Talk:Cosmos and Psyche

Unreliable sources
Steinerbooks is not a reliable source for the claims that it is is informed by developments in quantum physics, postmodern philosophy and Jungian psychology etc, the views of Sean Kelly, have no due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please quote the Wikipedia policy which enables you to disqualify an entire publisher from having the views of its authors printed on Wikipedia. Maybe there is some sort of Index Librorum Prohibitorum to which you can refer me. Otherwise, I will assume that your edits have zero basis in Wikipedia policy, and you are simply acting on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not reliable for the claims, attributing it and filling the article with attributed claims is misleading and should be balanced per WP:FRINGE. So yes, we can exclude it. The source is clearly not reliable for saying Tarnas was informed by developments in quantum physics etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to need something more substantial than you bald assertions before I will allow you to disqualify an entire publisher from Wikipedia. I think that it is quite clear that you don't have a leg to stand on here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The views of Louise Danielle Palmer of Spirituality & Health magazine don't have due weight for stating how compelling a case she thinks is made by Tarnas. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is quite amazing how you can decide which authors' views are qualified to be presented in this article. Let me guess: those who do not qualify are the authors that happen to disagree with you on this subject. The material was presented as the authors opinion. But that's not good enough for you, because you don't like their opinion. So you'd like to make sure that no one reads those opinions. This is wrong, and has no basis in Wikipdia policy. I gave a fair overview of the published literature on the topic. I am sorry that you have some type of religious fervor to suppress this information from the article. Please stop removing well-referenced material from this article simply because you happen to disagree with the content. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Attack the argument not the editor. I've already linked you to the specific policies that deal with these issues. Also note that yes in fact we can say who is qualified to be present in the article, it's called due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "We"? Who is "we"? You. You are removing people's opinions because you don't like them. Please come up with some kind of argument or reasoning as to why you get to decide which author's comments are kosher and which are not. Because so far, you aren't giving me anything to work with here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the "we". Goethean, we are tired of your pseudoscience New Age activism on Wikipedia. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fringe Template
The article currently is unbalanced, it currently makes Astrology appear to look more WP:VALID than it is due. @Goethean, please do not remove this template without discussion (particularly considering you are the article creator). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does no such thing. The template should be removed. The article documents the responses to the subject in a neutral way. Instead of improving the article, User:IRWolfie- chooses to remove sections of well-referenced material and to add an inaccurate and inappropriate template to the article. When his bold edits are reverted, he chooses to edit war rather than following WP:BRD. Please follow Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a legitimate concern regarding WP:FRINGE. The author intends this book to set forth evidence that planetary transits are correlated with human cultural events.  Of the reviewers quoted in the article, only Heron seems to have critically evaluated those claims, and it's not clear that his treatment in Network Review constitutes a reliable source.  In all likelihood, there are no reliable sources that analyze the author's claims and the historical evidence presented in the book.  So what does it mean when a quote calls the book "scrupulously researched and carefully argued" or a harbinger of "world changes as great as those of the time of Galileo and Copernicus"?  On what have they based these judgements?  Why should a reader of the Wikipedia article care about their opinions?  --Amble (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can make these claims about any article. That doesn't mean that one should edit war over slapping a tag on it. If you don't care about the opinions of the cited authors, then improve the article, don't remove the authors that you disagree with.


 * Well then, since we all agree that Tarnas' claims are beneath contempt, and that our readers are not smart enough to figure that out on their own, and that we need to guide them to the truth by removing sections of text --- a truth which just happens to match our own ideology --- I guess that we can just blank the whole article except for the negative coverage of the book in the Wall Street Journal. Then all of the stupid astrologers will stop leading our readers astray.


 * I have attempted to neutrally document the published responses to the subject. If you can improve the article, then please, please do so. I don't believe that my writing is so good that it can't be improved. If you don't want to invest the time or the effort in improving the article, then that's okay. But to slap a fringe tag on the article with no possible resolution is not fair or constructive. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * About any article? Not really; most articles don't contain extensive quotations from third-party commenters who would not be reliable sources.  And most articles that concern claims about evidence for or against some phenomenon are based on reliable sources that evaluate that evidence.
 * Where did I say anything about contempt? Or removing everything?  Or calling anyone stupid?  That would be pretty asinine of me, if I said those things.
 * If you read my comments from the noticeboard, you will see I also came to the conclusion that you "have attempted to neutrally document the published responses to the subject." I also said that there are legitimate issues around WP:FRINGE and that sourcing is difficult for this topic.  I encouraged IRWolfie to discuss his concerns with you, and I'm sorry that the result has been somewhat confrontational.  I don't think there's any reason why that should be the case.
 * My specific ideas were that the article should not go into Tarnas's claims in more detail than can be given meaningful context from reliable sources; and that the "reception" section should make it clear on what basis the reviewers are writing, i.e. they review the book as literature, philosophy, and spiritualism rather than critically evaluating whether it has presented sufficient evidence to back up its claims. The Heron article may be an exception, but it's not obvious to me how much weight it should get (by which I mean just that: I don't know).  --Amble (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any way of marginalizing the positive reviews (let's be honest about it) which doesn't run afoul of original research. I mean, the authors of the reviews think that they are reviewing the book. They obviously feel competent to judge whether or not Tarnas' arguments are nonsense, and whether his evidence is substantial.


 * Each of the sources are reliable for the opinions of the author, and I have attempted to portray them as such. I appreciate that none of you like their opinions and would like to suppress them. But I don't think that to do so is to be neutral or honest. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "I appreciate that none of you like their opinions and would like to suppress them." Please don't invent motivation for other editors.  It's unnecessary as well as unreliable, and usually unhelpful.
 * "Each of the sources are reliable for the opinions of the author, and I have attempted to portray them as such." A major point of WP:FRINGE is that this is not the end of the discussion.  The quotations or opinions must also be selected and put in context to accurately reflect the state of knowledge about the subject.  --Amble (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a book about very fringe topics, but that alone does not justify the fringe tags. Our concern here is one of balance: Are we giving approproiate weight to the positive and negative reviews of this book?
 * From what I can tell, the most fringe view is that of the Tikkun journalist. His statements are a combination of wild exaggeration and plain nonsense. I think we should avoid giving Tikkun and Reality Sandwich the same weight as the Wall St Journal. Perhaps we could condense the extended quotes from Tikkun and Reality sandwich into a single short paragraph. This would show that a the book has received a small number of positive reviews, but nothing as notable as it's negative reviews. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would not characterize philosopher Jordi Pigem's comments as nonsense. Presumably neither would the editors of Tikkun magazine, who saw fit to publish his comments. Does that matter, or do only your opinion and those of your fellows debunkers matter? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Phrases such as "Our psyche is not only deeply connected with our immediate natural environment, but with the whole of the cosmos encompassing us" are profoundly nonsensical. If Pigem honestly believes that the whole cosmos (as opposed to our nearby environment) affects human psyche he is talking nonsense. I could imagine a supernova exploding ten light-years away might change our moods, but short of that, events that take place outside of our solar system have no measurable effect on human behavior. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is great that you've settled that. Undoubtedly we can now remove much of the content relating to holism and related topics. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Philosophy doesn't work like that. We don't delete the article on Hegel just because you might think that he's full of crap. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a psychology claim, not a philosophy. Let me also paste the lede: The book proposes relationships exist between planetary transits and events in the lives of major historical figures is more than a philosophical claim, it's a falsifiable (and indeed has been shown to be false) claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Then it should be a very simple matter to correct the article using reliable sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 12:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above has not identified problems or clearly identified ways in which the article needs to be improved. Articles should not be tagged just because the subject of the article is notable but not mainstream. This is not what the WP:Fringe policy is about.

All of that has been adequately fulfilled. No one disputes that Tarnas' work meets the criteria for notability. This article is appropriately giving exploration of his ideas and noting their influence and reception from critical as well as supporting sources. I can't see where the problem exists or the justification for placing a notice on the page to suggest there is one. If there is one, can we have it clearly identified, and hopefully something more legitimate than the fact that its about a fringe topic and doesn't make the subject look ridiculous enough. --  Zac   Δ talk! 21:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * you get unbanned for edit warring over a template and the first thing you do is remove another contraversial template? It seems to me that there is a wp:weight issue in this article from a quick glance which means the fringe template is warranted... Are you trying to get a longer vacation? — raeky  t  01:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Raeky. Though I'd love to chitter-chatter about holidays and such, perhaps WP would be better served if you saved the time you take to address comments to me personally and allowed yourself more than a "quick glance" at the article? That might allow you to be specific about any legitimate concerns you have regarding problems that need resolution. You think it has a wp:weight issue? In this article which is obviously explaining the notability of book which explains a non-mainstream position. How, why, where? What constructive suggestions can you make to address these problems that you speak of, but I am not able to see? --   Zac   Δ talk! 02:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Trimming/removal of the rather lengthy quotes from fringe supporters. Describe who the people are. The opinions of John Heron which are self-published here have zero weight. I suggest they be removed (edit:I was bold and removed them). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of pseudoscience
The template calls Tarnas' work pseudoscience, but Tarnas does not claim to be a scientist, nor does he make any claims about science. His work is about philosophy, psychology, consciousness, and a proposed link to the cosmos. His influences are poets, philosophers, and psychologists. I think that he would vigorously deny that his work has any relation to science. I'm not sure how it can be pseudoscientific if it does not claim to be scientific. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat sympathetic to your position, but psychology is generally considered a science. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarnas writes about astrology and claims to present empirical evidence confirming a connection between planetary transits and human events. Whether that's pseudoscience or not doesn't depend on whether Tarnas himself uses the word "science".  --Amble (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's proposing a causal link between observable phenomena, specifically that planetary bodies affect human psyche. That is a scientific claim regardless of the language he uses. Use of the pseudoscience template is appropriate, however note that Astrology is a sub-cat of pseudoscience. --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even proposing that they are correlated without a causal link is a scientific claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * he's proposing a causal link between observable phenomena
 * The article quotes Tarnas as describing the connection as acausal. Hopefully you will grant that Tarnas is a reliable source for his own thoughts. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. His work in astrology is essentially self-promotional in nature and consists of little besides self-serving weasling and obfuscation, usually in an attempt to evade scientific scrutiny by hiding behind a veil of pseudo-psychology. His claim that the connection is acausal sounds exactly like ad hoc self-serving defensive weasling rather than reflective of his genuine beliefs, which evidently are that any connection is more than just coincidental, and thus a scientific claim subject to scientific scrutiny. He may be an expert on his own thoughts, but I would consider him a reliable source for them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a convenient reductio ad absurdum for debunking with regard to debunkery. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing True Believers
There is no practical end to the number of True Believers who have provided supportive soundbytes. This does not change the fact that the thesis of the book is WP:FRINGE, and the people who support it are supporters of fringe views whose supportive commentary is generally in fringe-friendly publications. Wikipedia has a reality-based "bias" (i.e. NPOV) and we should not include the opinions of believers in nonsense unless we have credible independent evidence that these views are seen as significant by those with no vested interest in the subject. The onus, as always, is on those who wish to include disputed content, to demonstrate its merit. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I included all of the press coverage that I could find at the time. I placed the Wall Street Journal's glib dismissal of the book front and center because WSJ is well-known. Is there something inherently wrong with citing the opinions of authors published in Tikkun (magazine) or Reality Sandwich? Are we going to remove all references to these publications from Wikipedia, or just the references to these sources in this article? Or are we just angry about the particular opinions being expressed and wish to delete them? I suggest that you give readers a bit more credit, and that you cease explicitly conflating your own views with reality. &mdash; goethean 19:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the fact that you have violated the WP:BRD process and decided to edit war over this. &mdash; goethean 19:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Goethean's case for inclusion, and I agree that JzG should not be violating BRD to delete that material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.173.222 (talk • contribs)
 * See Wikipedia's rules on WP:FRINGE ideas. This book presents nonsense as fact, we do not "balance" that with adulatory statements by True Believers. Reality Sandwich, in partiucular, is a web-only publication by Evolver, a publisher devoted to promoting bullshit (I get their newsletters, there does not seem to be a form of unverifiable bollocks they don't support, generally completely uncritically). It is a canonical unreliable source. Tikkun is a faith magazine, and this is well outside its area of expertise. Again, they are not a reliable source for astrology-related topics, because they have no expertise. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The case for inclusion is that this is published material related to the subject of the article. If a negative review of the book is published today (in a non-blog publication), I would support its inclusion in the article. Tikkun and Reality Sandwich are relatively high-profile publications, and both of the authors (Jordi Pigem and Daniel Pinchbeck) have Wikipedia articles dedicated to them, indicating a degree of notability&mdash;more than Esther Fields, Frederick Dennehy, Inside Bay Area, Lilipoh Network Review, or Keiron Le Grice, all of which were left in the article. So why Pigem and Pinchbeck were removed while less notable figures writing in less notable publication were left in remains unclear. &mdash; goethean 13:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)