Talk:OpenPsych

Student newspapers

 * Why are these several student newspapers reliable sources? Do they have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy and do they offer something other publications do not? Without those sources, the article becomes quite anemic. czar  00:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What student newspapers? At a glimpse I only see two such citations. Most of the citations seem to go to a New Statesman author. Nemo 07:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Per the New Statesman, "Ben van der Merwe is a student journalist." I haven't read all of them but it ostensibly rehashes what he earlier wrote in the three student papers: Varsity (Cambridge), Cherwell (Oxford), London Student (UCL). New Statesman is good but I'm unfamiliar with the editorial standards of those three. (not watching, please  as needed)   czar  12:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Varsity or London Student aren't mentioned once at WP:RSN, but Cherwell is a couple of times: 1  &  2 . I don't think there's a consensus for using student newspapers for contentious claims about BLPs. But the AfD has already been closed as "keep", and this article would be a stub without student newspapers. I should probably have emphasized the poor sourcing in my AfD nomination more. My bad.  --Pudeo (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Dodgy sourcing of SPLC material
An SPLC article about Wikipedia is cited for the description of OpenPsych as a "pseudojournal". There are two problems with this.

1. The SPLC article takes the term from RationalWiki, which it cites (ie, the RationalWiki article "OpenPsych pseudojournal") as the source. So this the SPLC repeating RationalWiki, not the SPLC itself originating the term. The term itself is unclear and lacks the specificity of, e.g., predatory journal or vanity publication, and is used almost exclusively by RationalWiki, which is not RS.

2. On Wikipedia, SPLC labeling of hate groups, hate purveyors, hate publications etc is regarded as notable (if not necessarily reliable), but they are neither notable nor RS for their opinions on other subjects. SPLC has some expertise in the business of evaluating whether a journal contains racist material, or is run by racists. It does not have any particular expertise in certifying the academic or scientific level of the journals whose racist-ness it evaluates, and its opinion on whether the journal is academically solid or "pseudo" is irrelevant for Wikipedia articles. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources are not required to provide sources to your personal satisfaction in order to be reliable. Additionally, that the SPLC provides a link for further reading is not automatically a citation. As an authoritative source on hate groups, the SPLC reliable for comments on OpenPsych. That the OpenPsych website purports to be an academic journal is not insulation from criticism. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Personal satisfaction" is pretty funny, considering the source. It's also an inversion of what was actually said.


 * SPLC is indeed not obligated to source anything. When they do, and it provides evidence that what we cited to SPLC is probably them copying another source, we should cite the other source if RS, and otherwise not.  Or in the latter case, cite SPLC in the form "the SPLC, referring to RationalWiki, said...".


 * As a (soi-disant) authoritative source on hate groups, the SPLC is reliable for comments on .  They are not being cited for that.  The SPLC is not by any stretch of the imagination an authoritative source on the classification of academic journals as real or pseudo simply on their say so, though of course they can provide evidence (which they did not in this case), or quote more-authoritative sources on the matter, in which case the SPLC's opinion becomes irrelevant when we can cite the same authorities that they do.


 * To be clear, had SPLC called OpenPsych a "racist pseudojournal", they would be RS for that, since such a phrase includes their determination of the hate-groupness of the organization, and "pseudojournal" would function as an attached epithet rather than an evaluation of the scholarship. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Davide Piffer
See here: "Davide Piffer is a racist Italian parapsychologist crank who claims to have psychic powers, including precognition, ESP and psychokinesis.

Piffer also holds controversial views on race and intelligence, is associated with the alt-right HBD blogosphere and is the cofounder of the OpenPsych pseudojournals with Emil Kirkegaard.[1] In 2016 he co-wrote a paper that was presented at the London Conference on Intelligence.

Piffer has a BA in Anthropology and MSc in Evolutionary Anthropology.[2] He is currently a PhD student in Psychology at Ben Gurion University of the Negev. And he blogs at topseudoscience — an appropriate name since he's a pseudoscientist himself.

As of 2019, Piffer contributes to the pseudoscientific open access Psych journal."

Count Iblis (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rational Wiki is not a source and many of the claims associated with this article about Piffer are unsourced (and simply untrue). Wikipedia is (soi-disant) NPOV, not SPOV and therefore, a reference to RW is inappropriate. NikolaiSKarkaroff (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

snarl words sourced as bare assertions from nonacademic journalists
Snarl words sourced as bare assertions from nonacademic journalists are not sufficiently important to merit inclusion in the lead section. 2600:8801:20C:7500:F59A:3893:3713:1CF4 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

lawsuit
Could be relevant to page - Emil Kirkegaard filed and lost a lawsuit:


 * https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/08/13/its-evil-dont-touch-it
 * https://www.5rb.com/case/kirkegaard-v-smith 195.213.159.63 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard legal name change to William Engman
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard legally changed his name to William Engman - should the article be updated and changed? Sources are on his RationalWiki article. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard 90.242.37.71 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd need a reliable source for this. RationalWiki is user-generated content, so doesn't count. See WP:RS. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article links to a document from Horsens municipality. 90.242.37.71 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Problems with article
OpenPsych's journals are not formally peer-reviewed yet the article in the box describes them as 'academic journals'. I also added a recent source describing the journals as pseudoscience but my edit was reverted:


 * Non, Amy L., and Jessica P. Cerdeña. "Considerations, Caveats, and Suggestions for the Use of Polygenic Scores for Social and Behavioral Traits." Behavior Genetics (2023): 1-8.

I would suggest comparing the OpenPsych article (its current version) to the Journal of Cosmology article (the latter in box at least mentions JoC is not peer-reviewed.) Why on earth does OpenPsych not even have a fringe science tag? I would suggest adding that tag, mentioning OpenPsych's journals are not peer-reviewed and also tagging the article with scientific racism and eugenics (compare in that regard to Mankind Quarterly).2A00:23C6:C022:C701:B4C9:5FCE:4B0D:A738 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I don't think the reason for the revert was correct---the external links you added weren't inappropriate, though they're (mostly) citing the already-cited Panofsky and van der Merwe articles. That said, we already have statements about racism and pseudoscience in the second sentence, I don't know if adding the adjective "pseudo-scientific" adds anything in the first sentence beyond redundancy. The infobox says "academic journals" because originally OpenPsych was a collection of three journals (I guess it's just a journal now?) and it used which needed a field describing what it published. That doesn't say anything about the quality of what it publishes, and there's not really a wikipedia standard for writing articles about pseudo-scientific or predatory journals as far as I know. Citing (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is Davide Piffer reffered to as a parapsychologist?
As far as I can tell, the definition acording to the wiki article describes it as the investigation of the paranormal. Ghosts, telepathy and whatnot.

This doesn't seem to fit with his research topics. Gelbom (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As the cited source explains, he has written about ESP/'remote viewing'. MrOllie (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow.... Indeed you are right. Quite rediculous.
 * However, since it was a single post, which if considered "a study" would only constitute 1/62 of his publications. Since 61/62 of his publications have nothing to do with parapsychology, I am not sure this would represent his research best.
 * The FBI claim to have a tape of Martin luther king witnessing and encouraging a rape. Would writing off the entire person based on this be appropriate? I suppose for some figures it is, and for others, it is not. Gelbom (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a single post. And we follow the reliable sources on Wikipedia, and they characterize Piffer in this way. MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Only one source says this according to the wiki [4], and it only cites one instance.
 * Well, atleast so far as I have seen, those reliable sources are mischaracterizing him. I see I am unlikely to render a change, however misrepresentative this seems to be. Gelbom (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I have established that only one source, citing one instance was linked in the article, I have however found a short blog post of Piffers about him being psychic in 2017.
 * https://topseudoscience.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/twitter-and-rationalwiki-psychic-proof/
 * Rather than characterizing him on one openpsych "study" and one blog post from 10-7 years ago respectively. I feel it would be more representative to rely more on any of his 61 studies listed on google scholar that were largely published since.
 * I propose using numerous references of some of those studies in the first [1] wiki citation of this article. As it would be more representative of what he has done and what has cause his noteriety.
 * Calling him a quantitative genetic pseudosciencist would be more acceptable since many deem it so (despite not satisfactorily showing it to be). Wiki should aim to inform rather than to poison the well. Gelbom (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a rather textbook case of WP:OR, which is disallowed by Wikipedia policy. You cannot combine sources (none of which support the claim individually) in that way - certainly not to undercut a reliable source that is directly on point. MrOllie (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As I have said, source one supports my claim. Therefore it is not original research nor is a combinatiom of sources. The NIH artocle supports my claim and is naturally reliable. Gelbom (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Source [1] of the wiki article refers to his quantitative genetics work, pseudoscientific as it may be, which would support my request for changing his status from a parapsychologist to a more appropriate term.
 * The other stuff was merely argumentation as to why it is a gross mischaracterization to only say he is a parapsychologist. Gelbom (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That may be what you are personally inferring from the Panofsky cite, but I find nothing in it that contradicts the SLPC or that directly supports the change you would like to make. MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So even though Panofski cites his quantitative genetics studies, proving him to be in that field in some capacity, one cannot call him a quantitative geneticist because they do not refer to him specifically as such?
 * By such logic one cannot call him a parapsychologist. As the only source supporting such a claim in the wiki[4] does not refer to him as such, just to a single "study" he did. Gelbom (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * because they do not refer to him specifically as such nor do they generally refer to him as such. But it isn't surprising that they wouldn't, because he doesn't have training as a geneticist.
 * On the other hand, the SLPC spends time specifically discussing his qualifications, including this quote his list of research interests includes parapsychology. That is what direct support by a citation looks like. - MrOllie (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have training as a parapsychologist either. They just said it was a research interest. Is interest the bar for being consider a researcher in a field now? If so, then it applies to my suggestion. Or because they don't menrion it as an interest, it somehow isn't a field he is interested in even though they cite his works...
 * This is incredibly obtuse, your interpretations of the wiki standards aside, don't you too see this as silly? He obvious has done alot of work in the field. However fallacious you may deem it. Whereas only one study is evidenced for parapsychology... Gelbom (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the splc says he has training in evolutionary anthropology, having a masters in it. That is better evidence than mere interests for his proffessional status. Gelbom (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Once uncivil language like 'obtuse' and 'silly' comes out, I'm done for the day. Perhaps you'll be able to convince some other watchers of this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying he is a parapsychologist is original research. The article just says he has an interest in it. Someone being inerested in something doesnt make them one.
 * Sry about the uncivil behaviour. Gelbom (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Parapsychology is just a set of fringe beliefs. Piffer is a believer in these fringe ideas and has written about them for at least a decade. It is reasonable to describe the co-founder of a pseudoscientific journal as being part of a pseudoscientific movement, as this helps contextualize the journal's status. Describing Piffer as an evolutionary anthropologist without context would be misleading, and that context would likely be undue in this article. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, so it isn't our job to falsely imply that OpenPsych has more academic legitimacy than it does, and whitewashing Piffer's public image would not help readers understand this topic. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So would just adding his academic credentials would be whitewashing? Even though it best describes what he has been doing? Gelbom (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Further still, it seems to better fit what openpsych actually publishes. Little to do with Parapsychology. https://openpsych.net/ Gelbom (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Presumably, Piffer has been doing many things over the years, but this journal is only notable at all because it publishes pseudoscience. We use reliable sources and OpenPsych, as should be obvious, is not a a reliable source for any factual claims. Further, it is not an independent source, and your personal assesment about what it "actually publishes" is basically irrelevant when contrasted to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, just look at the homepage. The latest 10 published have nothing to do with the paranormal, nor the 10 before that. Doubtful you would think any of this is parapsychology.
 * This is a matter of proper representation, not promotion. Gelbom (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not using openpsych as a source, I'm not proposing any independant research, merely the inclusion of a credential from a trusted source so it would better represent what openpsych appears to publish.
 * It only takes several seconds to assess the titles on the homepage.
 * The omission of information that better renders a neutral position on this publisher is, I believe, warranted. Merely maintaining a balanced representation is not promotion. Gelbom (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So refering to him as a parapsychologist, even though he has only published one "study" on it, aside 61 non parapsychological ones. That is somehow not in breach of neutral POV. That is somehow a good representation? You say promotion, I say your case is blatent bias. Mentioning his credentials as an evolutionary anthropologist as mentioned on citation [4] better fits his and openpsychs noteriety. If not replacing, atleast suplementing the term parapsychologist. Openpsych is not derided for it's paranormal research, it is because it studies on race and intelligence. Gelbom (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia expressly rejects the idea of 'a balanced representation', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also see WP:YESBIAS since you're bringing that up. You appear to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is and how it is written. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources used in the article say he has a degree in evolutionary biology. Therefore it is a neutral representation of what the sources say. And it isn't a false equivalency since the source on the wiki article does say it. Gelbom (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary anthropologist** my bad. Gelbom (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't do that. That would be cherry picking a couple of words in a way that would misrepresent the source overall, which is about how Piffer's credentials, affiliations and the scientific merit of the paper itself are suspect. - MrOllie (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Additionally, OpenPsych is not 'derided because it studies race and intelligence', it's derided because it publishes pseudoscience about race and intelligence. The science is not only racist, it is also bad at being science. The data is misrepresented or irredeemably flawed and the conclusions are cherry-picked. The people who work on these papers, such as Piffer, have failed to adequately address these problems. Grayfell (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The point ofthe matter is that his degree fits closer with the subject of openpsychs content and noteriety. Your misunderstanding of what Pseudoscience is aside.
 * "Failed to point out these problems". Whatever you Gelbom (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, based on his research it definitely better reppresents his work. But if some blog post puts up a hit piece then sure, It would be "cherry picking" even though it better represents what the person does. Gelbom (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the use of a claim in a source has to be in spirit of the tone of said source?
 * I have not found such a rule in the "citing Sources" wiki page.
 * Ok, so you might be implying it is against the spirit of wiki. Then wouldn't saying Piffer and by extension, implying OpenPsych has to do with parapsychology lead the reader to think that this is a significant focus of OpenPsych. Despite a cursory glance of their published papers?
 * This is called poisoning the well. Which, needless to say, is against the spirit of wiki.
 * As it leads to a more inaccurate impression of what openpsych does. (I've provided a link, it requires seconds to gloss over the recent publications). I get you want to saturate the passage with the notion that it is Pseudoscience, but at the cost of an informative Summary? It is redundant and effectively misinformative.
 * I thank you for your patience. Sorry for my rude manner earlier on. Gelbom (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted Gelbom's most recent attempt to change "parapsychologist" to "evolutionary anthropologist". It's pretty clear to me that the gentleman in question has no field because he's not a scholar. If a person's terminal degree is a master's degree they are an amateur, unless reliable sources routinely describe them otherwise. I would be fine with removing "parapsychologist" but certainly not replacing it with an entirely spurious claim that he is some sort of actual scientist. Generalrelative (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * He has such a degree and does that kind of science. Gelbom (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confused because the term "master's degree" has the word "master" in it. This is an anachronism. In medieval times, having a master's degree permitted one to lecture at the university level. This is no longer the case. The minimum qualification for almost any academic job is a doctorate. Now, having a doctorate alone is not sufficient to make one a professional scholar, but it is almost always a necessary condition. Generalrelative (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost always. But not always. He is doing research under that field.
 * I would appreciate not being condecended to. Gelbom (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * here is his most recent article.
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/abs/evolutionary-trends-of-polygenic-scores-in-european-populations-from-the-paleolithic-to-modern-times/E76E2C78FFC3DA9BDEB0BC8E37D9273D
 * He has a lot of work in or associated with his field and degree of Evolutionary anthropology. Not the case with parapsychology.
 * It's inclusion as a descriptor of him is a clear instance of "poisoning of the well". Gelbom (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that is far less impressive than you appear to think it is. In any case, I'm hoping that my latest edit can satisfy everyone. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just an example to prove he is active in the field.... He has like 61 publications too.
 * You can belittle it. But idk how one can not call it science. Gelbom (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is acceptable. Thank you. Gelbom (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)