User talk:Gwen Gale/Brangifer

• This page is meant for off-thread posts by User:BullRangifer and myself. Any good faith editor is welcome to edit this page. However, I would ask that any posts by editors other than BullRangifer or myself be put only in their own sections, rather than sprinkled throughout. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

NSF, V and ghosts

(first post copied from User talk:Gwen Gale)

I was being very sarcastic in my comments and see that we completely agree on the value of "verifiability, not truth". I'll try to be careful how I mention other editors, but you should know that Hans actually began a thread at WT:V to change that wording, but was persuaded not to. Blueboar and I argued for its preservation, and I even think it needs strengthening, not weakening. I have all along considered the objections to the NSF statement to be based on a violation of that principle. Personal objections to a verifiable source must not be based on one's opinion of the truthfulness of the statement, but the objections to using the NSF statement have been based on such personal speculation and objections. I have been defending the source, not because I necessarily believe every word of it (it could have been worded better, but space constraints no doubt demanded brevity), but because it's a very notable statement, taken in context from a notable source. That has been denied in many ways, all from claiming the NSF blundered, to that they are just plain wrong (so what!), to that they didn't even make the statement (!) (Hans has done this repeatedly), etc. All those arguments have been used while I have stuck to defending our verifiability policy.

I have never included the statement in any of the articles in a manner to state as a matter of unattributed fact that, for example, "belief in ghosts" IS "a pseudoscientific belief". I have always attributed the statement to the NSF, thus noting they made the statement, and that it was thus their POV. Other opinions to the contrary would also be welcome if properly sourced and attributed. That's standard NPOV editing. Even such NPOV additions have been deleted and warred against, and I believe that violates policy. There are a number of exclusion criteria for rejecting a source, but personal opinions about the truthfulness of a statement are excluded (by the "verifiability, not truth" clause) from being used as a reason for rejection, especially when those beliefs aren't backed up by a single source that discusses and differs with the NSF statement. If it had been a BLP matter, those criteria could have been used, but no other policy-based arguments were really valid under the circumstances. It always came back to disagreement with the NSF opinion. Even if they were wrong, the source is impeccable and noteworthy. If they really were so wrong, I suspect other RS would have commented on it, and those comments would be welcome.

I would love to discuss your additions to the closure. I wish I had had them earlier. I have acted in good faith all along in my edits and this controversy. I believed that the majority consensus in both RfCs supported that the NSF really did make the statement and that the NSF was a reliable source for making it. I will not discuss the statement if Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 are allowed to interfere with the discussion with you. I'm not interested in some passionate or heated debate. They will only repeat their arguments, and as you seem to note below, their arguments and style aren't always conducive to bringing constructive results. To me they seem to often be more inflammatory than enlightening. The heat to light ratio isn't positive. I'd like to quietly explore this with you so that I can learn something. I'd like to avoid such situations in the future. I've been here nearly five years and have close to 28,000 edits under my belt, so I'm not a newbie, BUT I can still learn a lot! I'd like to "pick your brain", since I hold your opinions in high esteem. Can we have a conversation on a subpage? I want your honest opinion without interference from others. Is that fair enough? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:V has to do with what's needed for inclusion, not exclusion, which is to say, if there is a consensus among editors that an assertion from an otherwise reliable source is dodgy or unhelpful, it can be left out of the text altogether. Another way to look at this would be, since the NSF assertion is indeed sloppy, while it would be OR to say so in the text without a citation, it's not OR to skive it from the text altogether.

By the bye, I find any talk about NSF itself not being a source at all to be a kind of good faith, too-wonkish Wikilawyering and a waste of time. As to NSF, it has its own conflicts of interest, peer review these days has shown some rather gaping flaws, but even so, on en.Wikipedia anything published by NSF would be taken as RS. Like any encyclopedia, some of the sources from which en.WP's content is drawn are flawed and hence, likewise the articles upon which they're built. Lots of readers know this, lots of readers don't know this. As I'm wont to say, we do what we can.

To sweep things clean straight off, the worst thing one can do in a content disagreement on this website is to start commenting about other editors. The outcome will almost always be unhappy. I've seen PAs lobbed back and forth in these threads and I find it highly boring and unhelpful. Put broadly, if there is a meaningful and truly glaring behaviour worry, RfCU, ANI or a thread on an admin's talk page would be the way to bring it up, whilst not mixing behaviour worries with content spats. When thinking about someone else's behaviour, one might ask, "If I agreed with this editor's PoV or outlook as to editorial content, would I be saying their behaviour was untowards?". Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

BR reply 1

Your first paragraph starts with mention of our verifiability policy, so I'd like to start there:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

I haven't discussed this with other editors and my initial formulations below may well need tweaking after we have discussed them! They may not truly reflect my complete understandings, which I'm going to explore. Your poking me may help me formulate myself better. That's where the learning process comes into the picture. I'm open to being instructed and I'd like to end with us seeing eye to eye.

I think that the "verifiability, not truth" phrase is brilliant and I fully agree with it. I have defended it and think it should be strengthened. I also think the sentence should end with "is true or not true".

The whole sentence happens to be an odd construction, but it could be reconstructed so that "like goes with like". It would read something like this:

• Wikipedia summarizes its [initial] inclusion policy as verifiability, not truth:

• The threshold for [initial] inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, IOW whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

• The threshold for [initial] inclusion is not truth, IOW not whether editors think it is true.

I believe that preserves the exact meaning of the current policy.

This could also be stated as "The threshold for [initial] inclusion is verifiability and has nothing to do with truth." (That doesn't mean truth is unimportant at all, but other policies and guidelines cover that subject. If a statement is from a RS and is verifiable, regardless of its truthiness, it is automatically allowed inside the door of Wikipedia and may be "considered" (not necessarily "approved") for further use. Note that it may still be rejected after that time, but it's initial acceptance for consideration is based solely on its verifiability.)

I tried to combine some other editors' suggestions at WT:V thus:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether some editors think it is true while other editors think it is false. When there is no universal agreement between reliable sources as to a statement's truthfulness, Wikipedia will not attempt to settle who is right and who is wrong as it doesn't indulge in original research. (See the policy on neutral point of view to see how to manage disputes and polemic facts properly.) Wikipedia documents the real world using verifiable and reliable sources, it doesn't judge it. It is not an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" which determines what is true. It only documents what reliable sources say about the matter.

Since affirmative (inclusionary) principles usually have opposite corollaries (exclusionary), I'd like to explore such a corollary.

Per your first paragraph, I've always understood the "verifiability, not truth" wording to be an explicit inclusion criteria, while also being the expression of an underlying principle which has an unstated corollary as an exclusion criteria which we (unfortunately) don't state just as explicitly. I know this isn't policy, but I'd like to discuss this with you. It will help me to understand if I've misinterpreted the underlying principle. Just repeating and quoting known and familiar phrases isn't always helpful when trying to uncover underlying principles.

I've understood that wording to be an attempt to prevent the inclusion of a statement just because some editor believes it's "truth". Truthiness has nothing to do with our inclusion criteria since one person's "truth" is another person's error. Wikipedia doesn't sit as judge, it only documents the real world. Verifiability is enough for inclusion, regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement. This doesn't deny that there are other inclusion and exclusion criteria, but the primary ("initial") verifiability policy needs to be interpreted this way because otherwise it would violate NPOV by preventing the use of sources documenting the existence of obviously false ideas when an article needs to document that such false ideas exist. We do this all the time because NPOV requires it. (BLP vios are a special case.)

The exclusion corollary of this would look something like this:

• "Wikipedia does not initially exclude properly sourced material based on its truthfulness or lack thereof. While other policies and guidelines do consider the truthfulness of a statement, we must not use that factor as an initial inclusion or exclusion criteria." (This can be summed up as verifiability, regardless of truthfulness.)

That's why I don't believe in deletionism, censorship and whitewashing. If a statement is from a RS, I will usually defend its use to document the worst nonsense, and we have plenty of articles like that: homeopathy, mucoid plaque, Seth Material, Vertebral subluxations, etc.. That may sound strange coming from a skeptic, but I don't believe skeptics should try to prevent the documentation of weird ideas. That would violate the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge, including the nonsense that exists in it. I have documented my opinion on this matter here:

My attitude toward quackery and fringe articles [1] I can hardly put it any better than David Goodman (DGG) does on his userpage: [I have a] "distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." DGG. Source The attempts one sometimes sees by certain skeptics to AfD quack articles are often attempts at deletionism which violate the principles of the First Amendment. If a subject can establish notability, it has a right to exist here. Since fringe topics are required to give prominence to the mainstream POV, the basic POV of the quack view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated very clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream.

What do you think about my understanding of "verifiability, not truth" and its exclusion corollary? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

gg reply1

First, let me do a wee bit of housekeeping. The first amendment to the US constitution only has sway as to what a government can (or can't) do. en.Wikipedia is a privately owned website with servers in the states. Hence, under the first amendment, en.Wikipedia can delete or include more or less whatever it pleases, within copyright, libel and other laws. The first amendment has aught to do with anything we talk about here, please forget about that one.

I do agree that, taken altogether, it's most helpful to let dodgy published sources show their own weaknesses to readers, many of whom are quite keen, more so than some editors think.

BLP, however, needs a soaringly higher level of sourcing because of the harm it can do to breathing, living, feeling, hopeful human beings. Put another way, it's not cool to thrash folks with lies or warped takes on their lives. If this website allowed this, it would have been shut down long ago, there is no other way.

With that housekeeping out of the way, as to truth, although I understand what you mean and may agree more or less with what you're getting at, verifiability not truth doesn't mean verifiability, rather than what editors think is true or not true. Truth comes into the building of an encyclopedia in ways far beyond the feeble thoughts of editors (like me).

There are at least a few ways to get into the outskirts of this topic. The path I take these days could wend something like this:

Truth:

• There is only one truth
• Truth is unknowable

Verifiability is all we have to go by:

• We can be aware of and remember shreds of some outcomes.
• Through craft, we can sometimes bring the same outcomes more than once, hence we can sway some outcomes.

All sources are flawed:

• Our awareness, along with how we remember our awareness, handy and amazing as this can be, has its bounds and is thereby flawed as to input and output.
• Swaying an outcome never means we understand how it happened or that we are even aware of the whole outcome

PoV is a reductive scam, a steadfast shortcut we all take as a means of recall:

• Clever craft and wise understanding are not at all the same things.
• We endlessly muddle craft with understanding.

Neutrality is a bargain with the unknowable:

• Some outlooks are closer to the unknowable truth than others.
• Outlooks far from the unknowable truth often stir up the handiest outcomes.

For starters, this renders any Wikipedia notions of "mainstream," "peer review" and "fringe" as sloppy, fleeting and often meaningless shortcuts to outcomes having little to do with understanding. As for "quacks" (frauds or muddleheads), they sometimes spin up lies even through peer review, thereby making billions.

When I began editing here about six years ago I was a staunch "deletionist." Three years ago I was a "moderate deletionist." Today I'm an "inclusionist." Data storage is way cheap, databases like SQL are way robust, the latest data dump of en.WP's whole history fits into a 32 gigabyte .7z archive, finding sources and helpfully writing them up are the big worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

BR reply 2

I totally agree with your comments about the First Amendment, BLP and truth. Much of what you write thereafter is more abstract and I can't be sure how it would affect policy when it gets formulated in a concrete manner, IOW when the "rubber hits the road." We may well agree completely, but I can't be sure when it's expressed as more abstract concepts.

I do note that truth is taken into account, and it does become very important in later phases of whether and how to use a source, but I don't think it should be included in the first/initial/primary inclusion criteria (WP:V), simply because it's not absolute, and when it's Wikipedia editors who are making that judgement, rather than RS, we get into problems if their judgements are allowed to determine the matter. Note that these are things that are hotly debated, not matters that are settled as "truth" in any objective manner. These are rubbery and subjective concepts. It's matters that are held to be truth by some editors, while other editors hold them to be false. The current "verifiability, not truth" wording is being interpreted in a manner that allows some editors to keep information out because they (in contrast to many other editors), even in the absence of RS that support them, are demanding that their interpretation of the truth of a matter (they think the NSF statement is wrong) be accepted as grounds for excluding the statement. If they consider such a statement, even from a RS, to be false or muddled, even when numerous other editors disagree, they are succeeding in getting their personal idea of "truth" to determine the outcome. I see that as very problematic, and you seem to do so as well when you write:

• "NFS is taken as a reliable source on en.Wikipedia, even when NFS is wrong."

Right now the NSF quote isn't even being allowed to document NSF's opinion. It's never been used to make a statement of fact.

You also wrote "Brangifer...carrying forward a sloppy assertion into the mistaken, "global" assertion that belief in ghosts is "pseudoscience." A belief in ghosts is not pseudoscience,..."

If I had done that there would indeed be a severe problem, but I haven't. Nowhere that I can recall have I used the NSF statement to state some belief of mine (I don't believe that belief in ghosts is always pseudoscientific), or to present the NSF statement as the truth. I have only used it to point out that the NSF said it. It has been included as their statement and attributed to them as their opinion. Other RS with opposing POV would be welcome to stand beside theirs, especially if there were other RS that had taken exception to their statement. I have never heard of such statements, even though the NSF statements have been tweaked, modified, repeated and published for years. I know that skeptics wouldn't object because they see the NSF statement to be similar to statements made all the time by skeptics. They have no problem harmonizing definitions of pseudo-science on the one hand with "pseudoscientific beliefs" on the other. The expression "pseudoscientific beliefs" is a very common expression and it doesn't mean the same thing as "pseudo-science" (so there is no contradiction), and a refusal to note this point (even though I have pointed this out many times) has muddled the whole discussion. We're talking about two related but different matters. I've been talking about the statement about "pseudoscientific beliefs", and others have been talking about the definition of "pseudo-science", using only one of many different definitions of an imprecise concept. There is a broad spectrum here, with beliefs held because of lack of critical thinking skills and lack of scientific insight, on the one hand, to explicit scientific claims, to junk science used to support unsupportable beliefs. One cannnot equate things on one end of that spectrum with things on the other end, even though they are related. The NSF document covers the whole spectrum, while this statement mentions only one part.

Brangifer (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

GG reply 2

From the outlook of "rubber hitting the road" I can say:

As an editor, I'd hope there would be a consensus among editors to skive from an article any straightforwardly muddled/wrong/sloppy assertion made by/through an RS, such as that one from NSF. A belief is pseudoscientific only if it hinges on a botched methodology which is claimed as scientific (which is to say, the testing of a falsifiable hypothesis). The core anthropological way that folks talk about ghosts (or what we call ghosts, if you like) is not pseudoscientific belief, it has nothing to do with pseudoscience, it's thousands of years older than pseudoscience.

As an admin, I can say NSF is indeed taken as a reliable source on en.Wikipedia, but it's up to editors to deal with it from there. Keep in mind, all sources are flawed, some much more than others (my own take on NSF is more or less... low. I don't think they stand by the scientific method so steadfastly as some are led to believe, they're riddled with conflict of interest and moral hazard).

Also as an admin, I'd hope all editors tangled up in something like this would stop talking about other editors and stick to posting about sources and how to write them up in the article. I only bring this up because dealing with "behaviour" rather than "content" is the biggest slice of what admins do (even when it seems they're dealing with content, by the bye).

Is any of this helping so far? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

BR reply 3

I'm not sure it helps because you actually use your personal beliefs (where there is plenty of debate - see the RfCs) about the truth of the source as a reason for excluding it, all without any evidence of disagreement with the source in RS. The subject is debated, with the majority of editors in the RfCs considering the statement to be accurate. We're not dealing with "one truth" or a settled matter. We're talking about personal OR interpretation being used to exclude another POV.

It also violates a fundamental rule of hermeneutics. Internal consistency should be maintained where possible. When words are used quickly, without further explanation, the interpretation of the word that best preserves harmony should be used. The list of ten beliefs does this. It doesn't explain exactly which meaning of each word is being referred to, but since all those words can in some cases be tied to pseudo-science, the statement should be interpreted as referring to those aspects, which may not even be the greater or most common aspect. Also, as explained later, it isn't even necessary for there to be any pseudo-scientific investigation related to a word for the claim that "it's a pseudoscientific belief" to fit. See below.

This also relates to what you wrote earlier: "There is only one truth." There may be only one truth for some things (mostly scientific facts and natural laws), but we'll often have to wait for that kind of absolute knowledge in the kingdom come, IF one believes in God, and there are far more things (opinions, social issues, etc.) that are very debatable and subject to interpretation, where there is no absolute truth or consensus in RS about what is the final truth of the matter. When that's the case, editors don't have a right to make that decision. Wikipedia and its editors aren't supposed to judge but to report, using RS whether they agree with them or not.

Your initial definition is also problematic. You write:

• "A belief is pseudoscientific only if it hinges on a botched methodology which is claimed as scientific (which is to say, the testing of a falsifiable hypothesis)."

That is basically a repetition of the definition of pseudo-science, but I don't think the NSF page on which the statement is found leads to that conclusion. While you are right that pseudo-science is based "on a botched methodology", "pseudoscientific beliefs" are held because of "botched thinking", even in the absence of false "scientific" claims.

As I explained above, there is a broad spectrum related to this subject, with "pseudo-science" on one end, and "pseudoscientific beliefs" somewhere else on that spectrum. They aren't the same thing, and the definition of pseudoscience doesn't exactly apply to pseudoscientific beliefs.

What does connect them is faulty critical thinking and a failure to understand the scientific method. When a scientist has those failings and makes claims, they are engaged in "pseudo-science", and when an ignorant individual has those failings, they may end up holding "pseudoscientific beliefs", regardless of where they got the belief. They may have gotten it from a blatent pseudo-scientist or from a simple guru in the back jungles of India. Both believe in or engage in pseudoscience for the same reasons - faulty reasoning and ignorance.

Here are the words and phrases I can glean from that NSF article that seem to apply to why the National Science Board are so concerned about pseudoscientific beliefs. They state that those beliefs are held because of [my emphasis]:

• "Surveys conducted in the United States and other countries reveal that most citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, belief in pseudoscience seems to be widespread, not only in the United States but in other countries as well. This section explores these three indicators of scientific literacy. (Scientific literacy is defined here as knowing basic facts and concepts about science and having an understanding of how science works.)[17]"

• "NSF has used three survey items to assess "public understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry," i.e., how well people understand aspects of the scientific process. Understanding how science works is a major indicator of scientific literacy. Based on their responses to the three inquiry items, many Americans appear not to have a firm grasp of the nature of the scientific process. The same is true of Europeans."

• "Although 39% of Americans surveyed in 2004 correctly answered all three questions about the nature of scientific inquiry, 61% did not.[27] This lack of understanding may explain why a substantial portion of the population believes in various forms of pseudoscience."

• "Although S&T are held in high esteem throughout the modern world, pseudoscientific beliefs continue to thrive. Such beliefs coexist alongside society's professed respect for science and the scientific process.

  A recent study of 20 years of survey data collected by NSF concluded that "many Americans accept pseudoscientific beliefs," such as astrology, lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP), and magnetic therapy (Losh et al. 2003). Such beliefs indicate a lack of understanding of how science works and how evidence is investigated and subsequently determined to be either valid or not. Scientists, educators, and others are concerned that people have not acquired the critical thinking skills they need to distinguish fact from fiction. The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks (NIST 2002). (See sidebar, "Sense About Science.")

  Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (Shermer 1997, p. 33).[28] In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation" (Shermer 1997, p. 17)."

What I gather from that is that beliefs that are held because of a lack of understanding of basic scientific facts and concepts, the scientific process, and the nature of scientific inquiry; a lack of critical thinking skills; and "a lack of understanding of how science works and how evidence is investigated and subsequently determined to be either valid or not," "may explain why a substantial portion of the population believes in various forms of pseudoscience."

Pseudoscientific beliefs don't necessarily involve overt claims to "scienticity", but involve lack of knowledge and belief in claims that "lack supporting evidence and plausibility". When a guru without any scientific inklings makes claims that lack evidence or plausibility, the guru may not properly be labelled a pseudoscientist, but those who believe those claims still end up holding "pseudoscientific beliefs". That's how the term is used in common speech. It is used commonly and rather loosely. Attempting to force it into the rigid mold of one of the many definitions of pseudoscience does violence to its common usage. Wikipedia's job is to document what is said and written in the real world, including loosely defined concepts. The NSF/NSB provides one of them. Google Scholar has many references where the term is used.

There is nothing on the NSF page that states that those beliefs are held because of a "botched methodology", but they are obviously held because of "botched thinking", which, if it is used by scientists and investigators who produce junk science, becomes actual pseudo-science. There is a broad spectrum of usage. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting quotes:

While not exactly the same as my description above (revealing there are many ways to view this!), I just noticed one study I had overlooked. It contains an interesting description:

• "The article proposes a framework that views pseudoscientific beliefs as a joint function of the basic social motives and the default way of processing everyday information. The interplay between the basic motives and experiential thinking is illustrated with three examples. The first concerns comprehension of self via astrology and graphology, and the second involves the comprehension of unexpected events (one domain of the motive to comprehend the world). The last example describes health control by alternative medicine, as a modern way of controlling future outcomes." Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience, Marjaana Lindeman, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Volume 39 Issue 4, Pages 257 - 265, Published Online: 5 Jan 2002

Another good one:

Science, Fringe Science, and Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience, literally "false science," refers to ideas "for which their proponents claim scientific validity, but which in actuality lack empirical support, or were arrived at either through faulty reasoning or poor scientific methodology" (Even & Dunn, 1990, p. 10). Pseudoscientific beliefs include, for example, astrology, crystal power, numerology, voodoo, prophecy, and reincarnation. (For a review of the various currently popular pseudoscientific beliefs, see Moore, 1992.) In practice, pseudoscience includes those knowledge claims that are not accepted by the majority of scientists. A learning cycle approach to dealing with pseudoscience beliefs of prospective elementary teachers, Dorothy B. Rosenthal, Journal of Science Teacher Education, Volume - Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 33-36, 1993-03-01

GG reply 3

Articles are about verifiability not truth because reliable sources often carry flaws (along with shreds of polemic, as here and there above). Even nominally academic sources are known to do this. It's up to editors, to build any ongoing consensus needed to deal with echoing sources in articles. As I tried to say in the RfC close(s) and tried delving further into above, if a source taken as reliable here is seen as flawed by some editors (or if there's lack of agreement as to whether that reliable source is flawed), following WP:V and WP:NPOV, the reliable sourcing of sundry outlooks along with the flawed/disputed source would wontedly be the most helpful way, likely the only way, to get through this. Keep in mind, all the reliably sourced outlooks (PoVs) on a topic can be flawed. WP:V and WP:NPOV would still support carrying each and every one. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, we basically agree. Since all sources contain potential inaccuracies, that doesn't automatically exclude them. The rub in this situation is that this one very notable source is being rejected by a few editors based solely on their own personal POV, even though a majority of the editors in the RfCs disagree. The open disagreement is being ignored to the advantage of those who have seriously denigrated the NSB and the statement. They aren't even allowing it to be used to document the NSB's attributed statement of their own opinion, even if it's wrong (according to the misinterpretation of the statement by those few editors, in contrast to many others who think it is accurate). Your last sentence would support carrying this source as well as others with opposite POV. That's NPOV. Your juxtaposition of WP:V and WP:NPOV jibe with what I've written above. "Verifiability, not truth" must not be used to violate NPOV by excluding one POV, especially when it's done by editors in the absence of RS that comment on any disagreement with the specific source. Even if such RS existed, NPOV would require the inclusion of all POV, not the exclusion of one. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I would bet that if the statement was added to the NSB article, these editors would wikilawyer for its deletion. They are completely allergic to its use in any manner anywhere here. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

From the outlook of policy, the source should likely be carried, at the least in full quotes with attribution in the text. This doesn't mean it can be stretched to support categories and moreover, any synthesis/spanning would likely yield highly misleading text.

Article narratives are not meant to be (and never need be) built upon the strand of a single PoV with but dangling threads of other PoVs knotted onto it as a nod to NPoV. Even if there's only one truth to be had, it's unknowable, never mind the sundry bounds and ways of trying to put it forth with language. Some editors and others rankle deeply at the notion that an encyclopedia wouldn't follow the Prussian model they were given (and often still get or give) in school, followed by the likes of Citizendium, Britannica and the now-foresaken Encarta (that broken model may be little more than 100 years old, by the bye). However, when V is taken as core, we're acknowledging straight off (knowingly or not) that all sources are flawed one way or another and the most we can do is cite them in the hope it helps. Roughly half of all readers are smarter than many editors think and can easily deal with more than one sourced outlook at a time, many indeed come to en.Wikipedia looking spot on for that and may not come back as often if they don't find it. Hence, the narrowing of sources through mistaken harkenings to consensus (which is not a vote) and WP:FRINGE (which is not policy) is harmful to both the project and to readers. Articles are meant as a more or less easy, pithy take on the sources to be had, rather than an easy, pithy take on what's behind them. The earth isn't flat like a pancake is flat, but it's very helpful to acknowledge and delve into the anthropological outlook of flat earth. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If I understand you correctly, my use of the source to document that the NSB said what they said (that's all I've ever done) is within policy, but that going beyond that, while not a policy violation, might not be wise in all cases. I would have no problem accepting that. Just because something is correct doesn't always mean it's wise. Am I correct in that understanding?

To ensure that there is no misunderstanding about my reasoning and embarrassingly detailed attempts to follow policy (which is being considered a crime by some), my referral to the statement as something that could reasonably be considered to represent the "scientific consensus" was based on the majority opinion in the RfCs. These are obviously considered paranormal and pseudoscientific topics by most scientists. If I was wrong, then it's because many others in the RfCs were also wrong. I followed their lead because I was uncertain in the beginning. That's why I started the RfC at WT:Ghost. The result confirmed me in my belief and I then acted in good faith with policy and firm consensus behind me.

Also my use of the statement to justify adding the articles to Category:Pseudoscience was based on these relevant links:

• WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience (The NSB is such a scientific body, as affirmed by the majority in the RfCs, thus justifying use of the Psi Category.)

• WP:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience. This passage from the Psi Arbcom was in the NPOV policy at the time, but has since been moved to this guideline. This is a successful deprecation of the ArbCom decision by those who act in ways loved by fringe POV pushers, including a noted admin who often aids fringe pushing and was involved in that move. I objected to its outright deletion, and compromised to its move just to save it. It's better that it's in a guideline than gone altogether. The ArbCom made this ruling to deal with a disruptive situation and its removal can lead to more of the same types of disruption. That's unfortunate.

As to your next paragraph, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does it undermine what you wrote in the first paragraph? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

More or less any source taken as reliable here can be carried in an article. It's highly unlikely you'll ever get consensus for an article narrative to assert that belief in ghosts is pseudoscience, but the NSF assertion that such beliefs are pseudoscience very likely should be cited, perhaps in full quotes with attribution in the text. You'll need to gather consensus to do this (consensus is not a vote). The second paragraph only delves further as to why all verifiable citations to reliable sources are welcome in articles, even when they don't carry the same outlook (PoV). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I note there's been an edit conflict while I added more to my comment after you had answered the shorter version. Please read the new content and reply. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The topic area of ghosts is mostly not pseudoscience, it's anthropology and culture. Belief in ghosts may or may not be pseudoscience, closely following how any such belief is put forth and bolstered. Hence WP:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience has little sway on the topic, moreover WP:Fringe theories is not policy. Also, the bounds of pseudoscience can and do shift through time, since the label pseudoscience is often hurled as a hollow polemic. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree, but does that undermine what you said about the simple attributed statement by the NSB being appropriate when presented as their POV? (See examples below.) Your last comment doesn't address that matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No (my last paragraph did address it). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

?? "No" as in "No, it doesn't undermine what I (Gwen) said"? If so, what do you think of my proposition below. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposition 1

I'd like to make a proposed wording (the relevant word would be substituted depending on the article) which can be tweaked. Other wordings could be used, but the precise quote should be retained in the reference. I'm deliberately leaving out the "scientific consensus" part to avoid complications. I'd like to get your input as to if this is what you mean above when you write "... but the NSF assertion that such beliefs are pseudoscience very likely should be cited, perhaps in full quotes with attribution in the text. You'll need to gather consensus to do this (consensus is not a vote)."

Without wikilinks in the ref:

• The U.S. National Science Board, representing the broad U.S. science and engineering community, considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

With wikilinks in the ref, but some don't like wikilinks in quotes, even if done carefully:

• The U.S. National Science Board, representing the broad U.S. science and engineering community, considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

Those citations don't support the wordings you've given. Whatever I might think, though, you should take wordings to article talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It's an exact quote. Here's the complete quote. Should more of it be used?:

• "Belief in pseudoscience increased significantly during the 1990s and into the early part of this decade (Newport and Strausberg 2001) and then fell somewhat between 2001 and 2005 (figure 7-8 ). The largest declines were in the number of people who believe in ESP, clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling. Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29]" (Then follows 29) [2]

Like I said, this can be tweaked. I'm not about to take this to any talk page before I get this right. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The only thing you put in quotes was: "pseudoscientific belief". So far as I can tell, you're trying build your wording on synthesis. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

<- The entire quote from note 29 is also in quotes. Otherwise the only thing that's happening is a small introductory paraphrase with attribution, as is standard practice. That's not considered an improper synthesis, and certainly not a novel synthesis from various sources. It's from the statement. From WP:SYN: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." [3]

If I'm misrepresenting the NSB, just say so. The words "representing the broad U.S. science and engineering community" are taken directly from the NSB article and gives context. If the relevant parts of the long quote are used we get a longer statement:

• When commenting on the reports of various polls, the U.S. National Science Board, representing the broad U.S. science and engineering community, stated that "... about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items....[29]" One of the items in that survey was astrology.

How's that version? It seems rather long and clumsy to me. The first version is very simple and isn't an improper synthesis. If there's any synthesis going on, it's the NSB that does a normal synthesis of the sources they use and we are just quoting them. That's good writing. If we wikilawyer this too much and don't use common sense and good writing practice, we'll end up with a mess that will rightfully be rejected by any reasonable editor. That wouldn't be wise. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "the U.S. National Science Board, representing the broad U.S. science and engineering community," and mixing it with a(nother) cited assertion is utter synthesis. Moreover, astrology has aught to do with ghosts. What article are we talking about now? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think adding the description of the NSB ("representing the broad U.S. science and engineering community") is a problem? They wrote the document and I thought that a correct description of the NSB would be fine. If that's not an accurate description of the NSB, then the NSB article needs fixing! I was just trying to attribute it properly and provide context for who they are. If that's wrong I can leave it out since it's not absolutely essential to attribute things and give the context. Simple attribution will still function.

As to what we're talking about, we're talking about how the statement and source can be used. As to "astrology", I wrote at the beginning of this section that "(the relevant word would be substituted depending on the article)". The source would potentially be legitimate as content somewhere in all of the articles that deal with the ten subjects mentioned. If it were the ESP article, it would quote the source and say "extrasensory perception (ESP)". That's very simple and hardly even requires common sense. This is how we are supposed to use sources. Here at Wikipedia that translates to nine articles, since two of the ten subjects are merged here. Of course we'd have to get consensus in each case. It would also be legitimate fare for the pseudoscience article and the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. That's where it is unquestionably and absolutely most legitimate. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The worry is that you're spanning one cited assertion into another, trying to lead readers into thinking it's a consensus among scientists. That's not allowed here, ever, you would need to find a single source which says both things at once. As for "unquestionably and absolutely most legitimate," since there are sources which support a notion that the word pseudoscience is luzzed about as an empty slur half the time, I don't think so. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gwen, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what you mean some of the time. It's like pulling teeth, and I'm not a dentist but a Physicians Assistant and Physical Therapist, so forgive me asking again for clarification.

What do you mean by "spanning one cited assertion into another"? Which assertions are you referring to? I'm only using one source. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in that source says that's an outlook "representative" or a "consensus" of scientists. For all we know, it was written by a bureaucrat. You can't cite span, it's not going to be allowed. You can quote something it says, but you have yet to do this. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Now I get it. You're referring to the description from the NSB article. I had dropped that idea and didn't realize you were still referring to it. I can now see what you're getting at. No OR was intended. There is no talk of consensus there either, but I still wouldn't want to give the wrong impression that the NSB "represent[s]ing the broad U.S. science and engineering community". They said what they said and readers can look up who they are without me telling them. Fair enough. I had already also dropped the idea of including the RfC consensus that the NSB statement "expressed the scientific consensus". (BTW, how should the NSB article be fixed since apparently they don't represent "the broad U.S. science and engineering community"? I guess the President and Congress have been going to the wrong organization for advice. ) -- Brangifer (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, they own them. Moral hazard, conflict of interest... Doesn't matter what I think, though, I'm only a clueless admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposition 2

Trying again, with modifications per above discussion.

Short version.

• The U.S. National Science Board considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

Longer version:

• When commenting on the reports of various polls, the U.S. National Science Board stated that "... about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items....[29]" One of the items in that survey was astrology.

How about them? Are they better? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe (it's all rather dodgy, sloppy, but many readers will grok that straight off and blow it off for what it is). You might take it to each talk page and see what other editors think. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether you agreed with the NSB, but am more interested in whether this is a proper NPOV presentation of their POV. Is this neutral enough? What about the "dodgy" and "sloppy" parts? What needs fixing? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, you might take it to each talk page. The outcomes will likely be uneven. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. I really get the feeling that you're very reluctant to help me do things better here and get this right. I'm trying to do the right thing and would really appreciate it if you would trust me and try to help me. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole notion of pseudoscience is dodgy/sloppy, a dialectic, a polemic, with ever shifting bounds and a usage which more than hints at bad faith. If you're trying to come up with some "meta" content wording that can be put into a bunch of articles, I can't help you with that, I don't think policy supports doing that, for sundry reasons (although some topic area projects do get away with it here and there). If you want to name an article and put forth some wording for that article alone, along with where in that article you hope to put it, I may be able to help, I don't know. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're still not answering my questions. I'm asking for help to build the encyclopedia and instead you're telling me what you think of the idea of pseudoscience. We're all welcome to hold our own personal POV about it, but the aim of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge, including concepts and beliefs, many of which we may find abhorrent and untrue. You seem to lean toward the idea that pseudoscience is such a belief while I consider belief in pseudoscience to be a negative factor in society, and thus I share the concerns of the "scientists, educators", "others", and "the science community" referred to in the report:

• "Scientists, educators, and others are concerned that people have not acquired the critical thinking skills they need to distinguish fact from fiction. The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks." [4]

You don't have to share those concerns, but that lack of concern shouldn't cause you to side with those who wish to keep such information out of Wikipedia, and there are many pushers of fringe POV who would like to keep it out and to whitewash their nonsense. It's a significant opinion, right or wrong, and it's a violation of NPOV to just delete it. In the face of blatent attempts to violate NPOV, your lack of commitment to defending NPOV is a slippery slope. Regardless of our personal opinions we are to build the encyclopedia, even adding sources we may not agree with. The Wikipedian thing to do is find the sources needed to document what's been said, including WP:Writing for the opponent. If you really aren't interested in helping me, then just say so. I have a hard time believing that you, as an admin, wouldn't feel it your duty to help and guide other Wikipedians when they ask for that help. You're already far too involved to be able to participate as an ArbCom member in any future ArbCom proceedings on this matter anyway, so why not, just as an experienced editor, commit yourself to doing a good job of helping me? Then if any ArbCom proceeding on the matter happens, you can participate as an editor, without the normal constraints on participation placed on ArbCom members who have a specific job to do. You could then offer your opinions more freely, and you could also testify that I have really acted in good faith and tried to get help.

Now let's try again. I am more interested in whether this is a proper NPOV presentation of their POV. Is this neutral enough? What needs fixing? It's only one statement of theirs and it shouldn't be this hard to deal with. Let's just use some common sense. On practically every other source editors are generally a lot less careful and there's no objection, but I want to make sure that no one can claim NPOV is violated by the wording used here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't done what I asked, which is ok, but lacking that, I can't help you. By the way, I'm not on arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. What was it you asked me to do? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to be sorry at all. Anyway, name an article, put forth the wording and where in the article you hope to put it. I want to help you if I can and am willing to give you input article by article. I can't help if you want input as to "global" or "meta" wording you might hope to lay into a bunch of articles all at once. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! That sounds like a very reasonable approach. Let's just start with what I've got already, an entry for the astrology article. I'll take a look at the article and return later with a possible spot to place it. It would need to be integrated in a logical manner. (The reaction of certain editors will reveal whether they are or are not loyal to NPOV, or whether their allergy to the source will get the better of them. ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposition 3

Per our discussion above I would suggest using this short version, but... (see below):

• The U.S. National Science Board considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

The "but" refers to the fact that there is a complicating factor at the moment - the article already contains a slightly different and older version which hasn't been removed. It's in the second paragraph of the lead. Not that I don't think that version isn't good, but I think the version above is probably better, largely because it would be less controversial. (Yes, I know that isn't a policy-based argument....but sometimes one must be pragmatic.) It mentions "U.S.", uses NSB rather than NSF, doesn't contain the (controversial for some) words "scientific consensus", and the list of ten doesn't contain any wikilinks. What do you think about me trying to make a substitution? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't support that quotation. Moreover, an opinion published by any "committee" or "board" should be heedfully attributed as to text ("boards" don't have opinions, people have opinions). It's also a bit old. If I were writing that line, I'd put it:

• In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement which said it "considers belief" in ten survey items, astrology among them, "to be pseudoscientific."

In fairness to you, I should say, that published statement is such a sloppy polemic, many readers will take it for what it is, botched, since calling any belief pseudoscientific may conform with popular usage of the word but it's wholly unscientific to put it that way. Hence I don't think it would help you much in laying out and sourcing a scientific PoV for readers. If they published anything later about this, that 2006 citation you gave shouldn't be in the article. Either way, I think you should find more sources on this outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your version is accurate. What I don't understand is how you can say that "[t]he cited source doesn't support that quotation". What is there about the "cited source" that "doesn't support that quotation"? I'm sorry if I seem dense at the moment, but they did make that exact statement, so what do you really mean? Please say it with different words, because I just don't understand how one can say that when someone says something, that they didn't say it. It's an exact quote. The Board takes responsibility for it, so, based on the source and without any other source that indicates otherwise, we should believe that they meant it. To do otherwise would be OR speculation. It is their report: "The National Science Board Members were closely involved in all phases of the preparation of this report." [5]

I'm really puzzled. Are you perhaps referring to the use of the word "considers"? You seem to prefer the words "published a statement" instead. Are you suggesting that they didn't really mean what they said? Everything on that page would indicate that they really meant it. They are very concerned about the problem and explained in detail why "pseudoscientific beliefs" are a problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The string "pseudoscientific belief" appears nowhere in the text of the source you've footnoted/given below. You can't put it in quotes because readers will think it's a quote, but it's not a quote because it's not in the source, so it's unsupported by the source. The closest the text in the cited source comes to saying anything about pseudoscience is "considers belief... to be pseudoscientific." You can't make up paraphrases and put them in quotes, I'm a bit startled that you don't seem to understand this and I'm beginning to wonder again if I can help you (there are bounds to the time I can give to en.Wikipedia each day). There is no way you'll get what you want if you carry on trying to source content as you've been doing. You might be able to find someone to help you learn more about editing here through Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Wow! This is a revelation! (I've been "talking in the East", and you've been "talking in the West", to use a common Danish expression.) You have been thinking all along that the reference contains the complete statement, and that everything in the reference, even the part without quotation marks, was worded exactly from the source. That's not the case at all. I only added the words preceding (The National Science Board considers belief in the ten survey items to be pseudoscientific:) the quote in the ref so that readers who look at the ref will be reminded of the context. The link to the original source document is provided for a reason, so readers can check the context. Normally we are encouraged to paraphrase the source, so I don't understand why this case should be treated so differently.

I do know how to quote properly. My career and writing have proven that. I learned how to quote properly in my early twenties long before finishing college. I typed my father's doctoral dissertation, dug up the sources and did much of the research, printed it (we had our own printer), and some of what I wrote was published separately under his name. I was acting as his "secretary", and since he maintained final editorial control he could properly do that. Finding and quoting from hundreds of sources (close to a thousand) was part of that process. If I had quoted improperly I could have jeopardized his doctorate! I learned how to take things in context, how to use ellipses to properly shorten quotes without violating them, etc.. That knowledge has benefitted me in the years that have followed in all my educations and writings. (Unfortunately my once perfect English grammar, spelling and punctuation are now screwed up after a quarter century in Denmark speaking and writing in a foreign language all the time. That's life.)

Regardless, if you read the original source you will see that I have not misrepresented the statement in any manner. I'll provide the statement from the source and deal with it. At Wikipedia we usually assume that readers will use common sense and check the sources if in doubt, especially when we do as recommended here (paraphrase), but I guess we can't even do that in this case. I'm not implying that I was paraphrasing. On the contrary. The part in quotes is exact. Here's the source paragraph and its reference:

EXACT QUOTE FROM THE NSF WEBSITE: Belief in pseudoscience increased significantly during the 1990s and into the early part of this decade (Newport and Strausberg 2001) and then fell somewhat between 2001 and 2005 (figure 7-8 ). The largest declines were in the number of people who believe in ESP, clairvoyance, ghosts, mentally communicating with the dead, and channeling. Nevertheless, about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] [29] Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body.

That's the source statement (including unnecessary stuff) and the full reference [29]. When pared down to the essentials without violating it, it looks like this:

EXACT QUOTE FROM THE NSF WEBSITE (with ellipses per normal quoting practice): ...[A]bout three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items...[29] [29] Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body.

That is the source upon which my proposed inclusion is based. Here it is again:

• The U.S. National Science Board considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

I have tweaked the ref so it includes more of the original source. Now is there any part of that which isn't true to the original source or misrepresents it? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That source says,

• ...about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief...

The line you wrote says,

• The U.S. National Science Board considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

The source you've given still doesn't support your wording, much less the way you have quoted "pseudoscientific belief".

The wording I gave you earlier would be within content/citing policy for the astrology article. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the NSB who described what the Gallup poll described as "paranormal beliefs" as "pseudoscientic beliefs". Do you doubt that? I agree that your version is "true" but it uses quote marks around something the NSB didn't actually state. Keep in mind that your whole argument and that version is based on a complete misunderstanding of what was on this page. Maybe we could have avoided much of this if I had used the common method of providing a source:

• The U.S. National Science Board considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

Doing it this way would force common sense to reign. You would be forced, as most readers are, to read the actual sourced and see if the editor has parsed the original source correctly when they wrote the content here. Brangifer (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As you've been told by other editors and myself, your text is synthesis. The source you're citing does not support what you have written. If you want input from still more editors, take it to Talk:Astrology. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

<- I believe you have misunderstood something very fundamental so I'll deal with the synthesis matter in a bit (there is none). First we need to clear something up.

Did you notice above where I outdented and wrote Wow! This is a revelation!? We should be talking about a new situation now, and not about the misunderstanding that occurred there. I attempted to clear up the misunderstanding, but apparently I didn't succeed. Your proposed version, while true, is based on a misunderstanding and puts in quotes things the original source didn't say in that manner. You didn't mean to misquote them, but you did because you quoted my wording, and not the original source. Have you noticed that? Above you wrote:

• "The string "pseudoscientific belief" appears nowhere in the text of the source you've footnoted/given below."

That statement is a fact (it doesn't appear in my footnote), but I was quoting from the original source found in the green boxes, while you were quoting from my footnote. The original source (in the green boxes) obviously contains the exact string "pseudoscientific belief" and ties it directly to the ten beliefs listed in its own footnote.

We need to avoid that our conversation continues without clearing up that rather serious misunderstanding. When that's cleared up we can deal with the synthesis matter. --- Brangifer (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your wording isn't supported by anything you've given me, in green boxes or footnotes. You're trying to span (synthesize) source text into what you want the text to read, but which the source doesn't support. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You've really got me puzzled. You're basically repeating what you said before and I know what synthesis is, but that doesn't help me understand where in the text the problem lies. Please tell me which words you are referring to. I assume we're parsing the text differently. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To make this easier I'll copy our statements from above. First I'll copy your statement but remove the quotation marks since it's already been established that these are misquotations:

• Yours: In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement which said it considers belief in ten survey items, astrology among them, to be pseudoscientific.

• That is a true statement, and without the quotation marks would be a perfectly good entry. You haven't engaged in any improper synthesis, nor have you misrepresented the meaning of the original source.

• Mine: The U.S. National Science Board considers belief in astrology to be a "pseudoscientific belief".

What makes my version an improper synthesis, while yours isn't? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, your wording would mislead readers into thinking the supporting cite is an NSB-published statement about astrology. It was not at all, but rather, a published statement about ten sundry survey items, one of which was astrology. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposition 4

< Now that's an objection I've never heard before, even for similar types of quotings, but I certainly wouldn't want to mislead anyone. Your version does the trick very nicely:

• In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement which said it considers belief in ten survey items, astrology among them, to be pseudoscientific.

How's that? The ref provides the exact quote which refers to the survey, as well as the survey items themselves. That should provide enough context so no readers will feel misled. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Put pseudoscientific in quotes and I'd see nothing to stop you from getting consensus for the line in Astrology. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. As to getting consensus, we know that certain persons are allergic to the source and their objections will probably create more disruption, but maybe they'll allow this since it replaces an already existing use of the source in the article. I'll just be bold and let's see if they can contain themselves. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't say stuff about other editors in content threads, even in the un-named third person, it will not help you. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

off-hand comment by Ludwigs2

The problem here, brangifer, and the thing that (as an academic) annoys me the most, is that you are doing something that no scholar would ever do. You are starting from a pre-defined judgement (i.e., that anything not-science is bad) and working your way backwards to find supporting evidence for that position. One can always find someone reputable, somewhere, who says what one already believes - ufologists do that all the time, cherry-picking quotes from scientists and government agencies - but it's bad scholarship to do so. You want so desperately to believe that the scientific community agrees with your radically skeptical position that you're grasping at straws. That's not the way things are done. --Ludwigs2 15:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler

Regarding the following for inclusion in astrology: "In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement which said it considers belief in ten survey items, astrology among them, to be pseudoscientific."

Here is what's wrong with it:

• It's not true that they "published a statement". They published a statistical report in which the connection was made in passing, but not even fully explicitly. Compare:
  • "We consider belief in the following ten items to be pseudoscientific." → "They published a statement which said they consider belif in ten items to be pseudoscientific."
  • "Belief in the following ten items is pseudoscientific." → "They said belief in the following ten items is pseudoscientific."
  • "Belief in pseudoscience increased significantly. About three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items. [Footnote: Those ten items were ...]" → "They mentioned belief in the following ten items as pseudoscientific." Or: "The used the following list of ten pseudoscientific beliefs."
• We have absolutely super-stellarly perfect sources for the pseudoscienceness of astrology. Practically everybody since Popper himself who talked seriously and in detail about pseudoscience must have mentioned astrology as an unquestionable case of pseudoscience, in contrast to the borderline cases such as psychoanalysis that everybody is debating. It's outright bizarre to quote-mine a document on science statistics that seems to be using "pseudoscientific" in a loose sense and not to be paying much attention to the very definition of pseudoscience that it is citing, when we have plenty of perfect sources that we can use instead. What's the point? The document begins with a letter of transmittal to the president, who is addressed as "The Honorable George W. Bush / The President of the United States / The White House / Washington, DC 20500". Are we also going to get a passage in George W. Bush that says: "In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement which said it considers George W. Bush to be an honorable president who can be reached under a postal address in the White House in Washington, DC"? Perhaps even in the lead?

I really don't see what can be so hard about not misrepresenting and abusing a source. But perhaps my proper training in the scientific method has given me some superpowers tha ordinary people lack? Hans Adler 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)