Talk:Socionics/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Socionics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Unreliable sources: T. Abashkina and L. Podymov
According to WP:RS "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both". The subject of socionics belongs to the field of psychology and sociology. Therefore, I had reasonable doubts about such authors as T. Abashkina (2015) and Podymov L. I. (2018), links to which are given in the first line of the article. Mr. Ollie recommended that I read the discussion in the archive. I read them and looked up information about these authors. Translation from Russian: 1. "Abashkina Tatyana Leonidovna - Post-graduate student of the Kyiv National Pedagogical University named after N. P. Drahomanov. Sphere scientific interests: onomastics, the theory of precedence". http://azbuka.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/sv-14-2mb.pdf, p. 349. From this it follows that Abashkina as a philologist is not may have professional competence in the field of psychology and sociology, and she does not have a Ph.D. Therefore, according to WP:RS, T. Abashkina cannot be used to define socionics. 2. "Leonid Podymov. Graduate of Ulyanovsk State University. Senior Lecturer of the Department of Natural Sciences of the Ulyanovsk Institute of Civil Aviation." https://elementy.ru/bookclub/author/5276230/leonid_podymov Thus, L. Podymov has not a psychological or sociological education, but a natural science specialty. He doesn't have any degree. According to WP:RS, L. Podymov cannot be used to define socionics either. I propose to remove references to these authors in the definition of socionics and I want to discuss this issue. Jim MacKenna (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- As has been discussed numerous times, being a psychologist is not the only way to be a reliable source for this article. Experts on related fields (or on the classification of sciences / pseudoscience) may be reliable sources. Also,
Graduate of Ulyanovsk State University
andHe doesn't have any degree
- these are mutually exclusive statements. Both cannot be true. You have completely misunderstood WP:RS. Podymov has written a book on Pseudoscience, published by a reliable publisher. That is what is required here. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)- Let's take a closer look. 1. Podymov studied and teaches natural physics and related disciplines. These subjects are very far from psychology or sociology. And they are not even related to these humanitarian disciplines. Is not it? 2. Podymov also does not have a Ph.D. Therefore, he has low citation weight even in his own field of science. 3. In his book, Podymov writes about almost everything in the world, and he also devoted several lines to socionics, which are quoted. Of course, he does not provide any scientific justification for his conclusions. And this is understandable, since he is not a specialist in either psychology or sociology, or in related disciplines. 4. Podymov's book was published without a scientific review by the non-academic publishing house "AST". The AST publishing house publishes books on a variety of topics, but has nothing to do with science. This is a purely commercial enterprise. Therefore, there are no grounds for citing Podymov as an authority in the field of the humanities. Jim MacKenna (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Podymov has written a book on Pseudoscience, published by a reliable publisher. That is what is required here.
. Your arguments have nothing to do with the requirements as laid out in WP:RS. If you require more explanation, feel free to raise this at WP:RSN. We are not going to set the sourcing bar on this article in such a way that only Socionics supporters are deemed acceptable sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for the advice. 1. But before suggesting a discussion on WP:RSN, I wanted to discuss these sources here because I see several unreliable sources. I am not familiar with this procedure. Do you advise immediately without discussion here to put all dubious sources on WP:RSN? 2. You did not answer about the philologist and graduate student Abashkina. Do you also consider her a reliable source? 3. About the reference to Podymov: this is a popular science book, which is published by a commercial publishing house and without a scientific review. This book was written by a physicist without a degree, in which he devotes a few lines to socionics, which refers to psychology and sociology. It is not clear how such an incompetent source with a very low weight can be used to determine socionics. Apparently only because other critical sources simply do not exist. But this is an extreme lowering of the requirements for the source. After all, this means that on any subject on Wikipedia, any authors without a degree who graduated from the university in any discipline can be cited as authoritative sources. From my point of view this is a violation of WP:RS. Jim MacKenna (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I advise any newbie who clearly does not understand sourcing practices to get information on them (either at WP:RSN or WP:TEAHOUSE), before attempting to debate specifics, because debating points that have nothing to do with actual policies is a waste of everyone's time. Having had my time wasted in a more or less identical fashion further up this talk page, I'm not in a hurry to relive the experience. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. 1. But before suggesting a discussion on WP:RSN, I wanted to discuss these sources here because I see several unreliable sources. I am not familiar with this procedure. Do you advise immediately without discussion here to put all dubious sources on WP:RSN? 2. You did not answer about the philologist and graduate student Abashkina. Do you also consider her a reliable source? 3. About the reference to Podymov: this is a popular science book, which is published by a commercial publishing house and without a scientific review. This book was written by a physicist without a degree, in which he devotes a few lines to socionics, which refers to psychology and sociology. It is not clear how such an incompetent source with a very low weight can be used to determine socionics. Apparently only because other critical sources simply do not exist. But this is an extreme lowering of the requirements for the source. After all, this means that on any subject on Wikipedia, any authors without a degree who graduated from the university in any discipline can be cited as authoritative sources. From my point of view this is a violation of WP:RS. Jim MacKenna (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Let's take a closer look. 1. Podymov studied and teaches natural physics and related disciplines. These subjects are very far from psychology or sociology. And they are not even related to these humanitarian disciplines. Is not it? 2. Podymov also does not have a Ph.D. Therefore, he has low citation weight even in his own field of science. 3. In his book, Podymov writes about almost everything in the world, and he also devoted several lines to socionics, which are quoted. Of course, he does not provide any scientific justification for his conclusions. And this is understandable, since he is not a specialist in either psychology or sociology, or in related disciplines. 4. Podymov's book was published without a scientific review by the non-academic publishing house "AST". The AST publishing house publishes books on a variety of topics, but has nothing to do with science. This is a purely commercial enterprise. Therefore, there are no grounds for citing Podymov as an authority in the field of the humanities. Jim MacKenna (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
The WP:NPOV Neutrality Rule is one of the most basic Wikipedia rules. Therefore, I put a request in the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard WP:NPOVN about the implementation of this rule in the article. Jim MacKenna (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
“is a pseudoscientific”
Statement “is a pseudoscientific” is an opinion, not a fact. It is badly phrased and open to argument. Socionics is a hypothesis it is not considered theory. Change this to a reference about how it has faced criticism by specific individuals/ groups with credited sources later on in the article. Accuracy is important so it may be worth referencing the validity/lack of clinical testing as a seperate point. Point that it is generally not perceived as scientifically proven by academics should be indicated, but not just stated as truth. This is objectively false. SarahMalkmus (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, we will follow the sources. - Roxy the dog 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)