Misplaced Pages

Does anyone have an idea why there's a neutrality tag on the article? The article seems to be a pretty straightforward description of what the Noetic Institute studies, and there doesn't seem to be any controversy here in the talk section.A.V. 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall whether I add the tag (which someone must have removed) but if I did, I probably meant that the sentence claiming that this organization uses science to explore yadda yadda should be neutralized, perhaps by a quotation of the mission statement. My point: it is not clear to me that mainstream scientists would uncritically agree with the implication that Noetic Institute is a scientific organization.

Also: ca.comcast.net anon, not everyone would agree with your claim that the topics you mentioned are entirely "mainstream".---CH 23:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I would suggest moving the following to a new 'criticisms' section of the article: The skeptical organization Quackwatch lists IONS as a voluntary organization it views with "considerable distrust.". Quackwatch are no more reputable than many of the organisations they criticise, they are hardly notable and little more than a personal project for Stephen Barrett. They are also through Barrett closely linked with CSICOP who are also far from neutral. In light of this to place them in the first paragraph of this article is far too POV, that is why I attempted to make the addition more NPOV. Thanks - Solar 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the organization honestly, but they do seem to be at least a little controversial. I don't have a problem with moving the critique from the intro to the next paragraph, but there ought to be some sort of critical voice in the article. — e. ripley\ 18:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with the line of criticism not being located in the intro paragraph, but I'm not okay with it being relegated to the very bottom of the article. One line doesn't deserve its own section header, and I believe integrating criticisms into the article text is preferred rather than dividing it up into a separate section. — e. ripley\ 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is usual practice to place the criticisms after the main explanation. But at present I'm not even sure why this statement has been included, Quackwatch have no real relevance and they don't even make any direct statement to do with IONS, they have just been included in a list. You admit you don't know much about Quackwatch, so it just looks like an attempt to add criticism to the article for the sake of it. I think in situations like this it may be better to see if we can gain a consensus on how to include the information if at all. I would like to invite other users to comment maybe a post to both project Rational Skepticism and Paranormal might help. For now I will leave it as is until some other members comment. - Solar 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I know there are a number of Skeptic's papers out there, one of those might be an appropriate source for criticism... but the lack of criticism in the article isn't necessarily an indicator of a POV article. ---J.S (t|c) 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I agree with Solar that the criticism should be at the end. It's common practice to at least let the reader know what's being criticized before doing the criticizing. For the moment, I've only moved, and slightly expanded the passage, but J. Smith is right that there should be other references that could also be cited. I agree with E. Ripley that the article, as it currently stands, is so short that there's no need for a separate section head for criticism. Edhubbard 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in principle wrong with talking about criticism of this pseudoscientific society. However, criticism needs to be referenced and verified. There's also nothing in principle with letting readers now that quackwatch has tagged IoNS as such, but there's not much more that can be said about it other than the tag has been applied. I would say it is not appropriate to remove designation from the article and hopefully adding to the criticisms of this institute will take place as the article develops. Having a stub-section for criticism is fine too. --ScienceApologist 15:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty satisfied with the way it's treated now, I just wanted to see some critical voices in the article. We could stand to explain their tenets a little better in the intro paragraph, though. I may work on that later. — e. ripley\ 16:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this notable? -- Levine2112 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to remove every wikipedia link to quackwatch? FGT2 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just the gratuitous ones and the ones with articles that aren't reliable. But yif you check my history, you will be surprised to see that I have added a couple of Quackwatch links as well! BTW, I completely agree with Solar's assessment above. Why is it notable that IONS is included on the blacklist of an unlicensed psychiatrist? -- Levine2112 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Well, I took a crack at cutting to the heart of what the group seeks to do in the intro paragraph instead of the old, soft language about love; take a look and see what you think. — e. ripley\ 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The article still needs work. I'd like to see, for example, a critique of their AIDS study. Michaelbusch 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can find one, feel free to cite it and work it in the article somehow. Also, I admire anyone who is strict about sourcing, but did you actually search for sourcing for the items you're questioning before you put in a fact tag? It's considered proper etiquette to at least try to search for the answers to questions yourself before putting up a fact tag, especially on such mundane items that I'm quite sure can easily be found among IONS' own literature online. — e. ripley\ 15:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I did not search all of the literature. I was in a hurry. Michaelbusch 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. I have some time this afternoon and I'll see if I can turn up a few links. — e. ripley\ 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added them, even though I think they're a bit superfluous given that it's readily available. Still, no harm done. Thanks Michael. — e. ripley\ 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical Section

I have removed the skeptical section because the statements provided were not merely the opinions of a few individuals, but more importantly they were *factually* incorrect. E.g., IONS regularly publishes its research in scientific and scholarly peer-reviewed journals; it was founded by an astronaut/scientist, and it continues to advocate and practice scientific research and discernment. IONS also publishes articles and a magazine intended for the public, but obviously those materials are necessarily less technical than the scientific work.

The fact that one individual who runs a self-appointed "quackwatch" website is skeptical of the organization is insufficient reason to list it here. If the Misplaced Pages allows anyone offering an opinion about someone else to be used as a reference, without providing reason to believe that the source is both informed and credible, then this site is no better than a gossip magazine. Dean 03:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are three separate groups cited as criticizing the IONS (four, if Paul Kurtz and the person quoting him may be counted separately). Kurtz, the CSICOP, and, yes, Quackwatch have considerable authority as skeptics. Quackwatch is not 'one individual who runs a self-appointed website': it was founded by Stephen Barrett, who has roughly 40 years of debunking health fraud. Barrett is more controversal than some skeptics, but that he has singled out the IONS is notable enough for inclusion.

Regarding Dradin's statement that the article is factually incorrect, he must provide citations to support his claim. If the article is in error, it must be fixed, but I note that even if his above claims are correct, it does not mean that the article is incorrect. And Mitchell's scientific credentials are meaningless when it comes to judging his later conduct.

Given his close connection to this article, I ask that User:Dradin cease editing the main page and confine his contributions to talk, in accordance with WP:COI. Michaelbusch 04:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)