At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 17/09/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few of which are any more notable pieces of rock than another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I would agree, but in every case your examples failed on (c). The article on Pensée failed to make any sort of effort to describe the magazine _before_ it was radically re-imaged to become a mouthpiece for Velikovsky, and I consider it deletable for that reason alone. Nor did it make any reasonable attempt to describe the fact that the topic is utter rubish, except by including a quote that suggested it was a hissy fit by "mainstream" scientists. Pensée existed before the events described in the article, yet zero effort was made to describe them. This was nothing more than a roundabout promotion for Velikovsky-ism. DELETE!
The article on the Electric Universe so obviously fails (c) that I'm astonished you would even bring it up as an example!
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Yes, but lots of people actually watch The Simpsons. Very few read about the Electric Universe.
By point is not to specifically argue for the inclusion of these articles
Oh geez, yes it is. I can conclude this as easy as looking at your sig...
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
I find it interesting that you don't even seem to argue that these topics are "real', only that they are "verifyable". This is why we don't just accept V. I can, for instance, verify that the homeless guy on the corner talks to himself, but that doesn't deserve an article on the wiki either. We have rules like V, OR and NPOV to act as an interlinked set of guidelines in order to filter out articles like these.
Again, if any of the articles in question made any serious effort to be balanced, they would have stayed up. But they didn't.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Get Cultured With Arts & Culture Festivals On Live Maps http://local.live.com/?mkt=en-ca&v=2&cid=A6D6BDB4586E357F!2010&e...
Maury Markowitz wrote:
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I would agree, but in every case your examples failed on (c). The article on Pensée failed to make any sort of effort to describe the magazine _before_ it was radically re-imaged to become a mouthpiece for Velikovsky, and I consider it deletable for that reason alone. Nor did it make any reasonable attempt to describe the fact that the topic is utter rubish, except by including a quote that suggested it was a hissy fit by "mainstream" scientists. Pensée existed before the events described in the article, yet zero effort was made to describe them. This was nothing more than a roundabout promotion for Velikovsky-ism. DELETE!
What you forget is that a person who knows that the magazine had a previous incarnation should be working toward NPOV by expanding the article to let us know about that previous life instead of deleting the article as a means of promoting his biases. Writing neutrally does not mean that we accept only neutral topics.
It is sufficient to express that Velikovsky's ideas are significantly at odds with the mainstream. There is no need to fill these articles with tediously redundant polemics. A few discretely placed references will be enough to convince the thoughtful reader. At one time Velikovsky's books were very popular, and that is a fact that cannot be ignored.
The article on the Electric Universe so obviously fails (c) that I'm astonished you would even bring it up as an example!
We don't have an Electric Universe article; how is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about?
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Yes, but lots of people actually watch The Simpsons. Very few read about the Electric Universe.
This suggests that you would make contemporary popularity a major criterion for deciding what to review. Few people have read Einstein's original papers - even in English translation - so by your criterion we should delete references to Einstein, and allow our views about nuclear power to be guided by Homer Simpson's relation to his employment.
[M]y point is not to specifically argue for the inclusion of these articles
Oh geez, yes it is. I can conclude this as easy as looking at your sig...
Is that any worse than someone's blind argument for deleting these articles.
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
I find it interesting that you don't even seem to argue that these topics are "real', only that they are "verifyable". This is why we don't just accept V. I can, for instance, verify that the homeless guy on the corner talks to himself, but that doesn't deserve an article on the wiki either. We have rules like V, OR and NPOV to act as an interlinked set of guidelines in order to filter out articles like these.
Verifiability in no way implies that the subject is "real"; it merely establishes that someone, rightly or wrongly, believed this and wrote about it.
Who has written an article about your "homeless guy"? Please provide links so that I can read that article. That, or admit that the idea was only raised as a straw man: a ridiculous example of something that no-one would do presented for the sole purpose of discrediting a more arguable issue. Your interpretation of the rules is a complerte distortion.
Ec
What you forget is that a person who knows that the magazine had a previous incarnation should be working toward NPOV by expanding the article to let us know about that previous life instead of deleting the article
I would agree. But that's not what was going on here. This was an article that covered one very small portion of the magazine's history, after a particularily interesting event. Don't get me wrong, I find the whole story quite facinating, it seems to involve an editor essentially hijaking an existing mechanism in order to radically change direction of the paper in order to print a series on Velikovsky. THAT is definitely worth writing about.
But that's _not_ what the article was about. The article basically ignored all of the history and simply talked about articles supporting Velikovsky. That belongs in an article on Velikovsky, not in an article on the magazine. In fact, the history _is_ already covered anyway.
It is sufficient to express that Velikovsky's ideas are significantly at odds with the mainstream.
Which the article failed to do.
A few discretely placed references will be enough to convince the thoughtful reader.
I think we need to be a little more obvious than that. My kid reads the wikipedia, she's six. She's going to need a lot more help than "A few discretely placed references".
At one time Velikovsky's books were very popular, and that is a fact that cannot be ignored.
*sigh* Come on Ray, I expect better than this... only a few sentances later you compain:
This suggests that you would make contemporary popularity a major criterion for deciding what to review. Verifiability in no way implies that the subject is "real"; it merely establishes that someone, rightly or wrongly, believed this and wrote about it.
Which is precisely why it is not the only criterion.
only raised as a straw man: a ridiculous example of something that
Oh please; you're re-writing my arguments, and then accusing me of using improper debating tactics?
*plonk*
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail. Even hotter than before. Get a better look now. www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA148
I would agree. But that's not what was going on here. This was an article that covered one very small portion of the magazine's history, after a particularily interesting event. Don't get me wrong, I find the whole story quite facinating, it seems to involve an editor essentially hijaking an existing mechanism in order to radically change direction of the paper in order to print a series on Velikovsky. THAT is definitely worth writing about.
And if we can find some verifiable material, that's exactly what we do. Otherwise it's speculation.
But that's _not_ what the article was about. The article basically ignored all of the history and simply talked about articles supporting Velikovsky.
Even if we had verifiable information on the history of Pensée, it is not relevant to the special series; suppose the student magazine was just called "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered", it would still stand on its own merit.
The entry does not talk about articles that just support Velikovsky. And even if it did, then we say so.
It is sufficient to express that Velikovsky's ideas are significantly at odds with the mainstream.
Which the article failed to do.
This is detailed in the article on Velikovsky. We don't say in the article on "Pravda" that it includes ideas that are at significant odds with democracy, or Americans, or Republicans.
Regards.
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
I would agree, but in every case your examples failed on (c). The article on Pensée failed to make any sort of effort to describe the magazine _before_ it was radically re-imaged to become a mouthpiece for Velikovsky, and I consider it deletable for that reason alone.
I think your bias against Velikovsky is showing through here. The post was about notability.
The article made no attempt to describe Pensée before the special series, because next no no verifiable information could be found. As you rightly pointed out, the special series was "radically re-imaged", to discuss Velikovsky, and had little if any resemblance to the original Pensée student magazine.
If the magazine is a mouthpiece for Velikovsky, then that is what we say. But it verifiably included articles both pro, and critical of Velikovsky.
Nor did it make any reasonable attempt to describe the fact that the topic is utter rubbish,
Pensée is not a "topic", it is a magazine. So we should be describing whether the magazine was any good.
If you are referring to Velikovsky, then there is already an article on him. If you were to read Pensée, you will find that there are a number of articles by academics supporting your point of view (but not so over-generally), and a number of article by other academics that disagree.
except by including a quote that suggested it was a hissy fit by "mainstream" scientists. Pensée existed before the events described in the article, yet zero effort was made to describe them. This was nothing more than a roundabout promotion for Velikovsky-ism. DELETE!
How do you know the effort that was put into the article on Pensée before the special issue?
The article on the Electric Universe so obviously fails (c) that I'm astonished you would even bring it up as an example!
I'm glad you agree that it failed on NPOV, and not notability, which is the entire point of my post.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Yes, but lots of people actually watch The Simpsons. Very few read about the Electric Universe.
Compared to the Simpsons, I am sure that very few people read the article on Asteroid #576.
By point is not to specifically argue for the inclusion of these articles
Oh geez, yes it is. I can conclude this as easy as looking at your sig...
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Sorry, what's the connection with the Plasma Universe and Pensée, or with Velikovsky?
I find it interesting that you don't even seem to argue that these topics are "real', only that they are "verifyable". This is why we don't just accept V.
Like Episode 3 season 2 of the Simpsons is real?
I can, for instance, verify that the homeless guy on the corner talks to himself, but
You'll note that none of the articles given as example rely on you as a source of verification.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Maury Markowitz wrote:
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I would agree, but in every case your examples failed on (c). The article on Pensée failed to make any sort of effort to describe the magazine _before_ it was radically re-imaged to become a mouthpiece for Velikovsky, and I consider it deletable for that reason alone. Nor did it make any reasonable attempt to describe the fact that the topic is utter rubish, except by including a quote that suggested it was a hissy fit by "mainstream" scientists. Pensée existed before the events described in the article, yet zero effort was made to describe them. This was nothing more than a roundabout promotion for Velikovsky-ism. DELETE!
The article on the Electric Universe so obviously fails (c) that I'm astonished you would even bring it up as an example!
Did I miss a major change in the Wikipedia ethos? Has failing NPOV now become grounds for deleting an article?
If an article *cannot* meet NPOV, that's one thing. But an article that *does not* meet NPOV needs fixing, not deleting.
-Rich Holton w:en:user:rholton
I agree with Ian Tresman. Many 'editors' are too quick to try to cut articles that do not warrant removal. 'not-notable' is just one of the things people seem to like to say. I don't think it should be so hard to create content, and it should not be so easy to get it deleted. People will *always* bitch about how crummy the quality of WP is, and they will always be wrong.
Just MHO.
Dan.
On 17/09/2007, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 17/09/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few of which are any more notable pieces of rock than another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Ian Tresman wrote:
At 11:46 17/09/2007, you wrote:
On 17/09/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The magazine Pensée is notable, and nobody is questioning that. The article brought up for deletion was "Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)", a "special series of ten issues of the magazine Pensée" devoted to a particular topic.
I think the interesting and idiosyncratic assumption that "all published books are suitable for an article" kicks in here. Do non-English projects make this same assumption? Does it vary between fiction and nonfiction? Enquiring minds want to know...
If Wikipedia were a paper-based encyclopedia, then I think there is no doubt that there would be certain selection criteria. Wikipedia is not paper, and consequently has decided that if it is (a) Verifiable (b) (non-trivial) Reliable sources, (c) written neutrally, then it is acceptable.
There should be no problem with (a) or (c). One still needs to distinguish between "verifiable" and "verified", and that distinction alone allows us not to be too concerned about having references about every imaginable point. Editors should be ready to respond to and discuss specific challenges, but the absence of a source by itself should not be taken as evidence that what is said is wrong.
Similarly, neutrality does not imply any need for long-winded debunkings, nor does it require labeling with such epithets as "pseudoscience". Certain avenues of scientific investigation eventually failed when more information became available, and eventually faded from public consciousness. It is grossly disingenuous to attach retroactive value judgements on these failed theories. That these avenues were once pursued remains as an historical fact deserving of a proper explanation. Anyone reading old material will encounter literary references to these concepts, and should be able to find an explanation about what the author is saying without wading through a lot of polemics. The failure of many of these theories can often be stated in one short paragraph that undermines a fundamental premise for the theory.
"(b)" presents a bigger problem because "reliable" is such a subjective concept. Opinions vary about what is reliable, and under what circumstances. Not everyone accepts daily newspapers as reliable sources. Some may insist on a strict adherence to peer reviewed publications, though I would argue that a wiki based website may be far more effective as a medium for peer review than a periodical whose distribution is limited to a handful of academics working for a university that is willing to pay exorbitant subscription fees. Triviality is also subjective; we do not lack for debates about popular culture where there is a claim that the very presence of such articles somehow diminish the value of the entire Wikipedia.
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few of which are any more notable pieces of rock than another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
The saying used to be "Different strokes for different folks." Maybe asteroid #547 is notable, but surely #548 is not. ;-)
At least I know where to look for information on #547, little as that may be. Without it being on Wikipedia, it would be difficult for anyone unfamiliar with sources about astronomy to track down. Similarly, it would be difficult for a person looking for information about a specific TV episode to find the information that he wants.
Likewise, I see no problem Wikipedia summarising every book that was ever published. It already summarised every episode of many obscure TV programmes.
Absolutely! The media depend too much on the public's short attention span. A short attention span is essential to the economy. There is tremendous wealth in old material that now only rarely sees the light of day, but if people spend all their time looking at old stuff the demand for the new stuff will drop. As a measure of this, a magazine that has been publishing 100 pages per month for a century will have produced 120,000 pages (or 60,000 leaves). That alone gives a stack 20 feet high. Just imagine what modern publishers would need to compete with if it weren't for the copyright laws. :-)
Is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not your typical encyclopedia.
Indeed! There is more to what has been forgotten than lack of notability.
Ec
Indeed! There is more to what has been forgotten than lack of notability.
It seems to me that you can demonstrate notability, but impossible to demonstrate non-notability.
I tell my son that Elton John is notably famous. He tells me that 50 Cent is notably famous. We both say "who?".
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
On Sep 17, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Ian Tresman wrote:
Indeed! There is more to what has been forgotten than lack of notability.
It seems to me that you can demonstrate notability, but impossible to demonstrate non-notability.
In this case, we're not only borderline notable (strange, laughable, non-science nonsense "Theories" being published, as with Time Cube and Velikovsky), but we are getting three levels out... 1. obscure college self-published 'zine (which was then run by uhm, this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott ) -- 2. temporarily publishing a mini series -----3. on strange, laughable, non-science.
I'm in no real rush to see wikipedia populated with articles, about a fan-driven college 'zine, writing a little mini-series on some topic.
I don't care if the mini-series is about Britney Spears, Buffy, Navel lint, Time Cube, *whatever*.
The fact that this obscure 'zine's mini-series is specifically about somebody who earned his coin complaining that his totally unscientific ideas weren't treated like, well, (giggle) science, well.... that just adds to the irony.
-Ronabop
The fact that this obscure 'zine's mini-series is specifically about somebody who earned his coin complaining that his totally unscientific ideas weren't treated like, well, (giggle) science, well.... that just adds to the irony.
You wrote that Pensée IVR was self-published. It was no more self published than any other student newspaper, or even local newspaper, and we include hundred on Wikipedia.
You wrote that it was a college fan'zine. It wasn't, it included critical articles from those opposed to Velikovsky. Even if it was a fanzine, we have dozens and dozens of them included in Wikipedia.
And you called Velikovsky a kook. I couldn't tell whether this was a personal opinion or unattributed quote, but if we excluded people based on whether editors considered someone so, we'd loose 10% of entries.
You do appear to be discriminated against this particular magazine.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:08 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
The fact that this obscure 'zine's mini-series is specifically about somebody who earned his coin complaining that his totally unscientific ideas weren't treated like, well, (giggle) science, well.... that just adds to the irony.
You wrote that Pensée IVR was self-published. It was no more self published than any other student newspaper,
Self published. Not a reliable source.
or even local newspaper,
My local newspaper has hundred of editors in its history, and has existed for more than, oh a few years (over 100, FWIW).
The zine article series in question did not.
and we include hundred on Wikipedia.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
You wrote that it was a college fan'zine. It wasn't, it included critical articles from those opposed to Velikovsky. Even if it was a fanzine, we have dozens and dozens of them included in Wikipedia.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
And you called Velikovsky a kook.
This would be an 'er, duh'. Failing the basics of elementary physics courses, and writing books on "why my personal belief in ancient mythos should trump all of human knowledge of a topic, because my personal mythos is kool"?
Uhm. Yeaaah... A+ on creative writing, F- on ontology.
I couldn't tell whether this was a personal opinion or unattributed quote, but if we excluded people based on whether editors considered someone so, we'd loose 10% of entries.
If we lost 10% of our articles based on eliminating bad science, horrible research, and total ignorance, ya know, I can't say I'd be sad. Or feel we lost all that much.
Ignorant ranting about topics that people *do not understand* isn't exactly in short supply.
You do appear to be discriminated against this particular magazine.
Nah, I'm pretty much anti-moron everywhere. This "debate" just seems to be a fun example.
-Bop
At 10:56 18/09/2007, you wrote:
On Sep 18, 2007, at 1:08 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
The fact that this obscure 'zine's mini-series is specifically about somebody who earned his coin complaining that his totally unscientific ideas weren't treated like, well, (giggle) science, well.... that just adds to the irony.
You wrote that Pensée IVR was self-published. It was no more self published than any other student newspaper,
Self published. Not a reliable source.
A source is quite different to the subject of an article, which is why Pensée is not used as a source in a science article. Pensée is more than an adequate source to confirm, for example, it's contributors, and many facts about itself.
or even local newspaper,
My local newspaper has hundred of editors in its history, and has existed for more than, oh a few years (over 100, FWIW).
So has Pravda.
The zine article series in question did not.
and we include hundred on Wikipedia.
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
And I want the right to read about it and make up my own mind, rather than you or me tell each other what we personally think is rubbish.
And you called Velikovsky a kook.
This would be an 'er, duh'. Failing the basics of elementary physics courses, and writing books on "why my personal belief in ancient mythos should trump all of human knowledge of a topic, because my personal mythos is kool"?
And this is exactly why I want to read an article for myself. I suspect that your "failing physics" quip is based on your own personal assessment. Wikipedia uses verifiable sources.
I recall Director of NASA's Goddard Space Center, Columbia astronomer and Dartmouth earth scientist, Robert Jastrow, criticizing part of Carl Sagan's assessment of Worlds in Collision, and concluded that "Here Velikovsky was the better astronomer" [The New York Times (December 2, 1979)
If we lost 10% of our articles based on eliminating bad science, horrible research, and total ignorance, ya know, I can't say I'd be sad. Or feel we lost all that much.
Ignorant ranting about topics that people *do not understand* isn't exactly in short supply.
You do appear to be discriminated against this particular magazine.
Nah, I'm pretty much anti-moron everywhere. This "debate" just seems to be a fun example.
I hope we're not stooping to ad hominems here. A good editor can describe good science as well as bad science, and do so neutrally.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com
On 9/18/07, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
I recall Director of NASA's Goddard Space Center, Columbia astronomer and Dartmouth earth scientist, Robert Jastrow, criticizing part of Carl Sagan's assessment of Worlds in Collision, and concluded that "Here Velikovsky was the better astronomer" [The New York Times (December 2, 1979)
I suspect this was intended as a monumental insult to Sagan rather than any praise to Velikovsky.
-Matt
On 9/18/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/18/07, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
I recall Director of NASA's Goddard Space Center, Columbia astronomer and Dartmouth earth scientist, Robert Jastrow, criticizing part of Carl Sagan's assessment of Worlds in Collision, and concluded that "Here Velikovsky was the better astronomer" [The New York Times (December 2, 1979)
I suspect this was intended as a monumental insult to Sagan rather than any praise to Velikovsky.
-Matt
Yeah, unfortunately unless you know the history here (Sagan was monumentally unpopular in his field, as popular as he was to the public), it's easy to be confused.
On 18/09/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, unfortunately unless you know the history here (Sagan was monumentally unpopular in his field, as popular as he was to the public), it's easy to be confused.
And Sagan was particularly annoying even by his own standards in this set of arguments, I vaguely recall.
It's a single quote from a "mainstream" astronomer; given the circumstances surrounding the debate, I think we can safely assume it was someone calling Sagan a twerp rather than calling Velikovsky a respected scientist! The dangers of contextless quotation...
On 9/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Similarly, neutrality does not imply any need for long-winded debunkings, nor does it require labeling with such epithets as "pseudoscience". Certain avenues of scientific investigation eventually failed when more information became available, and eventually faded from public consciousness. It is grossly disingenuous to attach retroactive value judgements on these failed theories. That these avenues were once pursued remains as an historical fact deserving of a proper explanation. Anyone reading old material will encounter literary references to these concepts, and should be able to find an explanation about what the author is saying without wading through a lot of polemics. The failure of many of these theories can often be stated in one short paragraph that undermines a fundamental premise for the theory.
Ray;
With all due respect, quite a number of these "theories" are never sufficiently credible to be properly called scientific in the first place.
I do not believe in being so neutral and open minded that our brains fall out and we fail to distinguish between serious science that turned out in the end to be wrong on one side, and interplanetary billiards a la Velikovsky, creationism, and the like on the other.
The latter are not science, and we do a disservice to the readers if we call them that.
George Herbert wrote:
On 9/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Similarly, neutrality does not imply any need for long-winded debunkings, nor does it require labeling with such epithets as "pseudoscience". Certain avenues of scientific investigation eventually failed when more information became available, and eventually faded from public consciousness. It is grossly disingenuous to attach retroactive value judgements on these failed theories. That these avenues were once pursued remains as an historical fact deserving of a proper explanation. Anyone reading old material will encounter literary references to these concepts, and should be able to find an explanation about what the author is saying without wading through a lot of polemics. The failure of many of these theories can often be stated in one short paragraph that undermines a fundamental premise for the theory.
Ray;
With all due respect, quite a number of these "theories" are never sufficiently credible to be properly called scientific in the first place.
That's applying to-day's hindsight to the limited knowledge of former times. Science involves applying certain principles of investigation to a subject. When those processes yield negative results it does not mean that the efforts were unscientific. Judging the theories as not credible even before the hypotheses have been tested is just as unscientific as your characterisation of the proponents.
I do not believe in being so neutral and open minded that our brains fall out and we fail to distinguish between serious science that turned out in the end to be wrong on one side, and interplanetary billiards a la Velikovsky, creationism, and the like on the other.
"Brains falling out" is not scientific language. A fair treatment of Velikovsky's ideas is best done without preconceptions. Being fair still has plenty of room for finding theories wrong.
The latter are not science, and we do a disservice to the readers if we call them that.
Science is a process. We also do them a disservice when we do not give them the opportunity to draw their own conclusions.
Ec
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:22 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
Ray; With all due respect, quite a number of these "theories" are never sufficiently credible to be properly called scientific in the first place.
That's applying to-day's hindsight to the limited knowledge of former times.
Uh, no.
Velikovski's fundamental ignorance of Science from the 16th century *on* is what made him so bafflingly ludicrous.
400 years of ignorance.
Judging the theories as not credible even before the hypotheses have been tested is just as unscientific as your characterisation of the proponents.
Science does not move forward every time somebody hypothesizes a new kind of space turtle, or Atlas, by retesting 400 years of experiments. Velikovski would have been a charlatan and a crank in the 1800's, 1900's, and still is, to this very day.
"Brains falling out" is not scientific language. A fair treatment of Velikovsky's ideas is best done without preconceptions.
This is analogous to saying that "fair testing" requires *total* ignorance of existing knowledge.
So, for the totally ignorant, I will grant that his ideas have merit.
This seems to be the case.
Space turtles for everybody!
Science is a process. We also do them a disservice when we do not give them the opportunity to draw their own conclusions.
'Drawing one's own conclusions' is totally ignorant of the scientific process.
Science isn't about about seeking an *individual's* conclusions. That's Religion.
-Bop
On 18/09/2007, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:22 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
Ray; With all due respect, quite a number of these "theories" are never sufficiently credible to be properly called scientific in the first place.
That's applying to-day's hindsight to the limited knowledge of former times.
Uh, no.
Velikovski's fundamental ignorance of Science from the 16th century *on* is what made him so bafflingly ludicrous.
400 years of ignorance.
Judging the theories as not credible even before the hypotheses have been tested is just as unscientific as your characterisation of the proponents.
Science does not move forward every time somebody hypothesizes a new kind of space turtle, or Atlas, by retesting 400 years of experiments. Velikovski would have been a charlatan and a crank in the 1800's, 1900's, and still is, to this very day.
"Brains falling out" is not scientific language. A fair treatment of Velikovsky's ideas is best done without preconceptions.
This is analogous to saying that "fair testing" requires *total* ignorance of existing knowledge.
So, for the totally ignorant, I will grant that his ideas have merit.
This seems to be the case.
Space turtles for everybody!
Science is a process. We also do them a disservice when we do not give them the opportunity to draw their own conclusions.
'Drawing one's own conclusions' is totally ignorant of the scientific process.
Science isn't about about seeking an *individual's* conclusions. That's Religion.
Rubbish! Science is 100% about drawing conclusions! Funnily enough the conclusions must be verifiable (according to Popper, that is, not WP policy) to be considered scientific. Once the conclusion has been verified enough times it becomes part of what most people misconceive as 'science' - if it fails the (scientific) verification process it is discarded or modified.
Using the above arguments we should remove all that garbage on God / Jesus and all that other nonsense that people happen to believe for one reason or another. (I'm joking).
I think the arguments here has been put very well by a number of different authors. The consensus seems to be that the existing policy is good. It requires that views are not overstated and that the majority view is clearly stated. Additionally, it seems clear that too many people are too keen to remove content that they feel is somehow wrong or unimportant, which has certainly been my experience. Just because a topic is specialist, nutcase or Asian doesn't mean it should be treated as garbage.
-Bop
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 17/09/2007, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few of which are any more notable pieces of rock than another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
547 Praxedis is fairly obscure, but there's been some work on it; relatively routine light-curve stuff, but a proper published paper, which is more than you get on some moons of Saturn...
(and certainly as much as you get for some tiny offshore islets, which we generally accept as normal)
There's interesting baggage kicking around with regards to our assumptions, but I do think it's fair to say that we should expect to have differing standards for tangible physical features compared to those for intangible social constructs like theories or works.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org