Talk:Faraday Institute for Science and Religion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability tag

An anon placed a notability tag in Oct. Since there are now refs from Science, the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent I think it should be removed. But I am an associate of the Faraday Institute - would someone else like to remove it or would anyone object if I do? NBeale (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And most of those refs are to articles written by individuals associated with FI (in at least one occasion, from the author's potted-bio in the piece), and are 'bare mention' even then. There is almost no third-party coverage, let alone "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article is puffed up out of all proportion with self-references, but I don't see any inherent problem with notability as such. There is enough to establish that the Faraday Institute passes WP:GNG, I reckon. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Which third-party sources give it more than a bare mention? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe you're right - but there are reasonable sources out there, such as this one, which could/should be mentioned. The article probably needs attention - but it's not going to get it from me, as I don't really care that much about it! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a promotional blurb, so a 'questionable' source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its over the hump now, and support deleting the tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you won't mind answering my earlier question to SNALWIBMA: "Which third-party sources give it more than a bare mention?" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

<Well there is a whole page (very favourable) review of Let Newton Be in Science which mentions prominently (2nd para and summary box) that it was "Commisioned by the Faraday Institute...". It is very rare that a play gets reviewed in Science and it is clear that this play would not exist without the Faraday Institute. NBeale (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This would be solid coverage if the article was about the play, reasonably useful if the article was about the playwright, but "bare mention" of the commissioning party. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not clear to me. Though if the article were about the play or the playwright I would agree it would count towards their notability as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, if a singer wins 11 Grammy awards, for songs sung by writer x, and produced by record label y, that would count for Wikipedia purposes towards the notablity of the singer, the writer, and the record label.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, FI is neither the "singer" nor the "writer", nor even the "producer" -- it is merely the financial backer. It has little or no creative involvement, appears to get only a bare mention in the review, and so garners very little notability from the play and its review. Where's the "significant coverage"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your basis for saying that it is only the financial backer, and has little or not creative involvement?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion."

This claimed activity "of the Faraday Institute":

1. Is WP:SYNTH of a large chunk of WP:PRIMARY material.
2. Demonstrates no "public commentary" beyond Alexander's own (so would be more appropriate for Denis Alexander in any case).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The description "public commentary" has been in the article pretty much from the first and as I recall comes from the institute's own website. Adding further refs for an already well-established and non-controversial claim cannot be WP:SYNTH. The only reason for adding these refs is the absurd suggestion that the Faraday Institute is "non-notable" made by an anon edit on 18-Oct. If you seriously question notability you cannot then object to adding reliable sources which mention the Institute. NBeale (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) Self-descriptions generally aren't good enough for Wikipedia -- and in any case its website was never cited. (ii) Drawing conclusions from WP:PRIMARY sources is exactly what WP:SYNTH prohibits. (iii) "Adding further refs for an already well-established and non-controversial claim", even if this were true, would be ref-bombing -- and not a legitimate means of establishing notability. (iv) In any case, it is "absurd" to suggest that these citations which either are not independent (in that they are authored by Farady's director) and/or contain mere bare mention of the FI, do anything to establish notability -- which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (v) Finally, as you have a COI on this topic, you should only be editing it within the limits established by WP:COI#Non-controversial edits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-descriptions are fine, and often the most accurate, though at times it is best to indicate that it is a self-description if there is reason to think the description is controversial.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A challenge on sourcing and notability

Can anybody come up with even a single source, that is not affiliated with the FI, that gives mention to the FI in more than a single sentence (let alone two consecutive sentences on the topic, let alone a full paragraph)? I would note that this "challenge" is well below the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required for notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW the Science review mentions the Faraday Institute twice, and the whole 1page review is about a play the institute commissioned - ie without the FI the play would not exist. There are about 131k ghits Picking one more or less at random, the British Society for the History of Science says: "The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion is an academic research enterprise based at St Edmund's College, Cambridge. The Faraday Institute offers informed and intellectually rigorous courses on the relationship between science and religion, delivered by speakers eminent in their own discipline and in this inter-disciplinary field." and goes on to give a whole page... Please accept that you are flogging a dead horse! NBeale (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Re Science: well, that's a slight improvement. What does it say about the FI in its two mentions?
2. Re BSHS: that is a mere routine blurb in their newsletter announcing the existence of upcoming FI courses (as you can see here, such announcements are routine). It is of anonymous authorship, and such pieces are often written by the submitter, rather than the publisher. It is, at best, a very borderline source.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Science says "Let Newton Be! by Craig Baxter; directed by Patrick Morris Menagerie Theatre Company, University of Cambridge, UK. October 2009. Commissioned by the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, Cambridge." in the "infobox" of the article and gives the play (which NB was commissioned by the Faraday) a rave review including "It deserves to be seen internationally." The second para reads "Craig Baxter's new play premiered in late October at Newton's old college, Trinity. The performance we attended was introduced by the just-retired Lucasian professor of mathematics, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, and by Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute for Religion and Science, which had sponsored the production as part of the celebration of Cambridge University's 800th anniversary and the International Year of Astronomy."

re BSHS I notice an unattractive tendency from some editors to indulge in special pleading when a reliable source comes up with information (eg a Nobel Laureate says X has "an outstanding reputation" :-)) It is blatant OR to argue that "X might not mean it" - we are here to report what WP:RSs have said not to second guess their motives. Otherwise we have the ridiculous situation where a journalist (possibly drunk or ignorant or both) counts for more than a Nobel Laureate. NBeale (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Re Sc

ience: so we have two bare mentions of FI (one as 'commissioning agent', one of director attending performance), slightly better than one bare mention, but not by much, and still only "trivial" coverage as that term is defined in WP:NOTE.

1. Re BSHS: <takes the biggest WP:TROUT he can find, and attempts to beat a clue into NBeale>
   1. There is no "Nobel Laureate" or even "a journalist (possibly drunk or ignorant or both)", or any identifiable author at all involved here. So leave out the irrelevant histrionics!
   2. Given that the piece contains information that only the FI would be privy to (i.e. the contents of their upcoming courses), the majority of it must have been written by the FI. It is therefore not unreasonable to suspect that the whole thing was written by them. I would not expect a publishing party to add significant chunks to an announcing party's copy. I would further not expect such announcements to be given significant editorial scrutiny. This piece can reasonably be interpreted as 'a FI announcement in the BSHS website' rather than 'the opinion of the BSHS on the FI'.
   3. Regardless of who wrote it, it is not a news or opinion piece, but an anonymously-authored "promotional" announcement, and so covered by WP:V#Questionable sources.

"I notice an unattractive tendency" from a Fellow of the topic, to stretch the truth way past breaking point and throw in irrelevant histrionics, in a vain WP:COI attempt to make his Institute seem notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please either put this forward for AfD or stop snipping and sniping

Please either put this forward for an AfD or stop this absurd campaign. Consider the closely related Science and Christian Belief which easily survived an AfD discussion, despite having far less coverage than the Faraday Institute. NBeale (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article was created in July 2006 and no-one has tried to suggest it was non-notable or improper until last month. It really is absurd. They are probably europe's leading institute of science and religion, at one of the world's leading universities. NBeale (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I am under no obligation to AfD an article whose notability I'm testing. That should generally be the last step.
   • In any case, the more appropriate course of action, should the topic prove to be non-notable, would be to merge it into St Edmund's College, Cambridge. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Articles on non-notable topics get created all the time -- and often stick around for years until somebody notices.
3. Please stop violating WP:COI, WP:MOSBIO & WP:ASF, as you did in this edit.
4. Please demonstrate why "publish[ing] 15 papers discussing various science and faith issues" is in any way noteworthy -- given that such institutes publish such material all the time, and there appears to be no third-party notice of the publication.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn - thanks for your hard work on this. I think you have pointed out some serious flaws, and the challenge you have issued does need to be dealt with. It is in fact extraordinarily hard to find anything substantial on the Faraday Institute that is not generated by the Faraday Institute! At first sight I thought "surely this institute passes muster" - but I'm less sure now. I think the article probably should be kept, on the grounds that even though the institute is not the subject of any single extended treatment it does get quite a lot of passing mentions in various reliable sources (not sure what WP policy, if any, would cover that...). But the article certainly needs to have a lot of the rubbish and self-promotion stripped out - which I have tried to address in two recent edits. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the article should be kept. For the same reason, believe the N tag should be deleted. The points strike me as a mite POINTy.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche asked me to comment. Agree that the notability is clear and obvious & the tag should be removed. As for some points raised earlier, I also disagree about the list of publications--I think it's appropriate content. The authors however can be just linked, without their titles. If they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, the information will be found there. This information was challenged as spam, but it is not, but it is simply providing information. If people conclude from it that the work it sponsors is important, that;s their conclusion, not ours. I would suggest also removing the titles from the board of advisors; again, including them is overemphasis--the links are sufficient. (But I'm commenting as an editor not an admin, for I have pretty strong views about the inclusion of articles on groups such as this and their publications.) DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would leave out the list of articles, which seems overly promotional to me. If it does come back, I would at least remove the part about "available for free online" and the link to the web site. Rees11 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely w/Rees11 that the part about "available for free online" should be deleted. But have a different view on the list of articles -- nothing at all promotional (as that term is used on Wikipedai) about them. Defer to DGG's view on titles, generally (assume that titles such as "Director" and "Professor" are fine, however). I don't see a consensus supporting the N tag, and therefore propose that it be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG:

1. Given that neither you nor anybody else has produced any objective evidence that is even remotely relevant to the topic meeting notability guidelines (just one promotional announcement, material written by its director & a number of bare mentions), your 'agreement' that "the notability is clear and obvious & the tag should be removed" is completely without foundation.
2. A very large number of such organisations publish members' writings on relevant topics on their website -- absent third party notice of said publications, I see no reason to note their existence, let alone list them in detail. It would appear to be a violation of WP:UNDUE & WP:IINFO.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ORG

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

— WP:ORG

• Does anybody wish to claim that the FI announcement of its courses on the BSHS website is "independent of the subject" (even assuming that its coverage counts as "significant")?
• Can anybody point to any other source or combination of sources that present "significant coverage" of the FI (even assuming that its coverage counts as "independent")?
• Can anybody present any evidence that the FI is so monumentally and vitally important to the study of the relationship between religion and science, that an 'occasional exception' should be made to this guideline?

If not, then I would suggest that this article should be merged. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As I expect you may know, "monumentally important" -- while it may be your personal standard -- is not a requisite here. Furthermore, this article is full of citations to sources other than those of the org itself. Can you point to anything at all other than your personal subjective view that suggests that they are not significant? Or why your non-consensus minority view should prohibit others from removing the tag?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"As I expect you may know…" "significant coverage in secondary sources" in sources that are "reliable, and independent of the subject" is most certainly a "requisite". "Furthermore, this article is full of" bare mentions by "sources other than those of the org itself." "Can you point to anything at all other than your personal subjective view that suggests that they are not significant?" Yes, WP:NOTE:

“ Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]

…

1. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy"[1]. The Guardian. ) is plainly trivial.

”

A single sentence of coverage is "plainly trivial" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". And I see no independent source stringing even two sentences together on the FI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You've not responded to two points I raised. 1) You (not I) mention absence of "evidence ... that is monumentally and vitally important." That point strikes me as somewhat irrelevant, as it appears to me to be unrelated to any relevant standard. If you are basing your opinion on its absence, your understanding of the relevant criteria is less than it might be, and any conclusion reached on such a basis is, I would submit, somewhat wanting. 2) I've asked you what, other than your subjective view, supports the notion that the indicated coverage in sources other than the org itself is not significant. Your response mentions nothing but your subjective view, and innapplicable objective criteria. Which, as I pointed out, is a minority view here, and does not have consensus support. You've not supplied anything other than a subjective view. 1 sentence in 360 pages is not the same, obviously, as 1 sentence in a 2-page article ... the mention in the second is 180 times as great; nor is there any requirement that sentences be "strung together".--Epeefleche (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I did not respond directly to your first point, because it was a dishonest misrepresentation of my third point. I did not state that "monumentally and vitally important" was a "requisite". The 'requisites' (under WP:ORG) were contained in my first two points -- points that you ignored. My third point was discussing the possibility of an exception to the requisites (per {{subcat guideline}}), on the basis that I have seen any number of inclusionists (DGG among them) demand extremely broad exceptions (not "occasional" by any stretch of the imagination) for perfectly unexceptional articles. That I used a certain degree of hyperbole to make the point that an exception requires an exceptional topic (or similar exceptional circumstance), does not undercut the validity of this point.
2. My point is objective (not a "subjective view"). As the above quote explicitly demonstrates "one sentence mention"s are "plainly trivial" and not "significant coverage". Where the article isn't based upon FI-derived material (and even in quite a few places where it is), it consists entirely of material based upon such "one sentence mention"/"plainly trivial"/not "significant coverage". All your huffing and puffing cannot change this.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

First, please stop edit warring. The tag lacks consensus support on this page. Therefore, you should not insist on putting it on the page, and should not revert its deletion from the page.

Second, you are the one who wrote, in a discussion about whether this article meets the N standards of WP, above: "Can anybody present any evidence that the FI is so monumentally and vitally important to the study of the relationship between religion and science, that an 'occasional exception' should be made to this guideline?" Since our discussion was about whether it met the notability standard, for you to now maintain that that did not in fact relate to our discussion is quite odd.

Third, not -- they spoke of a one sentence mention in a 360-page book. The entire discussion there focuses on mentions in books of certain sizes. Here, even a one-sentence mention is a far greater proportion of the works in question -- 180 times as large, in a 2-page article. You've failed to meet the objective criteria. All that is left is your subjective view. Which is not shared by a majority of people in this discussion.

Finally, for your to edit war here on this POINTy point is tenditious, which is generally frowned upon at Wikipedia. I would ask that your revert your deletion of the tag in recognition that your view is not the consensus view, and to reflect your desire to not be disruptive. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche:

1. Your removal was reverted as it was based upon ignoring my discussion of whether the topic meets the guideline (my first two points)
2. My third point was explicitly on the subject of the possibility of "an 'occasional exception' ... to this guideline", not on the contents of the guideline itself.
3. I would suggest that the length of the mention is far more important than the proportion of the containing work. A ten page mention in a thousand page book is more substantial than a one sentence mention in a hundred-sentence article. If you really think your argument has legs, then I'd suggest you take it to WT:NOTE and seek to have that guideline clarified.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already responded to all there points. Your synth ignoring the length of the mention in relation to the size of the work ignores completely the focus on that precise criteria in the guideline. Finally, as noted before, a number of your views here are clearly minority ones that do not have consensus support. While others have engaged you in conversation, I would think that at some point you might consider paying some deference to the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You have not responded to my first two points. The footnote in WP:NOTE makes no mention of "the size of the work", let alone the relative size, so your complaint has no foundation -- mine is the plain reading of the footnote. Finally, I owe no "deference" whatsoever to editors making bald and unsubstantiated assertions and misrepresentations of my statements. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring the language you quote me which discusses both size of reference alongside size of referencing work. This is quickly devolving into tenditious wikilawyering, and a complete waste of everyone's time.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

• NBeale in clear violation of WP:COI removed the notability tag off this article. And in response to his edit summary, DGG is notoriously radically inclusionist [rephrase: I question DGG's neutrality on issues of notability], and [he] offers no substantiation for his opinion.
• Epeefleche in this edit removes a tag from the citation to the FI website for the bare existence of these papers, and adds a claim that their website is "especially useful" sourced (without attribution) to one of Faraday's own advisors.

I dispute the legitimacy of both edits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no COI, and support removal of the tag. Your adding it against consensus and continued expression of a desire to keep it against consensus is tenditious. I have no idea what to make of your personal attack on DGG. I'm not quite sure what you are saying in the last bulleted point -- please clarify.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for crossing out your personal attack on another editor. It bothered me for two reasons. First, as with much of your analysis, it was an effort to put forward your subjective view as though it was an objective fact. Second, personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia, and I found it to be rather ugly. Thanks again for deleting it.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not state that you did have a COI -- and did not dispute your removal of it on the basis of CO, but rather that you explicitly based your removal on what was a misrepresentation of my position. I do however dispute the neutrality of citing a Faraday advisor for the "especially useful[ness]" of their website, particularly without attribution. I am saying that DGG has a reputation on Wikipedia for perceiving notability for topics where most others don't, and so is hardly an unbiased commentator here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a COI here? I find your tenditiousness, in the face of opposing consensus opinion, to be rather curious.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The source cited in this edit for "Its work, along with that of other similar organizations, has led to a "complete reassessment of historical literature on the relationship between science and religion." actually reads: "...subject in major universities, degrees offered, plus research centres such as the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion in Cambridge. An important consequence has been the complete reassessment of historical literature on the relationship between science and religion." Attributing the "complete reassessment" solely to the FI "along with that of other similar organizations" would appear to be an overstatement of the source's linkage, even from the snippet we have available. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not COI to remove a "notability" tag when the issue has been debated to death and the organisation is "obviously and clearly notable". If you really imagine that this institute is not notable then by all means put it up for an AfD. If not please stop wasting everyone's time. NBeale (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD

As my attempts to discuss the notability here have been stonewalled by Epeefleche's "tendentious" concentration on my discussion of the possibility of an exception to notability guidelines, rather than my discussion of the guidelines themselves, "tendentious" claim that a plain reading of WP:NOTE is a "subjective view" and "tendentious" claim that it is the "proportion" of the containing work that matters not the amount of coverage (in spite of the fact that WP:NOTE makes explicit mention of the latter, and no mention of the former), I have decided to take Epeefleche's advice and AfD the article. I would have prefered to have seen it merged, but it is quite clear from this wikidrama that it is not worth the aggrevation for the miniscule amount of third-party coverage involved. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Just a few paragraphs above, I indicated that I felt your edit war here on this POINTy point is tendentious . Your response ... is to refer to my discussion as tendentious? Is this the level to which our discourse has plummeted? I can't recall if I was the one who suggested you take it to AfD if you wished, but while some would view that as forum shopping (as your opinion was a minority one here), at least it will lead to an end to the edit warring. I really have better things to do than to revert your actions that are against consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

help?

Can someone who knows how please change the official name of this article to the full name (as indicated on its first line)? tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.

As an outsider to previous discussion, I personally think that the case has been made that this institute is sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia, albeit marginally so. HOWEVER, more relevant in my view is that it's an orphan page it appears to be in a walled garden. If no outside article can legitimately link here, then it should be considered more seriously for deletion. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Actually, its not an orphan. 16 articles link to it if I got it right (ran out of fingers).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see ... you're saying this is a 16-article walled garden? Will take a look when I have a moment. But 16 inlinks is not bad for what essentially was a stub up until very recently. I don't know where that puts it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were in the top 50% for WP articles ... just guessing, and it could be much higher.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tx for your help. Two things. By asking you to fix the name of the article, I seem to have prompted a disconnect w/the rescue tag (in that what is now red is no longer piped to the AfD discussion). I tried my hand at addressing that, to no avail. Would you be able to take a look? Second thing is that, if you are interested in weighing in at the AfD, you should of course feel free. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Link fixed (my error). What I meant by the walled garden was that the links to it seem almost all from articles on members of the institute, so I'm inclined to discount them a bit in deciding on its status. Links from more independent sources would be better. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I've made a couple of edits to try to improve the article in respect of WP:NPOV. It should be absolutely clear at the start that the source of the list of activities is what the Institute itself says they are, and not an independent assessment. Also as noted by others, it's not clear that the long list of references establish that the institute itself is responsible for these activities; they are mainly, it seems to me, activities by people who are members of the institute. An activity of the institute would be something like arranging a conference, publishing a book under its own imprint, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are good, helpful edit. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

SYN

Implemented change [2] to remove WP:SYN as per Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Faraday_Institute--LexCorp (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Better to keep the refs but de-link them from the activity - though frankly the SYN idea is not very well supported IMHO (NB I am an Associate of the Faraday but I think this is NPOV) NBeale (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But why keep the refs? They are basically irrelevant, as pointed out by LexCorp at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Faraday_Institute, and including them is no more than an attempt to boost the apparent notability of the institute. Look at me, I have a long list of pointless links at the end of my Wikipedia article! Or, Never mind the quality, feel the length! They should be deleted. They add nothing to an understanding of the Faraday Institute. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the AfD nominator challenged people to come up with refs. They should at least not be deleted during an AfD debate IMHO. And it clearly adds to the understanding of the Faraday Institute if you can check out what its spokesmen actually say NBeale (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks! (i) The blatant WP:Synthesis was added, tagged, tag-tendaciously-removed & reported to WP:NORN before the AfD (in fact it was exactly this sort of baseless partisan wikidrama that led me to go ahead & nominate it when I did). (ii) The "challenge" was for "significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject", not for bare mention (or at times no mention) in sources that are often plainly not independent (like, say, articles written by the FI's own director). (iii) This piece of tenuously-related puffery both goes clearly beyond WP:COI#Non-controversial edits & is exactly the sort of editing that WP:COI is designed to avoid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no COI. I support what NBeale says. I don't view the indicated text as tenuously related puffery, but rather as appropriate support for appropriately worded text. I really think this is getting out of hand, and has become even moreso as the AfD has unfolded. I would suggest a cup of tea for all, and shall take one myself.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That you would "support" NBeale's completely erroneous (see my first two points -- the material at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with my 'challenge') statements comes as no surprise to me. In any case, WP:COI does not apply to comments made on article talk but rather to edits made to the article -- so your "I have no COI" is a complete non sequitor. That you support all and any parts of this complete soufflé of an article is likewise no surprise. The AfD has "unfolded" without any new sources being turned up, or any serious attempt to rebut my assertion that all current sources are bare (or no) mention, non-independent and/or promotional. What we have is essentially an Emperor's New Clothes consensus to pretend that this soufflé is a very heavy fruitcake, and to collectively say "la la la ... I can't hear you" when nasty ol' Hrafn comes around pointing out otherwise. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You've brought an AfD asking that this article be deleted. So far, none of the 17 people who have commented there have seen things the way you see them. Not one of them, so far, has agreed that it should be deleted. You now revert to seeking to pick away at pieces of the article. There seems to be a pattern here of you ignoring consensus of the community, and insisting that your view is objectively the correct view and others are all wrong. But WP works by consensus--its a core policy. As to your query in closing, I suggest laughter. It goes better with tea.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"So far, none of the 17 people who have commented there have seen things the way you see them." WP:Complete bollocks. I may have nominated the AfD (something that you demanded), but I only did so because you and NBeale made it abundantly clear that you would do everything possible (including removal of legitimate templates, such as the one for the issue that led to this thread in the first place) to shout me down here. I stated above that my preference was for merging, and I note a number of opinions (including a couple explicitly citing me) supporting this view. I would thank you to stop violating WP:TALK by misrepresenting my views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) In case it helps - I disagree with Hrafn insofar as I think there is enough evidence of notability to merit keeping the article: i.e. I am prepared to interpret a large number of tiny mentions in a variety of external sources as (just) good enough to justify a keep. But I very strongly agree with Hrafn when he points out that the article is being stuffed full of self-generated puffery, and in his analysis of a clear COI in the case of the editor who is largely responsible for inserting this stuff. I think Hrafn's analysis is spot-on. He has issued a challenge, and nobody has come up with anything that answers that challenge. Instead, we are treated to self-important and puffed-up stuffing of at-best-tenuously-relevant citations, supported by no more than "trust me, I'm an associate of the Faraday Institute." SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Having taken my cup of tea, let me suggest the following. Perhaps we should hold off making controversial deletions of text or citations until the AfD is completed. That will be very soon (if speedied), or somewhat soon (otherwise). At that point, we can have a discussion here with all interested parties. I will be happy to go with whatever the consensus view is, and would hope that my fellow editors will as well. As to the COI issue, the guidance urges us to look at COI edits carefully. But that is where its relevance stops. Completely. Edits that are otherwise appropriate cannot be reverted because the editor has a COI. In this case, as in all like it, I laud Beale for making his COI known.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I am not suggesting doing anything until the AfD has run its course. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What use is an admission of a WP:COI, when the editor in question proceeds to edit the article as though he has none? In any case, his identity (and thus COI on this article) has been a matter of Wikipedia record since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (an article for which he himself was "the primary contributor", which has the dubious distinction of having had four separate AfDs vote for its deletion). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

and which FWIW were blatantly ridiculous wikipolitical deletions. Having written a notable book and being described by a Nobel Laureate as having "an outstanding reputation" is way above WP:N, erp with 21k GHits etc... And FWIW this week there is an invited paper in the Journal of Cosmology and a full-page article in today's FT about our work with Bob May & others. Ah well. It's that kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. NBeale (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic - but, NBeale, if you have a problem with "your" article being deleted, you know perfectly well that the correct course of action is to take it to deletion review instead of whingeing about it and using it as a stick to beat other WP editors with. Or does it suit you better to leave the deletion uncontested so that you can use it to further your own agenda as an illustration of the "Wikipedia is unreliable" point? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but if I put it up for DRV people would yell COI! What's needed is a fair-minded 3rd party. I do not at all like seeing/hearing Wikipedia being trashed having put a lot of work into >4,000 edits.NBeale (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

COI; Wiki guidance on how to handle

To answer Hrafn, the use is to alert others to look closely at the COI's edits. But the criteria applied in looking at their edits are precisely the same as if a non-COI made the edits. Second, if he wanted to avoid being open that he had a COI he could have opened his acct under a name that does not ID him. Third, I'm disappointed that the rest of your comment baited him, and I'm disappointed that he felt compelled to reply to your baiting, on wht Snalwibma correctly points out is a completely off-topic discussion. Its just that sort of behavior relating to this article that makes this discussion a needlessly emotionally charged one, and sucks up time from editors (all four of us) who could spend it better improving articles. At this point I think that if all of us stayed away from this article for a bit, it would be for the better. This page and the article page could IMHO benefit from cooling down. I'll seek to do my part to follow my own advice. Tea to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche:

1. Your stance on COI is largely self-contradictory. If "the criteria applied in looking at their edits are precisely the same as if a non-COI made the edits" then "alert[ing] others to look closely at the COI's edits" serves a very limited purpose. The main thrust of WP:COI is that COI editors should not be making edits requiring close scrutiny in the first place.
2. My point in bringing up the various stillborn incarnations of the article on 'Nicholas Beale' was to demonstrate his longstanding and deeply ingrained habit of COI editing (documented across the 4 AfDs and DRV). This is, I think, relevant to evaluating his current spate of COI editing. Given your frequent baiting of myself, I think I can endure your WP:POT and misplaced 'disappointment'.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• In an effort to follow my own advice, I'll limit myself to the following quote from WP:COI:

  "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.... All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles... encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies. Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.... During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions. Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage. Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."

--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution, when:

1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment.

...

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged.

— WP:COI (bolded emphasis original, italics mine)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The extent to which COI applies clearly depends on the extent of involvement with an organisation. I am an associate of the F.I. and I have spoken at a couple of events that they have sponsored/co-sponsored (as have many of the UK's leading Christian experts in Science and Religion). But by no stretch of the imagination is it "my organisation", and I'm a member/fellow/freeman/liveryman of several other organisations. You tried your luck on WP:COIN and got nowhere. I suggest you drop this. NBeale (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx. Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area.

The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

— 'Close relationships', WP:COI#Examples (my emphasis)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No editor apart from you thinks my edits have been in appropriate in the context of the mild and declared COI and The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. ... an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. End of discussion - at least as far as I am concerned. And please remember WP:NPA. NBeale (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember any editor (other than yourself) stating that you didn't have a substantial COI. You are not "an expert on" the Faraday Institute, you are a member of it (and the co-author of a book with one of its Advisory Board) -- which puts you easily as COI as "the band's manager or a band member's spouse". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see your confusion. I am not a "member" of the F.I. - merely an "associate". It must also be obvious to everybody that "co-author with member of Advisory Board" is completely different from "band manager's spouse". NBeale (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)