Jump to content

Talk:Biocentrism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About the move

[edit]

Sorry about doing the move improperly, I didn't realize that I couldn't do copy/paste -- I have read page move guidelines now, and know what I need to do.

As far as my reasoning though, Lanza's use of the term biocentrism is both far less common and newer. For example, if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Biocentrism, you'll see that an extremely large majority of the Wikipedia articles (e.g., anthropocentrism, Murray Bookchin, Eco-terrorism, etc) that link to biocentrism are talking about it in the ethical sense, not in Lanza's cosmological/spiritual sense. Likewise, if you do a google search for "biocentrism", then you get 142,000 results, "biocentrism -lanza" gives 99,000 results -- that is, Lanza's use of the term makes up a minority of the uses. The word biocentrism has been used for decades to refer to the ethical/political sense.

As far as the page use statistics for biocentrism vs. biocentrism (ethics) -- of course biocentrism has more traffic than biocentrism (ethics). When people search for "biocentrism]] on google, they are going to end up at biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. And all of the articles which wiki-link to biocentrism (thinking that they are linking to the ethical/political sense, probably having never heard of Lanza) will point people to biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. That doesn't mean that Lanza's sense is the most common (it's not) -- it simply means that Lanza's sense is (inappropriately) what is represented in the article which is most commonly linked to. If anything, the page use statistics represent the problem that I am talking about -- i.e. people are hearing a word used in the ethical/political sense in many books, Wikipedia articles, etc., and when they come to look it up on Wikipedia, they get an incorrect definition (in the sense, that it is not what the author they are reading intended) of the term. The only thing that the page use statistics show is that Lanza fans are misleading thousands of people per month.

Biocentrism should point to the most common use of the term (the ethical one), so I support moving Lanza's version to Biocentrism (cosmology, and making Biocentrism (ethics) --> Biocentrism. Anyhow, sorry again about the improper page move -- I'm still learning, and it won't happen again! Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think that biocentrism should be a disambiguation page, and that that dab page should link to the ethical and the philosophical articles. I don't think at this time that either usage is dominating. However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise with the use of reliable sources or of Google Scholar/Google Books search results. — goethean ॐ 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with having it be a disambiguation page. Lanza's sense is far less common, and much more recent. I think we should just have a disambiguation link at the top of biocentrism pointing to Biocentrism (cosmology).
As far as Google Scholar and Google Books, both (like the Google search results -- more so in fact) support my statement that Lanza's sense is less common:
Google Scholar
That is, in scholarly papers, Lanza's sense is 67 times less common.
Google Books
That is, in searchable books on Google Books, Lanza's use is over 100 times less common
Google (web search)
Again Lanza's sense is in the minority, and only makes up a larger portion here due to WP:Recentism and marketing. As you can see from scholarly treatments, Lanza's sense is basically never used by anyone but Lanza and Lanza fans.
Given this, I am going to go ahead and do the move (properly this time... ) Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your resarch. However, given that four editors above plus myself appear to oppose the move at this time, I request that you gain consensus befor moving the page again. — goethean ॐ 20:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that I can't move it anyway. So, I am going to request a page move from an admin. Given that Lanza's sense is far less common by all measures, and that most articles on Wikipedia are attempting to link to biocentrism (ethics) when they link to biocentrism, do you have any reason why it should not be moved? That is, why do you oppose such a move? Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
Note: multiple contributions by sockpuppet accounts and IPs in the poll below have been stricken. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Biocentrism → Biocentrism (cosmology) — See talk -- currently, biocentrism points to a very minority sense of the term (I've measured this via Google web/books/scholar results for each sense) Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already responded to this above -- I'll repeat here: As far as the page use statistics for biocentrism vs. biocentrism (ethics) -- of course biocentrism has more traffic than biocentrism (ethics). When people search for "biocentrism" on google, they are going to end up at biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. And all of the articles which wiki-link to biocentrism (thinking that they are linking to the ethical/political sense, probably having never heard of Lanza) will point people to biocentrism, regardless of which one it points to. That doesn't mean that Lanza's sense is the most common (it's not) -- it simply means that Lanza's sense is (inappropriately) what is represented in the article which is most commonly linked to. If anything, the page use statistics represent the problem that I am talking about -- i.e. people are hearing a word used in the ethical/political sense in many books, Wikipedia articles, etc., and when they come to look it up on Wikipedia, they get an incorrect definition (in the sense, that it is not what the author they are reading intended) of the term. The only thing that the page use statistics show is that Lanza fans are misleading thousands of people per month. - Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't explain it, nor does it claim to. The increase in page hits is irrelevant. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM -- of course a link from a highly trafficked website such as the Huffington Post is going to temporarily cause a spike in visits to this page. It does not at all logically follow that the most common use of the word "biocentrism" is the one used on the Huffington Post. By far, the most common use is the one that has been used for decades, and is present in 6700 out of 6800 scholarly articles, namely the ethical/political sense.Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • The number of page hits for the Biocentrism page (at least for the last couple of years) DIRECTLY relates to the publication of Lanza’s book “Biocentrism” and to articles, blogs and media surrounding the cosmological concept. The public wants to understand the idea. Its not just the recent Huffington Post stories, but there is an absolute hit correlation with articles that appeared in, for instance, in Discover magazine, MSNBC, etc. Each time the number of people directed to the Wikipedia page has steadliy increased. Prior to these developments (and the cosmological concept of biocentrism), the biocentrism page received less than 10 hits a day (most of the time 3 or 4/day). This is not an accident Staff3 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already responded to this several times. Please see my response to User:Goethean above. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support- I would like to see this discussed or at least left up for comment for a several days. If there is an urgent problem with the article, perhaps it can be addressed while interested editors have a chance to check in, and weigh in if they choose to do so.- Sinneed 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support the original proposal or the newer disambiguation-page-centric one, as now with biocentric. I am neutral between them. I see the argument for the older usage... more wikilinks, more academic work. I see the argument for the newer one... more likely to be hit by ordinary global web users. In a sense the specific stats are not terribly interesting to me over the short term... they move too much.- Sinneed 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support (as nominator) -- see reasons above. Lanza's use is far less common -- biocentrism is almost always used in the sense of biocentrism (ethics) -- 67 times more (as in "multiplied by", not "an additional" 67 times) in scholarly works, and over 100 times (as in "multiplied by", not "an additional" 100 times) more in Google Book results (again, see above). The only reason that Lanza's use makes up about 20% of the Google web results is due to extensive marketing, booksellers like Amazon, book reviews, etc. -- these carry far less weight than uses in books and scholarly papers. Also note that the term "biocentrism" has been used for decades, always in the ethical/political sense, until a few years ago when Lanza wrote his spiritual/cosmological treatise. The large majority of Wikipedia articles that link to biocentrism are using the word in the ethical/political sense (and aren't linking to biocentrism (ethics), probably because they've never heard of Lanza, or assumed that biocentrism would point to the commonly accepted usage of the word). - Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually explain that in the support/oppose line ("Support as nominator" or "Neutral, nominated for userx"), and put my line 1st. That way I can be neutral in the nom, and give personal opinion in the Vote!.- Sinneed 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I changed it. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By most analyses, this is not correct. Yes, you can plug in certain words and terms in Google to come up with whatever statistics you want. That being said, I’ve done research as well and come up with totally the oppose conclusion. Any scan of Google will immediately reveal the scientific/cosmological concept is far more common. I recommend anyone who’s interested to confirm this for themselves. As far as scholarly papers, Wikipedia is a research tool for everyone, from all professions and walks of life (not just scholars and Ph.Ds). Believe it or not, there happen to be a lot of people interested in understanding the universe and consciousness. You cannot infer that these people don’t matter because they don’t publish in scholarly/academic journals.Everyone is equal here (even bloggers, New Agers and Buddhists). Staff3 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer4/Staff3 --
  • I’ve done research as well -- please link to it, as I did to mine.
  • Any scan of Google will immediately reveal the scientific/cosmological concept is far more common -- actually, the opposite is true, please see the results that I linked to above.Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as scholarly papers, Wikipedia is a research tool for everyone, from all professions and walks of life (not just scholars and Ph.Ds) -- yes, but scholars tend to hold more weight on Wikipedia, since it is an encyclopedia. Please see WP:Reliable which states Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. In this case, 6700 out of 6800 academic sources have it defined in the ethical sense.
  • Believe it or not, there happen to be a lot of people interested in understanding the universe and consciousness. -- Indeed there are, but that is not relevant here.
  • You cannot infer that these people don’t matter because they don’t publish in scholarly/academic journals. -- I didn't infer that they don't matter, merely that their definition is clearly not the primary one. Nor did I only consult scholarly/academic journals -- I consulted books, web results, and "what links here" and all of them point to the fact that biocentrism (ethics) is clearly the primary topic here.
  • Everyone is equal here (even bloggers, New Agers and Buddhists). -- please see WP:Weight and WP:ReliableJrtayloriv (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jrtayloriv – this is becoming redundant. Again, you can play with numbers all you want. For instance, if you type in “Biocentrism” in Amazon, seventeen (17) of the top twenty (20) book listed refer to the scientific (not ethical) concept. Or go to Google if you will: Biocentrism (ethics) gives 124, 000 hits versus Biocentrism (science) which gives 286, 000 hits. But this is all game playing. Bottom line: as already cited very clearly, the Wikipedia audience statistics tell it all (its not even remotely a close call as to why and when people come to the Wikipedia biocentrism page as a resource or for information). Staff3 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is becoming redundant. Again, I've already responded to the Wikipedia article traffic non-argument several times -- it's redundant for you to repeat it, unless you've got something new to add to it.
  • As far as your example with "Biocentrism (science)" and "Biocentrism (ethics)", that is not a valid argument. Most books that discuss biocentrism (i.e. the ethical perspective) refer extensively to ecology/environmental science, so all of those are included in "Biocentrism (science)" -- so your results are greatly inflated.
  • As far as Amazon, try sorting the books by copies sold: results. You get an opposite result then -- i.e. large majority of the top books are not talking about Lanza. Also note that the large majority of the remainder of the results (i.e. those following the top results) in the results from Amazon are also talking about the ethical sense. Again, your example with Amazon, like the one with Google, was logically invalid.
-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose – I just did a quick search of the top hundred (100) entries on Google. Seventy-one (71) referred to the scientific/cosmological meaning of the word biocentrism. However, only eighteen (18) referred to the ethical/political meaning of the word. Regener (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find myself swayed by the google numbers. wp:NOT news. Possibly learned journal counts might be interesting. Possibly press counts. I am more swayed by the note that most of the biocentrism wikilinks seem to be related to the older meanings. I rather like the disambiguation page idea put forward by Goethean. This will still leave the linking articles needing some cleanup... but not making them misleading.- Sinneed 21:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of top google web results is not apt here -- this is due to WP:recentism and heavy marketing ... again, note the total number of results, for each version, and the overwhelming use of the ethical/political sense in scholarly works. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - This is a 'no brainer' - look anywhere on the web and you'll get your answer. Jrtayloriv clearly has a baised agenda. When he/she changed things, stated as a reason that it was "New Age Fringe theory." Others, including Nobel laureates disagree Reviewer4 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did a minor reformat to standard on that.
No Nobel laureate in physics has been cited as disagreeing that this is a fringe theory.
"biased agenda" - wp:NPA would be a good read. Content, not editors, is key here.
I promise this is not a 'no brainer': calling it so is very likely to be offensive to your readers who find it worth their time to consider, and is unlikely to gather support for your position.
wp:sock might be a good read, as well.- Sinneed 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Nobel laureate" (see quote in the article). Note this is a theory of "BIO"centrism (that is, biology). So its not appropriate to dismiss a Nobel laureate because he's not a physicist. BTW The are other physicist quoted that support this. You obviously have strong personal feeling about the theory, (many other people also have strong feelings one way or the other)Reviewer4 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You obviously have strong personal feeling about the theory" - Please remove your focus from editors, and place it on the content. I promise you know nothing whatever about my personal feelings on this issue. Stop now.
  • mentioning the Nobel laureate is a propaganda technique. A laureate in physics has no more credibility commenting on literature than anyone else.- Sinneed 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I do have an agenda -- namely, making Wikipedia a useful and accurate research tool. I've also got other motives such as following WP:Recentism and WP:Weight -- basically, I'm heavily biased towards improving the accuracy of Wikipedia ... note that my motives are not defending a book that I am a fan of with a squadron of sock puppets. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - you cannot just dismiss the reason Wikipedia exists – as someone said above, Wikipedia should furnish the public the information they’re looking for. Jrtayloriv tried to dismiss the number of people viewing the biocentrism (cosmology) page vs biocentrism (ethics) page. He’s blantantly wrong. Take just one example— Lanza wrote a piece on biocentrism (on his cosmology theory) for the Huffington Post on December 9th - the number of biocentrism page views expodentially surged from around 100 to over 2000/day. In fact, in the week or so it ran (from Dec 9 to Dec 18) there were 9,535 page views – more than all the ethic/political page view combined for the previous year or two before. 72.165.90.110 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed: Jrtayloriv, you say you have an “agenda” … “-- namely, making Wikipedia a useful and accurate research tool.” In case you’re unaware, Lanza’s book is used in classrooms across the country (in fact, it’s on the official reading list for the State of Texas). Sorry, but I think you’ll find a lot of people would disagree with your assessment as to what’s “useful.” Are you inferring that the biocentrism (cosmology) page is not accurate and of no value?Staff3 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I can guarantee you that since scholarly works use the ethical/political sense 67 times as much as Lanza's, that there are a lot more books on "reading lists in classrooms around the country" that use "biocentrism" in the former sense, than books which use it in Lanza's. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'd also like to note that there are a striking number of sockpuppet-esque editors (all of the "oppose" votes, with the exception of Goethean), with 100 or less edits, that are commenting on this. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, no -- I'm not implying that the article is inaccurate. I'm implying that having it as the primary article for biocentrism is inaccurate, since the large majority of people who come here either from another Wikipedia article or in a book that they've read will be looking for the term in the ethical/political sense, since that's how most authors scholarly and popular use the term. It is inaccurate to have most of the Wikipedia articles which link to biocentrism point to the wrong article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sinneed -- Sorry about that. It was indeed disruptive and inappropriate. I've removed the offending bit. Thanks for remaining calm, levelheaded, and respectful, and for your constructive criticism. I'm going to go let my head cool off for a while and go for a walk. Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, you’re incorrect about the number of books in classrooms (please cite even a single book that exists about the ethical/political concept of Biocentrism). I personally know several college/university classes that are using "Biocentrism" (the scientific book, since I'm unaware of any others). Also, you keep hammering on “scholarly works” Biocentrism (the scientific concept)is much newer. But again, Wikipedia is a resource for the whole society, not an elite class of people who might or or might not belong to old-school and conservative schools of thought. Society grows and evolves even if there are those who resist change. 24.91.254.16 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A single example? How about 813? Note that all but 5 of the 818 books listed here are talking about biocentrism (ethics). This has nothing to do with "old-school" thinking, or "resisting change" -- it has to do with making a usage of the word that is much more common the primary article on Wikipedia, rather than a view that is much less common. Please look at the 800 or so books that I just linked to, and note how they define biocentrism. It's the sense covered at biocentrism (ethics). Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving Biocentrism to Biocentrism (cosmology), oppose moving Biocentrism (ethics) to Biocentrism. I agree with goethean. Biocentrism should be a disambiguation page. I disagree with his reason, however. The number of page hits is really immaterial. The popularity of searches for different items comes and goes. What is indisputable, however, is that both the ethical and the cosmological use of the term are well established enough to merit articles, and pissing matches about which one is more important to deserve the title Biocentrism without qualification are silly. A disambiguation page that points to separately labeled "ethics" and "cosmology" pages is the only idea that makes sense. 142.68.40.117 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my vote. I really do think it's a pissing match. One use of the term has been around a lot longer and is the far more common usage in scholarly work. The other is very recent, but the most common popular usage currently and has the more popular Wikipedia page. There are people who give good reasons for counting one as the primary meaning and people who give good reasons for the other. There is no need to pick one or the other. The disambiguation page suggestion easily sidesteps the issue and allows anyone using Wikipedia to find what they want quickly and easily. It is only people who really care about one meaning winning over the other who could have a problem with that solution. 99.192.50.55 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (aka 142.68.40.117)[reply]
  • Mild oppose -- I don't believe citing WP:recentism is appropriate here. The book is three years old and the Discover article two years old, and the cosmology meaning is still generating regular press. And no, this is not due to marketing; the same could be said about any three-year-old topic in which 3rd-party sources are still interested. I do, however, oppose moving Biocentrism (ethics) to Biocentrism. The splitting of an earlier version of this article was discussed on this page last year, and there was little or no support for Biocentrism (ethics) getting the Biocentrism page. Finally, I'd advise editors against tipping their biases with phrases such as "new age," "fringe," and "spiritual" -- according to the 3rd-party sources, this is considered a falsifiable scientific hypothesis, and editors invite personal remarks (and weaken their own argument) by representing the topic in a less neutral manner. -Jordgette (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wp:FRINGE bears discussion, if applicable. I can't support discouraging that, at all.- Sinneed 03:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? You'll have to do better than that. — goethean ॐ 03:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your remark appears to be addressed to me and I don't understand. Better than what, and in what way? I do not support suppression of discussion of relevant WP guidelines.- Sinneed 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, reading Jordgette's comments, I guess I see what you are saying. However, no evidence has been given that the subject of this article falls under WP;FRINGE. — goethean ॐ 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reception section does.- Sinneed 04:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, Sinneed, but I don't think the editor was citing WP:Fringe at the time. He/she was casually using the word to smear the topic of the article in a general, non-neutral way. -Jordgette (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.- Sinneed 07:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that they aren't "laws", but guidelines. However, generally editors are required to provide some strong reasoning for why they have decided to go against guidelines. Other than the article traffic and top google search results arguments, which I have responded to several times, and yet to receive a counter-response for -- the editors above are not providing reasons why we should violate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:Disambiguation page, WP:Recentism, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Weight, AND WP:Reliable. Nor are they providing solid evidence to support their claims. I have provided ample reasons based on Wikipedia policy AND evidence supporting the move, and I feel that in order to violate several Wikipedia guidelines, the editors should have a very solid case, which in this case they don't.
  • And as far as WP:consensus, note the following:
    • Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons.
    • Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.
    • Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important if the community is to have confidence in them.
    • In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority.
  • Also note that having a large collection of users (from either anonymous IPs or with 100 edits or less) repeating the same points can give the illusion of consensus. I've already responded to their points regarding the article traffic and web results (which are the two major points that have been made in opposition), yet they keep getting repeated. The fact that there are a lot of user accounts repeating something over and over again does not imply consensus.
--Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I argued against WP:Recentism; see mild oppose above. On a related note, I think you should stop calling it "Lanza's personal viewpoint." It was a personal viewpoint four years ago. Now it's a concept that has generated interest and continues to be mentioned in reliable 3rd-party sources. BTW I didn't realize the article was violating WP:Reliable. -Jordgette (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did see your response regarding WP:Recentism above, and have not gotten around to responding to it yet. I did not think it was apt. biocentrism (ethics) has been used for decades and is still by far the most common use, as the evidence I've provided clearly shows. Lanza's sense is a few years old, and is less commonly used. Focusing on a less commonly used, much newer definition at the expense of the most commonly used, standard definition is WP:Recentism. As far as WP:Reliable, please see my response regarding academic/scholarly works vs. popular sources (news) above -- basically, we have the cosmological sense mentioned only in book reviews, newspaper/magazine articles, and bookselling websites, whereas in the ethical sense, it is used in all of those types of sources (and to a much greater extent), as well as scholarly papers and other books. In this case, WP:Reliable points out that since there is a clear academic consensus that "biocentrism" means biocentrism (ethics), not giving those sources more weight would go against reliable sourcing guidelines. WP:Reliable states Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available, yet even though 67 times as many academic sources use it in the ethical sense, several editors are claiming that the least common sense is the primary definition. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my responses to the article traffic arguments above -- I've covered this several times. Also, I am not implying that older = wiser, as I've pointed out several times before. I am saying that not only is the ethical sense older and the standard academic definition of the term, but it is also much more commonly used today as you can see from all of the statistics I've provided above. Take a tour through, Special:WhatLinksHere/Biocentrism for example ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. What we have here is a term acquiring a new definition, and a few people seem to resent this, as evidenced by this discussion. Those in favor of the move are defenders of the older, more traditional definition of the term. (I am using plurals loosely, as I count that 40 of the last 89 edits to this page were made by one individual, who proposed the move.) In the 1940s, most usages in the literature of the word "computer" probably referred to people whose job it was to make calculations. At that time, the new definition was emerging, but was coming on strong. Not to make a direct parallel here, but the case is similar. Most or all of the "support" arguments are frantic appeals to tradition in one way or another, and Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. PorkHeart (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin note: You say you are an alternate account of somebody. Your use of such an account may be legitimate in principle, but using it for a contentious discussion like here is not optimal. Given the problems we've had here with sockpuppets, could you please sign your contribution with your main account? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those in favor of the move are defenders of the older, more traditional definition of the term. In the 1940s, most usages in the literature of the word "computer" probably referred to people whose job it was to make calculations. At that time, the new definition was emerging, but was coming on strong. Not to make a direct parallel here, but the case is similar. -- It's not only "older" and "more traditional" (i.e. the standard definition, used for example in the Encyclopedia Britannica), but it's also the most common CURRENT usage as well. Thus your computer example is not apt. A more apt example would be if someone today were to write a book called "Computer science" that was a spiritual/cosmological treatise, had a few reviews and mentions of it in a few newspapers, magazines, and "spirituality" books, and then we moved computer science to computer science (machines) and had computer point to the spiritual sense of the word, even though everything from scholarly papers, to book results, to web results showed that the spritual sense was far less common.
  • Most or all of the "support" arguments are frantic appeals to tradition in one way or another -- rhetoric. Most of the "oppose" appeals are all from users that are ignoring Wikipedia policy, without specifying any reasons for doing so -- most of whom are either editing from anonymous IPs or have 100 or fewer edits, and many of whom having strikingly similar names like Staff3, Reviewer4, and ActionCat3 ... I've called for mediation to get some more experienced editors in here, and have also requested sockpuppet check to make sure that this gets dealt with.
-Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment you seem to be approaching violating WP:BITE with this repetitive commenting on the usefulness of new users, and you should read WP:IP!=VANDAL in relation to IP editors. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed I don’t think anyone disagrees that most individuals/traffic to this page are searching for facts and information about biocentrism “cosmology-science theory.” It would seem irrational to divert everyone. Also, my personal read on all this, is that one person (the nominator) may be using this move to try to bury an idea they don’t seem to like. Using words like “fringe,” “new age,” ‘spirituality’ and the like doesn’t help the case.208.93.233.170 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: See my final comments two sections down, under "Admin notes". I think a reasonably clear picture has been reached of a consensus tending towards the disambiguation page option. Both the disambiguation page option and the ethics-as-primary-topic option seem reasonably justifiable, and while Jrtayloriv made a well-argued case for the primary-topic alternative, in the end I think there's no harm in going by the majority preference here, for the moment. If people wish, we can see how the new solution works out in terms of flow of reader interest and revisit the decision in a couple of months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


SPI results

[edit]

Here, it appears some accounts contributing should not have been. I don't think these contributions would have affected the final wp:consensus, but might be worth noting.- Sinneed 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinneed -- I agree that even without the sockpuppets, the discussion still would have been more weighted towards the "mild oppose, do a disambiguation page" solution. I am willing to compromise on this temporarily, until we have new traffic statistics (i.e. now that most of the intra-wiki links aren't pointing to the wrong article -- see admin discussion below). Perhaps in a month or two, we can start a new discussion about whether to make the ethical sense the primary topic, after we monitor how the traffic statistics have changed due to the links being pointed to the proper location (34 to the ethical sense, and 4 to the cosmological sense -- see "admin" section below). I think that the discussion might have gone very differently without the sockpuppets involved, but for now, I would be willing to accept a (possibly temporary) decision to create a disambiguation page, pending further review after we've seen how the new link structure changes traffic statistics. Are you OK with that? ---Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will add my reply as a comment under my !vote. This section really is superseded by the more-robust admin note below, as I see it, sorry to duplicate. - Sinneed 21:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin notes

[edit]
  1. The following accounts have all been identified and blocked as sockpuppets of a single user:
    All their contributions to the above straw poll, and those of anon IPs that appear to be related, have been struck out and will be discounted in evaluating the consensus.
  2. I intend to close this move request in a couple of days, hoping that a consensus solidly based on policy has been arrived at by then. Participants should please familiarise themselves with the guidelines at WP:DAB, especially the sections about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the following one about "Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?" Evaluation of consensus will be made on the basis of strength of argument and conformance to these guidelines, not on the basis of a vote count.
  3. Before any outcome can be implemented, it would be good if all incoming links to biocentrism would be cleaned up and sorted. I suspect that many of the links currently seen here are actually wrong, in that they mean the ethical rather than the cosmological concept to which they are now pointing. I recommend that all links should be unambiguously sorted to either [[biocentrism (ethics)|biocentrism]] or [[biocentrism (cosmology)|biocentrism]]. This will not prejudice the final outcome, since these links will always work, no matter if either of the two targets will end up redirecting to the simple title.
  4. Participants in the discussion might also want to consider if these wrong links might not also have affected the distribution of apparent reader interest as documented in page hit statistics. In general, to assess page hit statistics, we should gain some reasonable idea to what extent the data are in fact the result of the present arrangement of links and titles, rather than an independently given value that could serve as justification for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to go through the list and make the changes recommended in #3 above. I could not change the link on Reality because the page is protected (I think that goes back to when Stephen Colbert asked people to change the page to just read "Reality is a state of mind", but I digress...). Anyway, one of you registered users will need to get that one. It should be a cosmology link. 99.192.84.90 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (aka 142.68.40.117)[reply]
UPDATE: I have finished going through the list. If I counted right and did not make any errors or omissions, of the pages with links to "biocentrism" or "biocentric" 33 of them were changed to links to the ethics page and 5 were changed to links to the cosmology page (that includes the Reality page, which I could not do because of the protection). So for what it is worth to the discussion, there are far more Wikipedia pages that reference the ethical concept. But someone should certainly check my work before taking this to be a definitive conclusion. 99.192.84.90 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE 2: Ford, I see you removed the link altogether from the Reality page. I would suggest that since the cosmological idea of biocentrism is a theory about the nature of reality that it is appropriate to have a link to that page. Just thought I'd pitch in my 2 cents. 99.192.84.90 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you want it back, no problem with me. I wasn't intending to take a stance in any content dispute here anyway. Feel free to restore it. Thanks for fixing the links, in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. (Sorry, should have remembered the semiprot.) So, we have 4 article space wikilinks to cosmology and about 35 or so to ethics now, correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just did a quick recount and got 34-4 (not counting redirect pages). Since those numbers include the fact that the cosmology page links to the ethics page and vice versa, the more realistic numbers for comparison are 33 pages with links to ethics and 3 pages with links to cosmology. 99.192.84.90 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was trying to point out earlier (albeit with too much anger, due to sockpuppetry, that I should have managed better) -- namely that the link structure was the cause of the high traffic to the cosmology page, and not that more people were looking for the cosmology page. it seems to me that not only on Wikipedia, but just about everywhere else, the statistics point to the fact that the ethical sense is the far more common usage. I have mentioned above, in my response to Sinneed, that I am willing to accept a temporary switch to a disambiguation page, even though I feel that I have made a clear case for biocentrism (ethics) being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- but I am willing to compromise, if need be, until we have updated article traffic statistics in a month or two, at which time we can consider making biocentrism (ethics) the primary topic, with a hatnote pointing to biocentrism (cosmology) ... anyhow, thanks to the admin for slaying the puppets, and sorry to everyone for letting my anger get out of hand, rather than dealing with the situation calmly. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you guys. I think going for the disambig page solution is a reasonable outcome for the moment, given the opinions and arguments above, and I'm glad we've arrived at it in a spirit of good cooperation. The way I read the discussion, a reasonable case can be made for either solution, and it's basically a judgment call (given that the guidelines don't actually define how much "primary" something needs to be to be "primary"). So, I think the best way will be to follow the majority opinion, while acknowledging that Jrtayloriv also made quite a well-argued case for the alternative. I agree we might revisit the decision after a few months, if clearer data about reader preferences can be found by then. (I have a small technical idea about how to gain some too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Okay, I've implemented the move and sketched out a new dab page.

  1. There are a few loose ends to be tied up, I think: disambiguation hatnotes at the top of the two articles may have to be adapted or removed, and maybe a couple more similar things.
  2. I'm not quite sure where to put this talkpage. Basically, it seems to have started out at a time when there was only one page, right? Much of its contents refers to both concepts at once, or to the question of factoring them out, or to the question of these page moves. So, should we just leave it here as the talkpage of the new dab page? In that case, somebody might want to move the various wikiproject banners to the correct new places.
  3. I've included a little technical trick in the dab page, by piping the links through two new specially made redirect pages. These can serve to measure reader traffic, for those who might still be interested in reviewing the situation later. Page hits on Biocentrism will reflect readers coming here through a simple search; page hits on Biocentrism (ethics) and Biocentrism (cosmology) will reflect readers coming in through direct wikilinks; and page hits on Biocentrism (e) and Biocentrism (c) will reflect how traffic through the dab page is divided up across the two targets. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your work. Much appreciated! Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biocentrism&oldid=1243806369"