Talk:List of organizations opposing mainstream science/Archive 1

Archive 1

viXra.org

I am the founder of viXra.org and have removed it from this page because it does not "promote" non-mainstream science any more than Wikipedia does. viXra.org allows a wide range of papers to be published including those that are against the maistream, but that is not the same thing as promoting them. viXra makes it very clear that it does not endorse any of the articles it hosts. There was no reliable source here to back up the claim that it promotes pseudoscience (no such source exists) viXra.org has its own unbiased article on Wikipedia. Weburbia (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

NPA tags

There are tags on the NPA section that link here for discussions. Those discussions are actually on the talk page of the former NPA article at Talk:Natural_Philosophy_Alliance It may be better for any further discussion to continue here though. Weburbia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Page move?

@Mikeman67: I see you moved the page from Fringe science organizations to List of non-mainstream science organizations with edit summary "there appeared to be a consensus to convert to a list" (at the AfD). It does make sense to turn it into a list, however only one person even mentioned this title whereas several other people suggested List of fringe science organizations. If you're bypassing requested moves based on that discussion, it shouldn't be this title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sorry, I read it as consensus for a page move and for a more neutral title (even among people who voted for List of fringe organizations, which I think was just an attempt to rename the page to "List of", rather than a vote for using that specific title). I didn't think anyone would dispute it, so I decided to be bold. If you disagree, though, please do a request move! I have no issue with a discussion on it. mikeman67 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am unhappy that the title contains the word combination "science organizations", which could mislead people into thinking those are actual science organizations. Logically, they are (non-(mainstream science)) organizations. "Fringe science" was much better because "fringe science" is a common phrase, which prevents the error. For the next renaming, I suggest something like "List of organizations opposing mainstream science". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Per above (and the AfD), I've moved the page to List of fringe science organizations. It did look like there was consensus to rename it to reflect it being a list (it was self-evident anyway). We can talk more about what the best name is, but for now I moved it to the most logical extension of the original title, and the one discussed most at the AfD. That's not to say I think this is the best title, but that renaming to anything other than this should probably have an RfM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues on page

I'm concerned with some of the organizations and the headlines recently added to this page. With a title like this, we need to be very careful about which organizations get added here. The initial list involved organizations that exclusively promoted a view, almost always a very specific one, that was outside the mainstream scientific view. There have been additions made that involve organizations with wider mandates, and may include views of which likely are within the scientific mainstream. An example of this is the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, which is a US government agency which studies, at least in part, alternative medicines that do have some scientific grounding. I think some on these lists should be removed or at the very least sourcing should be required. mikeman67 (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove the WP:OR tag without some discussion User:Ad Orientem. No source has been provided that characterizes, for example, The Heartland Institute or National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health as a "pseudoscientific organization", even if some of their research or advocacy efforts are for pseudoscientific means. Calling an organization "pseudoscientific" implies that their entire organization is for a pseudoscientific pursuit. That clearly isn't true for some of the more recently added ones. mikeman67 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing original research with content dispute. You are disagreeing with whether certain organizations meets the definition for being promoters of pseudoscience. Clearly there are sources that make those accusations, so this is not OR. As to the actual merits of the two entries you are pointing to, I agree with you that the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health is highly debatable and would support removing it from the list for now. The Heartland Institute on the other hand has a very clear track record of promoting pseudoscientific research and positions. The source evidence looks clear and incontrovertible to me. There is no requirement that an organization's sole purpose be the promotion of pseudoscience. When an organization has a clear record of this kind of activity, then it's perfectly fair to label it as such. See WP:FRINGE/PS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The OR tag really needs to be removed. There is no evidence for any OR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Move: Changing "Fringe" to "Pseudoscientific"

The term "Fringe" is a pejorative (though IMO accurate for most of these groups) and I think we need to steer clear of it in article titles unless it is specifically used in RS sources to describe at least a majority of the listed groups. A better title might be List of Pseudoscientific Organizations. It still communicates the idea that the groups are well outside the bounds of mainstream science while reducing the potential NPOV issues that I think are likely to come out of "Fringe Groups." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

??? But "pseudoscientific" is both pejorative and vague, and not used by RS for these organizations so I think it is worse than "Fringe", except that there seems a subset of editors that really love the word. The list seems odd in general -- how it is assembled or what defines suitable here ? The Phreneology that has not existed since 1870s ? The Astroturfing section where clearly sponsored doesn't seem astroturfing - and Indoor Air ceased in 1998 ? Markbassett (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think pseudoscience is a less abrasive term than fringe and it is one that is commonly used, not just on Wikipedia. Nor do I think it is especially vague. There is an entire article dedicated to it. Further we have this from WP:FRINGE/PS

Pseudoscience: Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Beyond which I do agree that this article needs work. Sourcing needs to be improved and some of the language is likely to run afoul of WP:NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to move the page, you probably should get the spelling right. There's a typo right now. Regardless, this really should be put to a request move, since there clearly is a lot of disagreement over the appropriate name. mikeman67 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yikes!. Good catch with the typo.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I support the move. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 22:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New one is even better. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 22:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

---

List of organizations opposing mainstream science → List of organizations opposing scientific consensus – The problem with the term "mainstream science" is that there is no particular agreed-upon definition for what is "mainstream" and what is outside of the mainstream. In contrast, there is quite a lot of literature identifying what ideas form part of "consensus science" and which are outside of it. The problem with "mainstream" is that there are perfectly legitimate organizations of scientists who are investigating ideas that, while not mainstream, are certainly not in opposition to the scientific consensus. This mainly occurs in rapidly developing or areas under active research. E.g. there are people who are investigating certain models for condensed matter which are unique and outside the "main stream" of research, but they are not opposed to scientific consensus. jps (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The phrase "scientific consensus" is associated with the climate debate, which is not what this article is about. Why connect relativity skeptics and flat earthers? This thing is all OR anyway. Tasty love salad (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • scientific consensus regards far more than the "climate debate". As for your OR concern, I share it, but the AfD was closed as keep. jps (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually it closed as no consensus. I voted move but I agree with Tasty love salad. This page is OR and I'd probably vote delete right now. Particularly for the organizations that are listed here that produce research and advocacy for positions that are not opposed to the scientific consensus. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
      • You're free to relist if you want. jps (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The point of these organizations is to espouse bad/fringe/pseudo science; the whole "opposing" part is he problem, and talking about consensus rather than the mainstream isn't going to fix that. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and we should, in fact, rename the article in the opposite direction, by removing the word mainstream from the title. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other astroturfing groups

This subject is fascinating. It's interesting to see the difference between small group quackery, and industry astroturfing group. I've been very aware of the Heartland Institute's propaganda regarding climate change for a few years now, having come up against a couple of people within that group while advocating for the notion that climate change is actually happening.

I'd add that there are probably a good number of other such astroturfing groups whose primary purpose is ongoing maintenance of a certain notion science. One such potential group might be the Glyphosate Task Force, who make statements like this one in promotion of the notion of glyphosate's safety, and who work consistently to maintain and expand glyphosate's regulatory approval, and to push for a certain interpretation of "scientific consensus".

Of course, ascertaining what is astroturfing and what is evidence-based is a huge question and requires enormous time and effort to get into the literature and to essentially look sociologically at the story, and to interpret actions and patterns of action, etc. A fascinating topic. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Some food-related astroturfing:

• U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) - explanation
• International Food Information Council (IFIC) - same explanation

SageRad (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food to the list. The evidence for its use as an astroturfing organization is provided in the document linked to the New York Times article by Lipton and there is reliable source support for this claim here as well, so this is not only based on original research. SageRad (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

the weirdness of it?

Usually we create a list of things then add things to it, trying to think of a more appropriate title later is not really possible.

Then there is the insult vs misrepresentation. In person one can just call an organization all kinds of hateful names as to demonstrate a POV or one can subscribe to the ideas but there is not much room between the 2 of those for an "objective"(?!) middle ground. Normally I would argue this kind of thing should be deleted but wikipedia seriously lacks the means to navigate and organize this kind of stuff. You would think the categories would help but vandalism or bias (of all kinds) there goes virtually undetected while categories also have few people working on them and barely any traffic. Ironically a lot of informative non-mainstream articles lack sources but survive by being impossible to find.

The only solution I can think of is to look how we describe each entry on this page and try to create lists that fit groups of them closely (a bit like the sections) so that it can be expanded without having to find a source calling it say "pseudoscience" first. Something like "list of organizations against relativity". I'm sure you see this approach has the same problem but it seems closer to a good solution: "fringe physics", "unconventional medicine" etc etc

I'm not suggesting these are good examples but the question seems more workable than trying to mis-fit everything under barely descriptive variations of "science hate groups", "dubious barely scientific organizations", "unreliable science" etc

84.106.11.117 (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also a movement afoot to paint some people and organizations as pseudoscientific as a way to neutralize critique of vested interests, and we must not fall into the trap of supporting their agenda in Wikivoice, lending credence to their agenda by following their lead whenever they say anyone is "pseudoscientific" in a blog entry. We must retain integrity and decide for ourselves. SageRad (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't care about agendas, and speculation about them is OR. We just document what RS say. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 16:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We use our minds and don't let Wikipedia serve as anyone's PR tool. SageRad (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Coalition for Safe Affordable Food ?

Making a note that BullRangifer came through and deleted a few things just now, with edit reasons I don't agree with and no talk here. I would like to discuss these things. Deleting another user's contributions is something I take seriously and make an effort to justify in a way that can be discussed explicitly to reach consensus or at least delineate the nature of the disagreement. SageRad (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally willing to discuss them. What is your concern? Maybe if I explain better, you'll understand my reasoning.

Unlike categories, lists must use refs for all inclusions. (That's also why we don't use categories for certain sensitive subjects.) When an article is created, it must be notable and properly sourced. We don't want unnotable things included in lists. That's why we often require that the article is created first. That way we are assured it's notable and properly sourced. Take a look at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. There are no redlinked inclusions, and every item is properly sourced. This list must also follow the same procedure. Please ping me. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 20:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern is that it is useful to have the items in the list even if there is not yet any article on the particular organization. It is useful information about the world, based on hard work by editors (in this case, by me, in relation to the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food). I have not worked with lists before, and so i don't know the relevant guidelines for lists. Would you point out to me a guideline or policy that says that lists must only contain entries that have articles on Wikipedia already? If that's a guideline, then my apologies for not knowing and not following the policy. Otherwise, i think it would be more to Wikipedia's mode of accretion of knowledge by contributions from many diverse editors, to keep the entries and then flesh out articles for them if or when someone can do so. (I would be happy to at my earliest convenience.) The red links to me signify articles that can be created, and i find that to be a great way to grow Wikipedia in a very good way. I am quite certain that the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food is a very notable topic for an article, so that's not an issue. It's just that the article is not yet created. As for refs for the inclusion in the list, i provided information here on the talk page, i believe, as to why it seems justified to put this organization in the list of astroturfing organizations, at least of equal weight and solidity as that for other organizations on the list.

I've created the article Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, and i am adding this organization to the list of astroturfing groups. Thank you for your help. SageRad (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, i will here record the two list entries that you removed, so that they will not be lost in the dustbin of edit histories:

• Council for Tobacco Research, tobacco industry front group.
• Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, a biotech lobbying used by Monsanto for advocacy.

I'll await your answers regarding policy, as to whether these can be restored first, or we need to create articles for these two organizations first and then include them in the list. BullRangifer pinging as requested. SageRad (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no policy that requires the article be created first, but it has become a general rule of thumb to avoid lists from becoming dumping grounds for unnotable or poorly sourced items. It is usually a good practice to use the best refs from the main article as the refs which accompany the short summary (a sentence or two) in the list. That way readers can go to the article to find more references.

• More info here: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria

The requirement for very good sourcing of list items is policy for most types of lists. So, in this situation, if you will please source it very well, with more than just one good ref, I'm certainly willing to let the content stay in the article. If other editors challenge it, then you'll have to deal with them. Is that fair enough?

• More info here: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources

While you're at it, start developing those articles, even if they are only stubs. If they don't survive an AfD, then they should also be removed from this list. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Items may exist in a list even if there is no article on them as long as they clearly meet the inclusion criteria and are sourced. Items should generally not be linked (red linked) but should clearly be cited with a reliable secondary source. For example:

The Council for Tobacco Research could be included and cited with this source "Council for Tobacco Research Administrative History". New York State Archives. Retrieved 2015-11-08.

--Mike Cline (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Ideally there should be two types of references for list entries: (1) all entries should have refs to justify inclusion in the particular list; (2) redlinked entries should have refs to establish potential notability, at least enough to document that a redlink could become an article. The second might not be a current requirement, but it would be a good one, because we don't want lists cluttered with trivia and non-notable items.

I remember a list of caves in the Southern United States, where caves are very abundant. The list was enormously long, and many entries had no ref at all. I discovered it because school children (and possibly vandals) were just adding stuff. Since a "cave" can be anything from a four foot deep hole dug by children in a private backyard hillside, to a large tourist target with guides, organized tours, fossils, and history, we needed to limit entries to notable caves. I cleaned up 80-90% of that list in a few minutes.

The same should apply to most lists. We should demand some degree of notability to justify inclusion in lists. Mike, what do you think of that proposal? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, BullRangifer, for your cooperation and helpful comments. Note that i did document reasons for including Coalition for Safe Affordable Food in the section above called Other astroturfing groups, as follows:

I added the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food to the list. The evidence for its use as an astroturfing organization is provided in the document linked to the New York Times article by Lipton and there is reliable source support for this claim here as well, so this is not only based on original research.

I understand that this could be included in the list, even though there is no Coalition for Safe Affordable Food article yet. It is certainly a notable group, worthy of an article, so i'll create on soon, and add it to the list then. I understand about the caves. Not all caves are really notable. I've recently added a few caves that are notable because they're mentioned in legends and reliable sources, like Batcheller's Cave and Tory's Cave (Springfield, Vermont). SageRad (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thank you. Much appreciated. I am very glad to have created the article on the organization, but having slept on it, i decided to remove it from the "Astroturfing" subcategory of this page's lists, because while it is an astroturfing organization (generally designed to appear to be other than who it actually is), it doesn't quite fit the other requirement for this page, which is to habitually oppose mainstream science or "scientific consensus". Good progress in Wikipedia, nonetheless. Thank you for your guidance. SageRad (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the way to do it. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Title

This article has had a number of titles, and that reflects a difference of opinion regarding its purpose. I think we need to sort this out. So, I would ask first of all whether it should be:

1. A list of organisations actively promoting pseudoscience.
2. A list of organisations engaging in denial of science (cf. climate change denial).
3. A list of organisations opposing mainstream scientific views (cf. cold fusionists, alternative cosmologies).
4. A list of organisations questioning mainstream science (which would bring in some environmental groups).
5. Some other option I didn't think of.

Opinions

• For me, #3 is the best, followed by #2 - I say this mainly because the "p-word" is contentious and will cause argy-bargy in respect of groups that plainly meet the spirit of the thing. It sets the bar high, requiring explicitly identification as a pseudoscience body, whereas alternatives will include groups such as the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons whose work is arguably pseudoscience but is definitely fringe and out of step with the scientific consensus. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with part of the above statement. I don't think there is a requirement that RS sources explicitly identify a subject as pseudoscience in order to so identify it here. That interpretation seems to run contrary to WP:FRINGE/PS. If RS sources tell us that an organization is falsely claiming to employ a scientific method, in order to advance ideas and theories, then it is pseudoscientific, whether the actual word is used or not. We should not fall into a position where we allow hairsplitting legalism to trump WP:COMMONSENSE. That said, I don't have an especially strong opinion on the title. I boldly changed it earlier to what I believed was a better one and edited the lead to reflect the change. But I will defer to whatever everybody wants. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You and I probably agree completely on what constitutes pseudoscience. Now try convincing your average Reiki practitioner or acupuncturist. Pseudoscience is a pejorative, and as such is likely to be robustly resisted by True Believers in any refuted dogma. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Another aspect: every time the article is renamed, the WP:OR problem raises its ugly head. Let us assume that the article is called "List of pseudoscientific instituions". Scientifically inclined users will agree that the XXX institute is doing pseudoscience, but the XXX institute fans will dispute that, and there will be discussions until there is a source for the pseudoscience categorization for every entry in the list, or beyond that time. If we have such sources for the XXX, YYY, and ZZZ institutes named in the article, and the article is renamed to e.g. "List of crackpot institutions", other sources will be needed that call those institutions "crackpot institutions", and the source finding starts anew, possibly leading to entries being deleted because they do not fit anymore.

So, every renaming destroys the sourcing work - unless the name is such that even the crackpots are all happy with it. I think the current name has few problems in that regard. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much why I think we need to avoid the P-word. No pseudoscientist ever identified themselves as such, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My conclusion is that the name, whatever it happens to be at the moment, should not change every few days. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The current name is patent nonsense. There is no such thing as "mainstream science" versus "nonmainstream science". jps (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Inappropriate RFC - article just has no clear focus, so is just too confused an article to talk title. There's been no coherent explanation of what is the article topic so all we have is just guessing from the content of an odd collection of three lists with each one an weird mishmash with no theme clear to me. One list is mostly creationism entities plus a few not so, such as a NLP group in UK and 19th century (defunct) phrenology group. (Why pick these creationist groups or have that ancient entity here is not clear.) The second list is a few tobbaco lobby bits plus a couple not-so on climate change or obesity. The third list is anti-vaccination and the section of NIH that is supposed to investigate alternative medicine claims. I'm more inclined to agree to a deletion nomination than to have a clue what to call this. Markbassett (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Inevitable robust debate

Why do we need this list anyway? Science can handle itself over time without wikipedia determining the legitamcy of various schools of thought. That is what science does - it is self correcting. It appears that this list is there to be a 'shame' list for ideas that editors don't like. If there is robust evidence against a school of thought then this should be on the school's page rather than noted in an uncited way on this blacklist of science. Nsxsvn (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need anything? This list exists, it survived a deletion debate, and some of us think it has some merit as a venue to discuss the issue of science denial. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We needs lists to be able to form robust categories of similar things - that is what categorization does. If we cannot agree on what the list is of then is it really a meaningful and useful category? We can all agree that many of these organisations have a similar approach to evidence. But remember, medicine itself has really only recently adopted a more evidence-based style (see Evidence-based medicine).Nsxsvn (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

To me, this might be a rather simple matter to decide. What type of list is most clearly notable? Theoretically, I could see multiple lists particularly for groups which question mainstream science and those which seem to oppose mainstream science, but, maybe, at least to start, finding which variation on the theme seems to be most clearly notable might be the best way to go. Any ideas which variation shows up most frequently? John Carter (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I can guarantee is that whatever category you choose, the cranks will loudly shout that it does not apply to them. "We do not oppose the mainstream view of [climate change / cold fusion / homeopathy], we have new science that they will come to accept!". Oh, and they will almost always reference Kuhn at some point. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "list of organizations opposed to the current scientific consensus" maybe? That allows those who claim they are promoting breaking science to be counted, as breaking science can often be against current consensus views. Granted, it might not be much better, but it avoids the question of the use of the word mainstream raised below. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What sources would we want to use to identify an organization as "opposed to the current scientific consensus"? For example, would the International Chiropractors Association count since they actively oppose vaccination mandates contrary to the consensus of medical scientists and public health professionals? jps (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What sources do we use to determine who is an opponent to "mainstream science"?If, as seems reasonable to me, mainstream science is basically equivalent to the current scientific consensus, one would be useful as a source for another. Although, it is worth noting that in cases like this one, it is probably a good idea to have a rather substantial first paragraph in which the specific parameters of inclusion on the list are pointed out. That being the case, all that would be needed would be at best two sources for each, one indicating that idea A is either mainstream science or scientific consensus, and one for idea B that group X opposes that particular scientific point. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems a little OR-y to me, but if that's what you all want then I suppose using that name would be okay. At least it makes sense compared to "mainstream science". jps (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove "mainstream"

What an adjective! I myself use the word in reference to discussions about how to handle certain Wikipedia topics. E.g. WP:MAINSTREAM, but I don't like how it has found its way into this article's title. I don't think there are any sources which indicate what makes some science "mainstream" and what it would mean to oppose such science. Would a group of people who oppose nuclear weapons research be considered an organization that opposed mainstream science? What about PETA and their opposition to animal testing? I think this list is trying to be something else. List of organizations that promote pseudoscience is as close as I can think and it has the benefit of actually being verifiable (either sources exist that indicate that the organization promotes pseudoscience or the sources don't!) jps (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Against the inclusion of gratuitous and snide insults in a public article - NPA - CNPS

In the section on Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), there appears, “However, journalist John Horgan, a friend of Wertheim's, reported that "When [Wertheim] attended an NPA meeting... it reminded her of an experiment in which three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were introduced to each other... Each concluded that the others were crazy. Watching presenters at the NPA meeting, Wertheim comments, was like 'watching thirty Jesus Christs.'”[19]”

This struck me as just gratuitous and snide insults. I thought such fare was explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia. When this section of Wikipedia was presented to an audience of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science, it elicited an extremely strong negative reaction – although it proved to be a unifying topic. Some assessments during the presentation and afterward in discussion groups, included (in addition to my “gratuitous and snide insults” assessment), “amateurish”, “frivolous”, “slanderous”, “libelous”, “defamatory”, “tabloid”, “arbitrary”, “unfounded opinion”, “baseless fantasy”, “It’s Wertheim who’s having the schizophrenic fantasies”, etc. The Wertheim quote seemed to be insulting not only to members of the NPA, but also to members of the CNPS which was characterized in the article as a spinoff of the NPA and by extension the whole community of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science. Note that many members of the NPA and CNPS are full professors, PhDs (or equivalent, e.g., Ing’s in Europe) or independent researchers with significant credentials (e.g., patents, publications in the top tier journals, nominated for the Nobel Prize).

I’d suggest that a knowledgeable person might see the same presentations as Wertheim and see well educated, very intelligent speakers passionately advocating deeply researched views – the fact that they speak with great passion and conviction should not per se consign them to being assessed as mentally ill or delusional.

The above segues into Wertheim’s qualifications for making assessments that are published in an encyclopedia. Since the Talk section has an extremely limited readership and a discussion of her credentials is relevant, we’ll briefly discuss those. First, she’s not a scientist, she’s a science writer. Wertheim has her niche. Her foundation is “The Institute For Figuring” which, in her words, “is an organization dedicated to the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science, mathematics and engineering. The Institute’s interests are twofold: the manifestation of figures in the world around us and the figurative technologies that humans have developed through the ages. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding, the tiling patterns of Islamic mosaics and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.” The IFF’s Crochet Coral Reef project shows her to have an eye for art, a talent for writing and an admirably kind heart when not discussing scientists outside the mainstream and many other good qualities and likely is a nice person most of the time. However, her niche is not General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.. Nor does being nice part of the time give her a free pass to do serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work which often required decades, if not a life time, of hard work. Wertheim has written about physics, but her academic background in physics seems to be quite limited.

To be fair to Wertheim, when she wrote about the NPA, she was likely not aiming for a Pulitzer Prize and was not delusional about having one of the great minds in physics. She likely did not see herself as a god of science able to look down on the work of thousands across a very broad spectrum and see who was right and who was wrong. Likely she understood that the depth of her perception was limited to the assumption that all of currently accepted theory is correct and that all who question it are wrong and even mentally ill. This assumption of Wertheim’s seems to be shared by the Wikipedia writers/editors of the NPA/CNPS sections and shows a lack of knowledge about the history of science among other things.

As a writer, Wertheim wanted readers. Again, to be fair to Wertheim, when she spoke or wrote about the NPA in the style quoted above, she was likely not delusional and was speaking/writing more in the style of “witty” cocktail conversation to be entertaining because many readers enjoy reading put downs of others so she found a schtick that worked and kept with it until it faded and was recognized as lacking substantive content and she lost her audience for that comic routine except, apparently, for Wikipedia. Again, Wertheim cannot be excused for doing serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work just because her appealing to the lowest common denominator for her readership proved to be an easy way to make a few extra bucks at somebody else’s expense.

Wertheim has a great aptitude and penchant for self-promotion and she seems to be working this skill to the fullest in the pages of Wikipedia. So this brings up, “What is Wertheim’s involvement in this section?” If she has been directly involved, she needs to be replaced. If she was in contact with a front man, the front man needs to be removed. If she allegedly is not involved directly or indirectly, there appears to be a Wertheim surrogate who backs posting gratuitous and snide insults. Not only should the gratuitous and snide insults be removed, but the whole section needs a re-write to at least start with some semblance of validity and those editors who are responsible for this tabloid entry need, at the very least, some help for redoing this section. If an editor employs gratuitous and snide insults, it indicates a particular mindset about a topic so even when he feels he’s being objective or neutral, his bias and derogatory feelings can still come through. The whole section needs to be overhauled. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for posting gratuitous and snide insults about those for whom its editors happen to have a strong personal dislike and negative bias. Other examples include, “Margaret Wertheim … speculated in a 2012 essay that much of the interest in this area is a response to the heavy mathematical content and abstract ideas underlying conventional scientific theories, which, she says, makes them inaccessible to the general public.[16][17][18] She compares NPA with the revolt of Martin Luther against the Catholic church.[16][17][18]”

Why is Wikipedia including the speculations of Wertheim!?! It’s possible that somewhere someone said something that is a shadow of what she speculates, but this empty speculation is rightly labeled speculation and off target. Also, it would seem that the reader’s interpretation of her comment on Martin Luther depends on the reader’s religious affiliation.

Even if the gratuitous and snide insults quoted above were said by someone with physics credentials, that would not justify including them. Gratuitous and snide insults are just not appropriate fare for an encyclopedia. By way of contrast, the “Flat Earth Society” section is written quite reasonably and factually. I don’t think that’s because “Flat Earth Society” has the highest of scientific credentials. The contrast between that section and many other similar sections with the NPA/CNPS sections highlights the mean spirited bias of the Wikipedia editors/writers of the NPA/CNPS sections. We do not ask that the section be filled with glowing compliments, just that it not be written in the style of a tabloid smear.

Further, the introduction to the whole list says, “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the facts and conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community. By falsely claiming to employ the scientific method in order to advance certain fringe ideas and theories, they are engaged in the promotion of various forms of pseudoscience.” [red added] This may apply to some organizations in the list, but it is a misrepresentation of the NPA and CNPS and probably several others in the list and needs to be stricken or modified to indicate that it does not apply to the NPA and CNPS (and applicable others). Ironically, much of the work in those organizations points out where the mainstream has abandoned the scientific method and where it contradicts the facts (i.e., the empirical data). We would suggest limiting the introductory remarks to “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community.”

The rather extensive inclusion of gratuitous and snide insults in these sections of Wikipedia does not seem to be in the best interest of the organizations who are being attacked or Wikipedia itself or the readers of Wikipedia. The only one whom it promotes would seem to be Margaret Wertheim and her chosen style of scientific analysis. Let’s work together to put this section of Wikipedia on a higher level and avoid setting a dangerous precedence regarding including gratuitous and snide insults in Wikipedia at large. Having now looked at the Talk section, I see that a number of people have broached this topic before while reviewing different but related issues. For example there appears: “It appears that this list is there to be a 'shame' list for ideas that editors don't like. If there is robust evidence against a school of thought then this should be on the school's page rather than noted in an uncited way on this blacklist of science. Nsxsvn (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)” HarvPhys (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 32.212.188.124 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC) HarvPhys (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Against the inclusion of gratuitous and snide insults in a public article - NPA - CNPS 2nd Request

See the explanation from the 1st Talk entry with a similar title. (BTW, I see that a later request was read and acted on while no response was given to our 1st request so I infer that the request is being ignored as several other similar requests were ignored). We request replacement of the current offending sections for CNPS & NPA with the sections shown below: :

For the CNPS

John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society (CNPS) - The first CNPS goal is to change science education from just teaching current theory to teaching the skill of critical thinking. It wants science education to emphasize self-investigation, self-study, and self-judgement of scientific data and this requires abandoning the requirement for blind acceptance of current theory as TRUTH. It rejects science limiting study and discussion to the single accepted theory in each domain.

The second CNPS goal is to reduce the constraints of Group Think and Peer Pressure and encourage scientists to seek the truth no matter where that leads. Scientists in academia should not be fired just because they don’t fully endorse current textbooks or their boss’ views. CNPS advocates the natural selection of scientific theory including the acceptance of different theories for the same phenomena as normal and healthy for science. CNPS provides data, books, papers, presentations, and videos for alternative explanations, laws, and theories that are not taught in the mainstream and makes them accessible to all.

For the NPA

Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) – The NPA provides worldwide forums for expression and discussion of diverse scientific theories, observations and experiments by which an improved natural philosophy based on logic, structures and processes of our visible world and extended universe may be developed. It provides a worldwide open debate forum and accessible archive for advancement of science based on observation and logic. The NPA values the role of logic in falsifying scientific theories and values testing theories through experiment in order to evaluate scientific credibility.

6) http://community.naturalphilosophy.org/about/ 10) http://worldnpa.org/about/mission-statement/ Footnotes 11 thru 15 need to be deleted. HarvPhys (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hello HarvPhys. I removed some content about your organization based on your earlier comments. I agreed that the content was not properly cited to a reliable source and wasn't in a neutral tone. However, I don't agree with your suggested edit, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. I would recommend you read some of our policy content guidelines, in particular WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi, I'm the person who removed the quote that you mentioned in your first extremely long and somewhat confusing comment. I didn't respond to the comment because it appeared that the quote was not the only thing you were concerned about, but I was unable to parse what, exactly, your other concerns were, so I left it for someone more familiar with the article and its history to respond to. However, I agreed with you that the quote was at best unnecessary, and at worst, inflammatory and needed to be trimmed.

Your current suggested revisions to the NPA and CNPS sections, however, are entirely inappropriate. You wish to re-write those sections to read like they are the mission statement or "about us" page produced by those organizations themselves, and you wish to source them to the mission statement and about us pages of those organizations. This is over reliance on primiary sources, and turns Wikipedia into a vehicle for promotional content, advertising, spam, and public relations. This is the heart of conflict of interest problems. It is at this point that many people will point out that "Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject has to say about itself, only what reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject of the article have to say about it." I contend there is a place for what an organization has to say for itself, but the article or, in this case section, should not be based on what it has to say about itself, but rather what others have said about it.

You state that Footnotes 11-15 need to be deleted, but not why or what is wrong with those sources. Please explain why each of those sources fails our standards for reliable sourcing. Again, I agreed that the Wertheim quote about 30 Jesuses was inappropriate, but I don't agree that the source itself is inappropriate.

John Chappel CNS, which you objected to, I was going to remove entirely for being unsourced, but FuriouslySerene beat me to it. Several other unsourced entries are being removed.

Lastly, this article as a whole has issues that need to be addressed. There was a recent discussion about deleting it, which resulted in it being renamed, and it's a work in progress. Thank you for continuing to bring issues to our attention. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The main point of the original input was that snide and insulting remarks should not be included in an encyclopedia and that the given examples clearly indicate a bias that should disqualify the editor(s) responsible or who continue to endorse such. Even though some of the material was confirmed to be offensive insults, the weak response and weak rationale just confirms the point of the original complaint. The following needs to be done in this round: 1) If either CNPS or NPA is to be part of the list, then the initial paragraph should be neutral and not allege "changing facts" - even "changing interpretations" is inaccurate as they don't, as a group, change mainstream interpretations, but rather challenge them or offer alternatives. A more neutral opening paragraph would be: “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently challenging the conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community.”

2) The following paragraph and associated references need to be deleted: "Margaret Wertheim, who has written a book about one of NPA's founding members, speculated that much of the interest in this area is a response to the heavy mathematical content and abstract ideas underlying conventional scientific theories, which, she says, makes them inaccessible to the general public.[11][12][13] She compares NPA with the revolt of Martin Luther against the Catholic church.[11][12][13]"

That you kept in that rather bizarre paragraph is itself bizarre and again confirms how deep the negative bias of the editors is.

3) The references 11-15 need to be deleted as the material that referenced them needs to be deleted. In addition, just because snide and insulting and untrue remarks are published somewhere, even in an otherwise reputable source, does not per se justify putting them in an article simply because they echo the biases of the editors. Again, the editors seem to be intent of finding some way to keep in snide and insulting remarks that anyone should find it most bizarre and unprofessional.

4) Alternatives to the two sections were offered. They accurately describe the two organizations. They do not give the organizations any undo praise, etc. and, in fact, confirm that they are at odds with currently accepted theory. However, admittedly they are as you describe. But hopefully you or Wikipedia would agree that an accurate, well sourced and neutral 1st party description is NOT worse than including snide and insulting and inaccurate fare from editors who have clearly shown strong offensive bias and extreme lack of professionalism. Hence, the suggested text is a better placeholder than the current extremely biased and insulting text.

Other inaccuracies occur regarding the use of "spinoff" (currently deleted), "well-established" (preferable is something like "currently accepted") and the claim about the NPA and "plate tectonics" (I'm not saying that no one has ever criticized plate tectonics, but as stated, the statement is quite misleading).

I would respectfully suggest that removing snide and insulting and untrue remarks and references is not only in the interests of the organizations cited, but also in the best interest of Wikipedia and its readers. This will eventually be confirmed. Thank you. HarvPhys (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF SNIDE AND INSULTING REMARKS The many points I have made all point not only to extreme lack of neutrality, but are clearly cases of libel and defamation of character which can be easily confirmed by checking with your legal counsel. In addition, right after entering my initial Talk complaint, I contacted Dr. Yurij Victorovich Baryshev of the faculty at the Astronomical Institute of St. Petersburg State University regarding your section on the Alternative Cosmology Group and its "Crisis in Cosmology" Conferences. Here again there were inappropriate references that had been posted for quite some time accruing significant damages. Some examples of snide and insulting references are “anti-relativity cranks”, “everyone delivering a talk there is insane”, “It was hilarious.”[3]. I see that that section was removed in the last couple of days (although it doesn’t seem to be noted in History), however, it adds to the case of being non-neutral and, for a long period, having no constraint in what was placed or kept in this Wikipedia article even though others brought the issue to light in the Talk section. I applaud the editors who are at last taking remedial action, but, given the evidence, it appears that extreme bias still exists. HarvPhys (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Your suggested edits are biased in the other direction. Perhaps you should find a middle ground?142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

See next section --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

S Philbrick, thanks to the editors making the changes, they address the issues I raised. 32.212.188.124 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Astro-turfing

The Heartland Institute is listed in the Astroturfing section, which is defined as “being deceptive about its funding and ownership,...” I accept that their position on climate change doesn't match the IPCC position, but I don't see anything in the Funding section to support the allegation they are deceptive about funding or ownership. It states they have stopped disclosing funding sources, but lack of transparency is not the same as deception. Is there some other source supporting their inclusion in this section?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Without a reliable source, organizations shouldn't be listed here. I've removed it for now. If someone can come up with one it can be re-added. Considering the nature of the allegation, I think we should be careful labeling organizations like that without a reliable source. FuriouslySerene (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

[1] might help, [2] calls them "astroturf-friendly", here is a book source, don't know how weighty it might be, [3] puts Heartland solidly in the bucket of astroturfers, [4] mentions the accusations of astroturfing against Heartland specifically. It's a fairly widespread claim, the question is whether it can be considered categorical or not. The Heartland climate conference is blatant astroturfing, but Heartland itself no longer even tries to hide its funding. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The first source is a Huffington Post blog. I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source, as there is no significant editorial oversight on Huffington Post blogs. The second one also does not appear to be particularly reliable. What does "astroturf friendly" even mean anyways? The third citation/first book doesn't say Heartland is astroturfing. When I searched the book, the word astroturf only came up once in another context. The second book I am unable to search on Google, so perhaps there's something in there. The third one, as you point out, only says it's been "accused" of astroturfing. Which seems to suggest that there are no reliable sources calling the institute an astroturfing organization. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I missed something. @JzG: What is the idea behind the separate astroturfing section? There's certainly no shortage of sources describing Heartland Institute activities as being opposed to mainstream science, so why the added requirement that they be astroturfing? Is the distinction that others have a more explicit, focused mission? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am unclear on this as well. When the article went to AfD, it was a single list. The subsections were added subsequently. It doesn't entirely make sense to me why the article is divided like this, or what the basis is for making these distinctions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea, I don't think it was my idea. Astroturfing might be seen as different in character from some other forms of opposition to science (e.g. some groups are ethically opposed to stem cell transplantation, whereas opposition to action on climate change is driven primarily by financial interest). Guy (Help!) 21:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you were the first to add the section with edit summary "some deliberate contrarians". Regardless of why it was there to begin with, is there opposition to folding the subsection into the rest of the list? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it. Folded the contents into the bigger list. I also restored Heartland because there are a whole lot of sources supporting inclusion. Haven't looked at the Marshall institute closely enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Restoration to main list

FuriouslySerene removed some organizations from the Astroturfing section. While the evidence did not support their inclusion in that section, they do belong in the article, so I have restored them to the main list, as follows:

• The Heartland Institute - A think-tank on a variety of issues, including support of "cimate change skepticism"
• Global Climate Coalition - an organization challenging "the science around global warming".
• George C. Marshall Institute - An organization with a focus on science and public policy issues. They disagree with the sciense behind environmentalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 13:50, 13 February 2016

References