Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Minskist popper (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 5 April 2007 (→[]: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer

As discussed by SeraphimBlade in this RfC, MartinPhi has been using this page as part of his repeated POV pushing and has been directing new editors to it. The essay fundamentally disagrees with basic parts of NPOV and includes such statements as "The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe" (which apparently applies to "paranormal" subjects)."Parapsychology is a scientific field", as well as a section demonstrating serious misunderstanding about how NPOV deals with issues that have an established scientific consensus. It also includes examples of his own self-declared weasel words, as well as examples of what he claims is NPOVing which are in fact POV-pushing. This "essay" is a hopelessly flawed tool for misdirection and POV pushing. JoshuaZ 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep a user is allowed to present his Wikiphilosophy or views on Misplaced Pages in userspace. I may disagree with his views but we are all entitled to write Wiki essays to present them. Go look at WP:ESSAY for essay instructions. Wooyi 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also there is even worse essays on Wiki project space, like Misplaced Pages:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Wooyi 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you and often support giving much leeway to userspace. However, the user has spent time directing new users to his essay as part of his general POV-pushing and disruption. This makes the flaws in the essay much more serious. JoshuaZ 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the case tell him not to message new users, not to delete his essay page. There are some points in his essay that are wrong, but there are some good points as well. We should have a policy on how to welcome new users. Wooyi 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck if you delete it. However, I think I may have given it to only two users. I never was the first to greet any user. Also, I had no idea this was even frowned upon. I still don't have any reason to believe it is actually against any rule. And the essay has a template on it saying it is only a user opinion, not policy. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - possibly archive as an example of POV-pushing - Here he cites it to another editor in order to sell his POV in the Parapsychology article. And here he directs a new user who disagrees with his POV in the Psychic article to refer to it. Here of course he recommends it to new user Annalisa Ventola. And here I'm not sure what's going on. The only value of the essay is as an example of what not to do. --- LuckyLouie 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete After consulting with my psychic no, uh, after having my palm read, no, uh...upon looking at my aura oh, just get rid of this POV nonsense. •Jim62sch• 08:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Clear violation of Advocacy (see: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). -- Fyslee/talk 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I would want it kept if any of it had just a one in a zillion chance of becoming policy after being adopted by the community. However, it goes against our most important founding principle: NPOV, which is not subject to consensus. This reduces its chances to zero. I also note that Martin appears to believe this essay is actually supported by our current rules. Deleting it gives the firm message that it isn't. AvB ÷ talk 10:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Fyslee. Harmful to the encyclopedia; there is a policy about this, and the essay is an attempt (whether intended as such or not) to do an end-run around that policy. As the author is not only referencing his essay in policy disputes, but even pointing new editors to it - who may not understand the difference between policy and essay, and take this as helpful authority giving guidance rather than an editor pointing to his own personal opinions which run counter to policy, the essay may be doing long-term damage as new editors learn the "wrong thing" and that is passed along. Impossible to calculate how much harm this could do, but clearly it must go. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT, disruptive. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment, is "The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe" really the worst statement in there? I mean, Misplaced Pages isn't in the business of telling people what to believe, full stop. If this essay is really so bad, maybe you should give an example of something it says that's _actually_ against policy. --Random832 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep (If it is even legal to have a vote on this one.)

I think Martin's essay is a good effort to teach paranormal "proponents" how to take the high road in Misplaced Pages. That is good moral advice that I wish skeptics would follow.

Following his statement, in part, "The essay fundamentally disagrees with basic parts of NPOV...", his first point cited by JoshuaZ, "The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe" is exactly the advice I have been giving all along. The less you say the less opportunity you have to say something wrong. When an editor only knows what is written about a subject from something like the Skeptical Dictionary, then the less said the less misleading the article.

JoshuaZ also cited the point, "Parapsychology is a scientific field." That is a true statement and violates no Misplaced Pages policy (Unless the skeptic's club is making Misplaced Pages policy now). The people who are college trained as parapsychologists do consider it a science. Misplaced Pages is not the place to decide otherwise.

The only people who seem to be offended by the article are skeptics. I, in turn, am offended by the Skeptic's club page,(http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism) especially from the Scope:

=====================================

The neutral point of view must be preserved where it exists and created where it does not exist.

This WikiProject aims primarily to coordinate the efforts of Wikipedians who wish to promote science and reason in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Misplaced Pages articles on various topics, while maintaining the NPOV.

The goals of this WikiProject are as follows:

To create new articles relating to science and reason.

To create new Misplaced Pages articles regarding those topics not yet covered by Misplaced Pages, but which are covered by The Skeptic's Dictionary.

To place pseudoscience tags on articles related to pseudoscience, fraudster tags on articles concerning convicted fraudsters, and add to criticisms sections where criticism is due.

To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.

To improve those articles which need help.

To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.

=================================

If you delete Martin's page, then you must delete the skeptic's page for the same reason, as it is clearly pushing The Skeptic's Dictionary point of view.

This is a pretty clear attempt at censorship. Misplaced Pages is a publicly supported 501(c)(3) organization and there may be questions of constitutional law concerning free speech. Are you sure you want to go down that path as you and your skeptic friends do everything you can to eliminate "proponents"? Tom Butler 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FREE. AvB ÷ talk 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

Please tell me under what rule you have the right to delete one of my user pages. I will allow the template to remain on the user page for a little while in order to give people a chance to reply here. It will be removed if a clear and decisive explanation is not given. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think deleting this page is doing you a favor. It now serves as evidence against you. But it would be better if you would read the reasons given above, understood the reasons (such as the WP:NPOV policy), and then deleted the page yourself.

Removing the tag instead of waiting for the MfD to run its course would be disruptive behavior. AvB ÷ talk 10:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AvB here. I agree with AvB's comments above. (updated for clarity) Even if the page deserves to be deleted, I'd recommend deferring the actual deletion until after Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Martinphi is completed (and longer if it becomes apparent that more DR will be necessary after that). --Minderbinder 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I said, but not a problem since I agree with it. In the meantime Martin is advised to refrain from inviting people to read the page. AvB ÷ talk 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear - I agree with what you said and my comments were meant to expand on my opinion, not paraphrase what you said. Hope this makes more sense now. --Minderbinder 13:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for explaining. I agree with everything you said above, and not only to achieve three degrees of recursion. AvB ÷ talk 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment This whole MFD is designed to suppress Martin as an established editor. His views are flawed, but I read the essay and the essay firmly support NPOV. I don't believe the so-called "scientific consensus" has discredited parapsychology. Wolf Messing has even convinced Albert Einstein and Sigmond Freud about the truthfulness of psychic power. Wooyi 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)