User talk:Nealparr/Archive 1

YouTube
since you asked so nicely Monkey See Monkey Die (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, thanks! -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

CO2
Nealparr, I have been trying to get the following posted on Wikipedia for some time. It has been deleted because of NPOV requirements which I beleive make no sense in this case. Incidently, my requests to Scientific America to respond to this same article have gone unanswered for a month. The CO2 Emissions Fable Once upon a time (actually about 15-20 years ago) climatologists decided to “weave” together  the increases in global temperatures with the increase in CO2 emissions. Their “magic loom” was a computer simulation showing the rise in temperatures over the last 50 years could be “attributed” to higher atmospheric CO2 levels from increased “man made” emissions. The “magic loom” was then used to predict a dire future unless CO2 emissions could be dramatically reduced.

These “weavers” convinced their peers at a convention in the ”land of the rising sun” of the correctness of their analysis and great call went out demanding something be done. Chief among the “wise men” advocating drastic action was a former high “Muckety Muck” (whose initial were A.G.). He proclaimed that the “wisdom” in the “weavers” analysis would be readily apparent to everyone who wasn’t a member of “the flat earth society”.

Of course all of the “kings” (in this case politicians) wanted to show their “wisdom” by agreeing with the “wise men” and proclaimed their willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve dramatic reductions of this “poisonous” emission. There was great excitement throughout the land with power companies refused permission to build new plants and facing the possibility of having to pay to atone for the gases they were currently emitting. As a result thousands of huge windmills were erected wherever the wind could blow, vast dessert areas were covered with mirrors to concentrate the suns rays to heat water for steam driven generators, and plans were made to install solar panels on rooftops and other areas wherever the sun did shine. Even the peasants were encouraged to show their “wisdom”. Organizations emerged which allowed them to pay a “penance” for their individual CO2 emissions. For $50.00, they could atone for about 4 tons of CO2 emissions and proudly pronounce themselves “carbon neutral”.

When measured global temperatures cooled to levels that preceded the surge in CO2 emissions the “weavers” blamed ocean currents and foresaw a rapid return to an apocalyptic path unless CO2 emissions were curtailed. The chief wise man reassured the people by announcing plans for spending $300 million to advocate for the “wisdom” of the magic loom’s predictions.

The reality is that the “magic loom” simulation is flawed by the “garbage in/garbage out” truth of all computer programs. An August 2007 Scientific America article “The Physical Science behind Climate Change” describes how their computer simulations attempt to evaluate how various “forcing factors” influence global temperature. The “garbage-in” part of their simulation is the premise currently used by climatologists that solar activity has a very small impact on global temperatures, about 1/10th the effect of man made CO2. They used this estimate to develop the “natural forcing” computer simulation (i.e. without “man made” CO2 emissions). The resulting temperature calculations didn’t agree with measured global temperature data over the last approximate 100 years. They attributed the discrepancy to the lack of CO2 effects rather than to an error in their assessment of solar activity effects.

When climatologists inserted their “estimated” CO2 effects into a 2nd simulation the predicted measurements agreed better with historical data. This 2nd program is the basis for their predictions of the adverse affects of future CO2 emissions.

The problem is they grossly underestimated the effects of solar activity variations on global temperatures. There is substantial measured data that show good correlation between solar variations and global temperatures (artr@oism.org). Increasing the effects of solar activity in the “natural forcing” simulation would largely eliminate the discrepancy between predictions and historical temperature data. The need to assign some temperature effect to small increases in a very small atmospheric component (CO 2 levels have increased from .032 to .038% since 1900) would disappear as would the concern over future CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately, there is very little money for the study of global environment if the predominantly driving force is solar activity. Some would argue that, efforts to reduce CO2 should proceed even if there is no proof; “Just to be safe”. The fact is that making the drastic changes in CO2 emissions will extract a huge toll from the world economy, particularly in the developing countries. It would be tragic if we allow the perpetrators of this “fable” to continue down that path.

Bill Hirt wjhirt@yahoo.comCO2 doubter (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What you wrote sounds like an essay designed to argue for "CO2 doubt". It's not neutral. It's biased towards that argument. Besides, I'm the last person you should look to for support. While I'm not an obsessed environmentalist, I have no reason to doubt Gore when he showed in Inconvenient Truth that there is a collective scientific consensus that CO2 is a problem. In other words, there's no notable controversy in science on this issue (if Gore is reliable that is, and I personally have no reason to believe he isn't). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I question how one can raise an issue without being biased. Have you read the Scientific America article I referred to? It present itself as "The Undeniable Case for Global Warming". I challange any fair minded individual with a scientific background who studies that issue not to question their rationale. I might point out that Al Gore has studiouly avoided many attempts to "flat earth society members" to debate him on the subject.CO2 doubter (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue. Scientific America often publishes essays that present an idea and supporting arguments, much like the NYT publishes essays in it's editorial section. SA is a magazine, and magazines publish editorials. Encyclopedias, particularly Wikipedia, have a different style, a neutral style, much like the NYT news sections where they report facts without editorializing. What you wrote wouldn't fit in the news section, but rather in the editorial section. As such, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Perhaps a blog would be more suited to what you're trying to accomplish. They're easy to set up, are free, and you'll probably find a lot of support for your viewpoint in the blogosphere. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Global warming
I brought this here, because (as you accurately noted) it doesn't belong on Art's page. Just to clear things up (where they belong), "philosophy" is not more important than the environment (or twinkies for that matter). However, *a* philosophy is. Let me see if I can illuminate this. Tomorrow someone could hit the switch and basically blow up the world. At the current rate of pollution, this planet is going to last *quite* a lot longer than that. Therefore, the philosophy that is keeping folks from blowing up the world, is FAR more important than the current state of the environment. We can wax eloquently, or ineloquently for days on this issue, but the basics can't be disputed; that the world doesn't go up in a nuclear cloud is more important that the great, green earth's state at this particular time. However, that doesn't mean it's important to the *exclusion* of environmental concerns, perhaps this is where you misunderstand me.

In my opinion, one's religion is also more important than the environment, and also important to *help* the environment. After all, where you spend your first 70 or so years is hardly as important as how you spend the next eternity. It is my opinion that long after humans on this earth are gone, 'old Mother Nature will correct things quite nicely, just like many scientists believe she did after the extinction of the dinosaurs. When she is done, the eternity for humans will be in it's infancy (if you believe in such things). However, if you don't believe in an eternity for human beings (or souls) this hardly impacts the belief of others, or the truth for that matter. The bottom line is, either humans will have an eternity or they won't, one is true, none of us can *prove* which, therefore the validity for the belief remains.

Also, we should admit that what we are talking about (really) is the *state* of the environment, and since there is a great deal of controversy concerning just what that state is, and what it will be in the near and not-so-near future, we really need to come to a definition of terms.

Lastly, we all have our areas of concern and or favorite causes. Your's might be the environment, but because mine isn't doesn't mean that mine is irrelevant, or that somehow I am advocating the wholesale raping of our planet. I assure you, I'm not. I recycle, compost and volunteer in my community for clean-up efforts at regular intervals each year and I drive (gasp) a hybrid. My contention is with the shrill, absurd alarmism that is rife in An Inconvenient Truth. Do I believe that we need to have laws and serious efforts to clean-up and keep clean this planet? Heck, yes! A blind acceptance of every, single tenet of the global warming party line and the *present seriousness* of said doesn't predicate responsible environmental policy, globally, locally or personally.

What I find sad, is the fact that those that disagree with a *single point* of the global warming alarmist theory leads to angry, vitriolic polemic for anyone bold enough to make such an action. My opinion is, your treatment of fellow humans is far, far more important than your views on global warming, the environment or cold, creamy, yogurt ice cream (good stuff, by-the-way). If you can't love your neighbor, what you do for the environment is nothing, a resounding gong signifying nothing. Just my opinion. Supertheman (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I pointedly said "random comment", not argument, not discussion, just a comment. You responded with a "For those of you speaking of needing an earth to live in to be able to do philosophy and religion, I might remind you of the Missiles of October." So I commented about that. My own observations, about that topic. You switched it to being about the Cuban Missle Crisis, but of course I'm the one who's baiting and switching, missing the point, and making straw man arguments. OK, fine, whatever, but I wasn't really talking to you to begin with, just editing on Art's page about my own observations, so I really don't know why I would consider talking to you now especially if everything I say ends up being a misinterpretation, straw man, etc.


 * I'm sorry you feel so misunderstood, but you're not as misunderstood as you think you are. I understand you perfectly. After you came at me so strangely, I checked your contribs. Intelligent Design, arguing for a criticism section to be added to the Global Warming page, and so on. No misunderstanding whatsoever. I read you loud and clear. You're entitled to your beliefs, and I'm not one to try and convince anyone contrary to their beliefs.


 * The thing is, though, and this I will talk to you about because it concerns Wikipedia, if the courts shot down ID, and all the scientists are praising Inconvenient Truth, then why would you imagine Wikipedia to be any different? You call it a controversy, but the courts didn't see it that way, scientists don't see it that way, you know, maybe it's not actually a controversy after all. It is definitely a political agenda to make it seem as such, at least on Intelligent Design. You edit that article, so you should be aware that it's no secret that the goal of ID is to "preach the controversy". ID is one thing (I tend to avoid that article altogether), but Global Warming is a science article, meant to represent the scientific consensus on Global Warming. A political controversy doesn't make it a science controversy, and preaching the controversy, and all of politics for that matter, is inappropriate in a serious science article that has serious reprecussions if people don't take it seriously. That is relevant to Wikipedia, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, so I won't make assumptions and just ask: In what scenario does one edit both Intelligent Design and Global Warming, ask for criticism to be included in the latter, and why as a fellow editor should I not be concerned? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also unaware of how familiar you are with WP:WEIGHT, but it addresses your desire to "meld the global warming controversy page INTO the article" specifically. It is why there is a separate Global warming controversy page. In case you're not familiar with the policy (not guideline like WP:FRINGE), here's the relevant section:


 * We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.


 * It is entirely about representation among experts, ie. sheer numbers, not what's right or wrong. One might feel that is unfair, censorship, or what have you, but it's policy. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[forgive any misspellings or clunky sentences, I'm tired. ;-)

I don't feel "so misunderstood", I simply feel that you misunderstood my comments. I'd appreciate if we could avoid clearly sarcastic comments like this directed at each other... sarcasm about ID or global warming is fine though. ;-) I have no problem with you being concerned, however you asked why you should care what I say, yet injected yourself into a discussion I was having with Art. You weren't simply "just editing on Art's page about my own observations", no, you were responding directly to me and you confronted me. I think it's constructive to be honest about what happened, and not simply label it as just "editing on Art's page".

If there isn't a "controversy" surrounding global warming, why is there a page called Global Warming Controversy? You've got me why there is such a page, as Wiki guidelines discourage such a page and the controversy of ID is blended into the argument (where it belongs, if it were balanced). There is basically *nothing* on the ID page about the science behind ID or the scientists doing it, and yes there are those doing ID science. You have to go somewhere else to find out about that, now, how is that good for Wikipedia? You tell me.

As far as what articles I edited, if you will notice I did all such editing this weekend. I did this because I had not long ago attended a symposium at SMU on Global Warming and it was on my mind. By-the-by they all believed (if not all) that global warming is caused by men (or augmented), lest you think I went to some event denying it. Several of the profs there had some choice words for the alarmist language of An Inconvenient Truth, and laughed and scoffed at the page on Wiki. Stupidly, I attempted to bring *balance* and neutral POV to the page, which of course was met with the standard vitriol and quick erasures that I knew it would. But, hey, I gave it a shot. You should know that many academics laugh at Wikipedia, not because there isn't good science there, but because any opposing views are summarily dismissed and that isn't helpful to anyone.

I have a friend who is an atmospheric physicist and he refuses to get anywhere *near* the global warming Wiki page. He believes in most of the tenets of "global warming as man-made" theory, by the way. However, he accurately surmises that it is simply futile to bring a semblance of balance to the page, and is far too busy actually working on projects concerning global warming to mess with angry cabals erasing his work on Wiki. I don't blame him. He told me the other day that none of his collegues in the field could give a rats *** about Wikipedia, and this greatly disturbed me. He said, "it's gone to the dogs, where it belongs". Sad. He allows no reference to Wiki in his classroom, and neither do *any* of his fellow professors. My wife is a professor at NTSU and she echos his sentiment and requirements. Something to be proud of, hey? Sad, because in the beginning on Wiki, many profs contributed and allowed research from Wiki, now very few do.

Back to our discussion... Wasn't that long ago (before Einstein anyone?) that the mass majority of scientists believed that the universe was eternal. This lined up nicely with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the creationists disagreed and offered an opposing *scientific* argument that was summarily dismissed, much like the opposing science to the global warming party line is now. Lo and behold, with the Theory of Relativity and Einstein's later work positing a beginning to the universe and Hubble's discovery of Einstein's predicted background radiation, ut-oh, the universe *did* have a beginning. Also, the theory of relativity, not to mention the law of entropy, all but proved that before the new "Big Bang" there wasn't an atom in existence. Ut-oh, there was nothing before there was something, again, just like the creationists *said*!

Point being, the creationists were proved exactly right, but it took Einstein to wedge the old guard out of their seats.

So, I wouldn't be too worried about what proponents of ID are doing on Wikipedia, we seem to have a pretty good track record at least vis-a-vis the universe having a beginning, and nothing existing before that beginning.

That you tend to avoid the ID article doesn't stop others — of whom all are frequent contributors to global warming and or evolution pages — from editing there ad nauseum. Perhaps you could find time to chastise them for having an agenda? Point being, it follows that if you believe in one, you aren't going to believe in the other and you have good reason to (at least) want a balanced and neutral POV in the pages. Unfortunately, the ID page isn't balanced or neutral. In the opening paragraph it is labeled as junk science. And while that may be true, it has no place in the opening of the article. What say we *at least* take a few paragraphs to say just what is is, is that too much to ask? Yes, it is.

I've been on Wiki for years now, and I contribute to *many* other articles than global warming and ID, just check my history farther back than this weekend. I'm tired though, really tired, and I'm about ready to leave Wiki "to the dogs" as my physicist friend suggested, and most of the academics I know have done long ago. And that's too bad, because I damn well LOVED this place, when it was still friendly and balanced, but all that is gone now... long gone. I hate to sound whiny and fatalistic, but I have to admit that it hurts and hurts deeply that a place I simply adored has driven me to a nub and killed all my desire to help make this a place where one can find ALL valid and cited truth, not just that which the majority believes and wants here. I guess I'm telling you that because you seem like a fair fellow and I always hope that I can find some, any place with a person where we can agree on something. You and I might not agree on global warming or An Inconvenient Truth, but I would hope we could agree that Wiki should be fair, balance and neutral. Here's hoping. Supertheman (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read your comment vis-a-vis the global warming controversy page, "It is entirely about representation among experts". Are you saying that the controversy surrounding global warming *is* relevant because it has it's own page or what. I'm unclear on that. Supertheman (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that Wikipedia isn't meant to be balanced. It's meant to be weighted, an entirely different thing altogether. I don't want to put words in your mouth -- I know you'll ream me for it if I do : ) -- but perhaps that's the fundamental thing you're missing in your analysis of these articles and Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia is "fair". It is "neutral". But it is by no means "balanced". All ideas are weighted by their prominence. In other words, for good or ill, it is entirely about the popularity of an idea, it's prominence, it's weight. That's, again, per policy. Two opposing ideas aren't supposed to be balanced. Whichever one is more accepted gets more coverage. That doesn't just apply to topics I care about like Global Warming, for example, but also to topics like Intelligent Design. Sure, ID folks consider it science, want to present their ideas as science, but in science itself it's a minor opinion that it's science. I'm sure we can agree that there's more scientists who agree with Global Warming, and more scientists opposed to calling ID science, so that's what you get at Wikipedia, coverage representing those percentages. But no, not about balance. It's about weight. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the two parts of WP:NPOV policy you might want to take a look at. First is Npov. Note that it's only about balancing contradictory sources, not balancing ideas in an article, and says "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner". In other words, if the source is biased, go with the unbiased source, which is of course weighing the sources and saying one source is better than the other, because it's not biased. That's the extent of WP's comments on balance in the NPOV policy and it's all about weight. Balance the sources when they disagree, but give precedence to whatever source is less biased. On ID, nearly all sources pro-ID are biased, obviously. The second part is Npov, which like I said above is all about representing viewpoints according to their prominence. ID gets no love here either because it's counter-weighted by the enormous backlash it got from the scientific community when the Discovery Institute tried to get ID into schools. What it boils down to is that ID gets a Wikipedia article, sure, but the view of ID represented in that article is from outside ID, where ID isn't viewed that favorably. That's neutrality and fairness. Neutrality is: Wikipedia is dispassionate about this topic, has no opinion of it's own, but here's how people in general feel about it, according to the prominence of those feelings. Pro-ID isn't very prominent, so it's fair and neutral to say as much. To make it seem like people favor it more than they actually do is not neutral, because that viewpoint isn't weighted correctly. Like I said, it's all about weight. Unfortunately for yourself, the viewpoints you're editing from on ID and Global Warming aren't weighted very highly in science. Like I said, I don't know how familar you are with policy, but maybe that's a fundamental point about NPOV you're missing. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 08:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you added the bit about NPOV and noted that, yes, Wikipedia does strive for balance. I'm having trouble figuring out your math on the WP balancing comment being more about "weight", but I'm trying. No, seriously. I get what you're saying, that if all or most of the reputable sources agree on something, then balance would be to present that overwhelming weight on one side accurately.

Saying that "Wikipedia is dispassionate about this topic, has no opinion of it's own..." is simply sophistry. Wiki is nothing but a collection of editors, and those editors have an opinion about ID, so saying that Wiki doesn't have an opinion is just wrong. The opening paragraph calls it junk science, pseudoscience, and well it may be, but it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. All I'd like is some *information* about ID in the article, as it stands now there is almost *none*. What is there is a sentence about ID, and fifteen refuting it or reducing it ad infinitum.

I note you didn't comment on my remarks concerning how the Creationists were proven right by Einstein, et. al. That's ok, it was long, but when you get a chance, if you wish, give it a shot. The point was, before Einstein (one man) every scientist believed that the universe was eternal. How they reconciled this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics is beyond me, but there you go. Einstein proved us right, or rather Hubble did, Einstein just got the ball rolling. An ocean of scientists who were just sure they were right, spun on their head by one man (who did believe in a pantheistic god). My fear is that since we don't have a man like Einstein today to get things going, how will views such as this have a chance? Remember that his theory, as it predicted a beginning to the universe, was vehemently attacked almost relentlessly by scientists who believed the universe was eternal and static. Even Einstein called the notion that the universe had a beginning "irritating", British cosmologist Arthur Eddington wrote, "Philosopically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me....I should like to find a loophole". He didn't. Had it been a lesser man than 'ole Alfred, would Hubble have been looking for the background radiation. I think not, and that is *frightening* as it pertains to the future. Nice talking to you, by the way. A definite pleasant respite from the vitriol the day started with. Supertheman (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into a discussion of the merits of Intelligent Design and Creationism and have been keeping my comments around the perception of them, because that's what's relevant to Wikipedia. The reason I'm not going to get into it is because I strongly oppose ID in schools, and lightweight disagree with the principle of it outside of schools. I feel that the only reason for ID is to put it in schools, as evolution doesn't rule out a Creator, so it's kind of useless. One can easily believe in a God and still believe in evolution, so I don't really see any reason to create an ID concept and shop it around. I'm also a raving fundamentalist agnostic, not in the popular sense of "I don't know, I don't care", but in the strictest sense of "I don't know, and neither do you". But I'm not going to press my view on you and will just stick to what's relevant to the encyclopedia project. I completely believe in Wikipedia's principles of civility, so hopefully you don't take anything I say as me being rude. I just don't think Wikipedia is designed for what you seem to think it is, in fact I know it isn't. It's solely designed as a popular mainstream encyclopedia weighting the popularity of ideas. Again, that's for better or worse, but it is the way the driving policy of NPOV is set up. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem
We must be doing something wrong. I find myself agreeing with you more and more. Whatever happened to the good old days of our parapsychological bickering? Where's a MOAR-DRAMA lolcat when I need one? Antelan talk 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I try to be fair, but sometimes policy is policy and I believe in the core WP policies. Hope this doesn't lead to more bickering. Honestly, I support "Finished" articles that people can call "done" and move on except for typographical errors, etc. That's not really realistic though in a wiki environment, and I understand that, but when I say I support an article, it's coming from a "I believe it's a 'finished' article" sense. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal
Regarding this - the user is probably posting from Europe, which does not enjoy the same protections on free speech that we enjoy in the US. Certain types of speech, such as certain speech denying the Holocaust, is indeed prohibited in many countries. That said, WP is hosted in Florida, so those concerns are irrelevant to us. You might already know all this, but if not... (inserting a "The More You Know" commercial from childhood). Antelan talk 08:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes more sense
Your concern (expressed here) makes sense to me. I would like to discuss this further with you, but I would prefer to not clutter the request with too much back and forth. For your concluding question, please see here for some thoughts. I'd be interested in your feedback. Vassyana (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Remote viewing
You removed the "pseudoscience" category, but you didn't remove the "pseudoscience" category. Does WP:PSCI say to give a different standard for the category and it's associated infobox? (Notice I have had this same discussion at Talk:Water memory) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What I removed was the infobox and reworded the "generally considered pseudoscience" statement. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the category link because there's quite a few people who feel the topic is pseudoscience, it's reliably sourced as a notable view, and Wikipedia articles can have more than one category associated with them. There's a difference between that and saying it's generally considered pseudoscience, especially when the US Government didn't feel that way when they were doing their research, nor stated anything like that after the research concluded. The infobox brands the topic as such, which is inappropriate in this particular case. WP:PSCI makes distinctions on what should be generally considered pseudoscience and gives an example of astrology, something the US Government (to my knowledge) never spent $20 mil pursuing. For example they never considered pursuing astrology as a means for predicting military conflicts or something like that. They did, however, see remote viewing research as something worth sinking money into. There's a separation of issues here. One one hand, the research concluded that it's of no value to the intelligence community. It's a waste of time and money. On the other hand is the question of whether coming to that conclusion can be done scientifically. Obviously they thought it could, which counterexamples the notion of it being generally considered pseudoscience.


 * Believing that remote viewing is supported by science is a pseudoscientific belief, of course, like believing astrology is supported by science would be. Astrology is also a system that people misrepresent as scientific because it looks scientific, asserting that tracking planets and stars and relating them to events in one's life is actually science. That's a misrepresentation of science, pseudoscience, and why Popper used it as an example when popularizing the term. Remote viewing isn't a system posing as science like astrology. It's just an idea, an idea that some (like the US Government) thought could be tested in a scientific way. The topic itself isn't pseudoscientific, nor the research. The topic doesn't misrepresent itself as science, and the research was conducted using scientific standards. It's the belief that remote viewing is either partially or completely supported by science that is pseudoscientific. Those beliefs could be generally considered pseudoscientific, but the US Government didn't see the topic itself as pseudoscience.


 * I don't know anything about water memory. If there's some misrepresentation of science (like astrology is when it's referred to as a scientific system) then it's pseudoscience. If it's not supported by science, but people claim it is, then those beliefs are pseudoscientific. I don't know what the issues are surrounding that topic, however. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't need to answer on *both* talk pages :) . The water memory case is wholly different from remote viewing, you can take my word for that. I'm thinking of asking for a clarification at Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions to see if the infobox and the category need different levels of proof to be on an article. I would also like them to clarify if you can call something "pseudoscience" when the most basic research on the topic has been proven to be non-replicable and full of flaws. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think of making a RfC for people to opinate on the pseudocience infobox appropiatedness? I'd rather do that before escalating to ArbCom. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the title "Is there enough evidence of Remote Viewing being considered a pseudoscience to guarantee the addition on the pseudoscience infobox" be neutral enough? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your wording better. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Remote viewing -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong.
You didn't look very hard to see if it was restored, did you? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV/FAQ is a policy! Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. The diff made it look like you removed the whole paragraph outright, because I didn't scroll down enough. *sheepish* I do think it works better at the top of the section than the bottom, though - the Arbcom case is about when to label something as pseudoscience, and doesn't otherwise affect the NPOV part much. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, well. I suppose we all have to look a bit foolish at times. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate
I find this very disheartening. Take some time, if you need it, but I do hope you return. -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concern. Just retiring from that article (probably for awhile) and taking a break from editing as a whole to get some real life work done. After working there so long, it's probably best to get some fresh eyes on the subject. Plus after multiple debates (at least one every month or two) I'm just repeating myself to new editors anyway : ) Someone else can do that. Thanks again. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rivista di Biologia
Rivista di Biologia is a grossly unreliable source. As the article on its editor Giuseppe Sermonti states:

Andrea Bottaro, University of Rochester Medical Center, reproduced on the National Center for Science Education website:

The section on 'Experimental test of the formative causation hypothesis' was sourced almost entirely to this unreliable source, and so was removed. HrafnTalkStalk 06:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool down
Well, I'm finished balling him out. I just think that these editors who make the environment bad for the rest of us need to be confronted -much earlier-, and then isolated so that they do not entirly spoil the wiki envirnoment. Basically, don't feed the trolls. I'm not going to respond to him any more on the issue of his being nasty to me and others, as he has not become any wiser. So you can come back. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think any progress will be made on that article without pulling teeth. It doesn't have much to do with any particular editor, just too many strong opinions for my WikiSloth editing habits. I'll check in now and then, but I'll hold off trying to improve the article for now. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply
You have replies on my talk page. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstandings. Vassyana (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith with respect to me
At the current discussion of sanctioning Martinphi you are treating me very badly. If you have personal sanctions you want to make on me, the least you can do is show where I have acted to justify your suggestions. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I provided the diffs of concern, per request. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And they didn't show where I acted in such ways. Your claim that pointing out when Martin is being disruptive is somehow "harassment" is absurd. I guess arbcom harassed Martin then when it issued its ruling. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a very low opinion of you right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your talk page. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

notability problem on WP:FRINGE
Neal, sorry, I forgot that the discussion I was having with MastCell was a bit buried. here's my last statement in the discussion (feel free to delete this after you've read it - I'm just posting it so that you don't need to dig through everything to find it). it's in the section titled "First Paragraph". I've added angle-bracketed comments to clarify referents.

I think that there is a tremendous ambiguity here over the term 'notability'  that desperately needs to be cleared up. it seems the the term is being used  haphazardly to mean any of the following: as I understand it (which may of course be incorrect) notability guidelines (per wp:notability) "only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles." Flat Earth Theory clearly meets the criterion of inclusion in the encyclopedia. undo weight is a closely related issue, and the word 'notability' often seems to be used when talking about whether something is sufficiently important to use in an article (though wp:notability explicitly states that it is not about article content). this clearly varies with context: FET does not meet undo weight requirements (i.e., is not notable enough) to be discussed in the Earth article, but by virtue of meeting the wp:notability guidelines, it is surely notable enough to be discussed in its own article. scientific acceptability is a separate (but also closely related) issue - for instance, scientific critiques of the the FET would obviously meet WEIGHT standards for being included in the FET article - there is no clear understanding of FET unless it is also understood that it is not scientifically accepted. however, even this is not an absolute: for instance, scientific critics of FET might or might not meet WEIGHT requirements for inclusion in an article about the Flat Earth Society, since the Flat Earth Society is (arguably) notable for its cultural standing, not its scientific one. see what I'm getting at, here? at any rate, it seems to me to be a properly conservative move to specify "within the context of a particular article." it harms nothing, and it helps to disentangle this odd confusion around the issue of the word notability.
 * scientific acceptability
 * cultural recognition
 * relative prominence

I added the vague tag because I think this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and one that's causing a lot of confusion about the way FRINGE is being applied. this isn't just casual nitpicking... -- Ludwigs 2 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

now, can I feel free to put the 'vague' tag back on, or would you revert it again? -- Ludwigs 2 23:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't revert it, but I don't believe that "notability" is the least bit vague. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * no, I don't either. notability itself is very clear, but if you read the arguments the go around that particular line in fringe, it gets confused with undo weight and scientific credibility...  tell you what, I'll add a section for discussion, but my thoughts there, and then put the tag back on and see what comes of it. if nothing else, I'll learn something from the exchange.  :-)  -- Ludwigs 2  00:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice
Hiya, I was just scanning through the Dreadstar thread at ANI, and wanted to say that I really liked your post. Thoughtful, civil, a good grasp of the dispute, and an excellent and mature comment which thoroughly addressed the issue. I don't know if you and I have interacted before, but I wanted to say, "Well done." :) --Elonka 15:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very. As always.  Dreadstar  †  20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Seemed like the more prevailing issue and I'm happy it worked out. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FRINGE
Nice work and admirable collaboration between you and SA. I would take either your or SA's final wording, because I think either would be an improvement on the previous version. Enjoy your break (if you actually end up taking one). If not, let me know if there's something I can do to support your work. Antelan talk 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, thanks! I figure it will be awhile before the section is stable and everyone realizes it's not so evil. I don't have to be active in that. It just needs to simmer. You have things in your own head that you want to convey to others so they understand what you're saying, and sometimes it just doesn't translate. That's just the limitations of type I guess. I appreciate the support, and if there's anything I say that you think can be said clearer, please feel free to summarize for me. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ID claim/present/believe
Neal, I undid this change because I thought it changed the meaning of the sentence to something that may not be accurate. The sentence is intended to convey that ID advocates claim it is a scientific theory, which is a fact independent of whether or not they believe it to be true. "Present" is nearly synonymous with "claim," but not a WTA. I didn't understand why you think it implies validity. Gnixon (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page post removed
Neal I think you should know that earlier today someone posted a letter to you on the cold fusion talk page. It had your full name and address (at least it seemed to). It was from the editor of NET. Two comments had been made after that (by PCarbonn). I reverted the talk page back to the last version without the letter. I then went to the WP:helpdesk to ask how the personal details could be permanently removed and an editor did that for me. You can read about it on the helpdesk and some subsequent discussion on my talk page and Pcarbonn's talk page. Sorry this is in a rush, as I am at work and trying to do other things. Regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have a record of it. User:PeterSymonds carried out the removal. It was a letter, formatted like a snail mail letter, with your home address, from Steve Krivit, challenging your view of NET. I seem to recall that User:PCarbonn posted it but can't say for certain. There were one or two following posts from PCarbonn, which he has asked me to reinstate, but I can't do that either. I thought I should act quickly but didn't really know what I was doing. I'm sure that PeterSymonds would be pleased to discuss it with you. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I remembered wrong- the letter was posted by Steve Krivit himself. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ID
Neal, you're doing nice work on the ID article although you're running the risk of being tarred as an alleged member of the alleged (an non-existant) ID-Cabal. ;) Anyway, you're handling Ludwigs and Scott et alia very well. I thank you.  :)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

&mdash; Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request cooldown on WP:FRINGE
We have come to somewhat of an impasse on WP:FRINGE. I have requested 3rd party review of my new intro since we have a relatively significant view difference on it. If a third party editor objects to the into, I won't object to its removal.

In the interest of us not becoming too frustrated with each other I'm going to stop proposing major revisions to WP:FRINGE for a few days until we get some comments on our rfc. I just wanted to drop you a line and invite you to relax with me. By your comments I can tell we want to achieve similar things, and I look forward to working with you, but I think our disagreement about the direction of WP:FRINGE is getting in the way of actually improving the guideline. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was relaxed, discussing it, working it out. I can go back to that. I'm easy to work with, but that requires working with me. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well. I've reposted my current active proposals. It is going to be interesting keeping our discussion points short enough that we don't bore off editors. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, now that I'm back at my computer after a few hours absence I took a look back at some of our more grating discourse. In hindsight, I think my words may have been a bit more ... provocative than I intended. Since we're both here for the right reasons, I'll be more careful in the future with my responses to you. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! : ) If I get testy, call me on it and I'll be quick to apologize. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling you on it was exactly the problem :) When I tried to do it gently, that's exactly where the provocative language showed up. Next time I'll just go to karate practice again and get beat up. For some reason getting beat up by a 14 year old girl always helps put the world in perspective. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority guideline and fringe essay?
I re-looked over your proposal to change WP:FRINGE to a minority view guideline. I think you might actually be on the right track there. What do you think about proposing a "minority viewpoints" guideline, and once the minority viewpoints guideline is established, then there would be no need for a formal "fringe" guideline, and it could be returned to essay status. Any thoughts? HatlessAtless (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The other guys made a pretty good case why fringe and minority views may not necessarily be the same thing, so while I'm still looking for alternate titles, "minority views" may not be the best. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But I think we agree that its the title that's the problem, rather than what the guideline needs to accomplish? HatlessAtless (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't characterize it as a problem. The guideline is entirely an internal set of almost-rules for writing more reliable articles about ideas that aren't accepted by academia. As such, it really doesn't matter what it's called. The name of the guideline doesn't hurt the topic it's applied to because that doesn't actually go in the article. It could be WP:X, and as long as editors realize it is meant to cover subjects that haven't earned a certain level of acceptance, it's good to go.


 * But if changing it to some other name gets people back on point, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure if it will help though. It's not like the WP:FRINGE link will be deleted (or should be since there's an abundance of comments containing that link), it'll simply be redirected to whatever the article is called. Editors will still refer to it as FRINGE, and still use the link. Basically, I'm saying here and above that editors call the subject "fringe" whether it's pejorative to do so or not. It doesn't matter what the title is. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 01:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a risk that enough readers may read "fringe" as potentially NPOV. Whether fringe is POV is less important than whether readers think it is. If I've been approaching the term "fringe" backwards, (it should be interpreted narrowly as a negative label as opposed to as a neutral label) then I may have seriously misunderstood the policy. This will be interesting to see how it plays out. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I love the benefits sleep has on a discussion as well. Do we have a guideline for large-minority views? Take current US politics. Right now the republican party has something like 70% as many registered voters as Democrats, less than 45% support nationally, and are the minority party in both the house and senate. I think your statements on WP:FRINGE that it can apply to "any" minority opinion make it seem that one could apply the label "fringe" to the Republican party at the moment. I guess my concern is mainly with the label "fringe" and that we don't have a good description of the spectrum of minority views (or majority views) for that matter. I'm going to be a little less active on WP:FRINGE for a few days while the hornet storm my introductory post caused dies down. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually, we have several guidelines and policies regarding large-minority views -- which is one of the reasons I'm retracting my "minority views" title suggestion, it's really extreme minorities that we're talking about. WP:FRINGE applies when there is a severely disproportionate weight of views, ie. when it's a fringe view. If it's relatively proportionate (no extreme disparity), the core of NPOV allows competing views to exist in the same area, with the views presented in proportion to their prominence. On an average page, the difference between 60% coverage and 40% coverage isn't really distracting, and it's not like editors strenuously strive for weight accuracy when the numbers are so close anyway. At any given time, the article may shift out of balance slightly in either direction, but it's almost unnoticeable because the weight difference wasn't great to begin with.


 * Fringe is significantly in the minority, often the extreme minority.


 * No matter what the topic, even in science, when 10% of the population holds a particular opinion and 90% hold some other view, that's fringe. Take cold fusion for example. In today's climate of looking for alternative energy sources, cold fusion does get speculative papers written about it, but the vast majority of scientists still feel it requires high temperatures and a lot more than a table top device to create fusion. There's a huge disparity there, eventhough there's nothing inherently unscientific about cold fusion. There's fringe views in politics as well. While Democrat and Republican views are relatively proportionate, with neither view being that much more important than the other, there are still fringe views. Isolationism in foreign policy is a fringe view in US politics. Both mainstream Republican and Democrat politics feel that the US should be involved in foreign affairs and participate in world politics. Isolationism is a significantly non-important view in foreign policy.


 * When we get right down to it, WP:FRINGE, as well as other policies and guidelines, is about determining the importance of information relative to the article's topic and the goal of providing reliable information at Wikipedia overall. In a 60/40% scenario, such views are both important. In a 90/10% or (more often) 99/1% scenario, the information is of little importance. That's what the guideline is meant to address.


 * (copied to the FRINGE talk page because I think this is important) -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 13:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Several policies mention minority views, but is there any guideline that treats them in depth? You mentioned that there is "plenty of guidance" but you didn't cite any. Would you provide some specific examples? HatlessAtless (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help
Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)