles promoting the Duesberg hypothesis (and indeed hosted conferences on AIDS where Duesberg presented his views) that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and does not cause AIDS; we have RS documenting LRC's promotion of these views. In 2010, User:MastCell cited RS documenting LRC's publishing of AIDS denial articles n order to characterize the website's science articles (which also featured claims that vaccines cause autism) as "fringe" (1). This consensus lasted three years, but now User:Srich32977 and others keep deleting attempts to clarify the fringe nature of AIDS denial and another science published and promulgated by LRC. (e.g. (2).Steeletrap (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what edits MrBill3 is referring to. We do not have diffs. Steeletrap is referring to the adding & removal of fringe science and AIDS denial categories to the LewRockwell.com (LRC) article. But these categories do not address the "essential—defining—characteristics" of LRC as required by WP:CAT. LRC publishes a lot a stuff on many different topics from many authors. It would be improper to add article categories related to all or any of those different articles. Publishing stuff about a topic does not give LRC essential, defining characteristics. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich is correct here re: categories. Additionally, regarding intrusion, Steeletrap is pushing a broader issue which was resolved months ago, if not in Steeletrap's favor. The issue was discussed ad nauseam on the LRC talk page in May at which time Steeletrap brought it to this noticeboard and was advised it belonged at NPOV Noticeboard. But here it is back again with no new evidence. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There were definitely violations of WP:ITA in the section on AIDS denialism. It is not appropriate to make it seem like rejecting AIDS denialism is a minority opinion by using in-text attribution of a common criticism of AIDS denialism to a single author. jps (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not clear if User:jps is replying to the original thread or the "instrusion". Thanks. CM-DC talk 02:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I (MrBill3) was referring to the discussion on the talk page of the article. If someone could take a look and weigh in I would appreciate it. The discussion has become tedious with points being made repeatedly and as I said it seems there is an underlying purpose to give undue weight to HIV/AIDS denialists. In particular by an IP who signs as Peter the Roman. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Summum and Claude Nowell

Found this when looking at recent edits to Mummy about commercial mummification. Looks like fringe rather than just some weird religion as "Nowell founded Summum following an experience he describes as an encounter with highly intelligent beings". Promotional and we probably don't need 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Klarer

Elizabeth Klarer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please read her biography.

jps (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is terrible. I don't even know where to begin fixing it. Statements made as fact that are preposterous. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Etherians

Etherians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should such an article exist?

jps (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been redirected to Meade Layne which was nominated for speedy deletion. I've removed that template as Layne seems notable enough for an article. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor deleted relevant text from Pseudoscience#Demographics section.

An editor claimed "I did not realize that the article linked was never actually published in BJP. I do not support its use at all on Misplaced Pages.". See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Pseudoscience. The source is published in BJP. This proposal lost interest because editors did not feel it is a useful reference for the proposed text. It was the understanding of editors that no final version had been published. However, the source is relevant to the pseudoscience page and all the proposed text is supported by the published reliable reference.

Abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved. Psychology, however, has much to say about them, as it is the illusory perceptions of causality of so many people that needs to be understood. The proposal we put forward is that these illusions arise from the normal functioning of the cognitive system when trying to associate causes and effects. Thus, we propose to apply basic research and theories on causal learning to reduce the impact of pseudoscience. We review the literature on the illusion of control and the causal learning traditions, and then present an experiment as an illustration of how this approach can provide fruitful ideas to reduce pseudoscientific thinking. The experiment first illustrates the development of a quackery illusion through the testimony of fictitious patients who report feeling better. Two different predictions arising from the integration of the causal learning and illusion of control domains are then proven effective in reducing this illusion. One is showing the testimony of people who feel better without having followed the treatment. The other is asking participants to think in causal terms rather than in terms of effectiveness."

Text from the source: "The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

More text from the source: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

• Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2011). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. 102 (3): 392–405. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21751996.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Proposals

Proposal 1: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Demographics:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscientific examples can be found in practically any country. For example, the 'Keep libel laws out of science' campaign was launched in the UK in June 2009 after the science writer Simon Singh, who alerted the people about the lack of evidence to support chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Proposal 2: Restore text to WP:LEAD:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious matters that are a threat to public health.

Proposal 3: Restore text to Pseudoscience#Health and education implications:

Restore following sourced text: ==> Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery. Quackery is a specific type of pseudoscience that alludes medical treatments. As many governmental and skeptical organizations are actively fighting against pseudoscience and related issues, their efforts to make the public aware of the scientific rigor required to make informed choices are not always as effective as anticipated to reduce the impact of pseudoscience.

The issue here is not a matter of WP:V or WP:RS. That is not the question when the text is obviously sourced. The issue is WP:WEIGHT. WP:NPOV requires that the existing mainstream view is fairly represented. _-Quack Guru-_ 09:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution