Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus so keep. The article is sourced and fairly large. A merge could be considered further but the traget is also large. Bduke 08:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered)

Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is not about a notable encyclopedic subject. In particular, the magazine does not appear to have had any significant coverage and the article cannot be sourced by any reliable sources independent of the subject. Any useful content can be merged into Immanuel Velikovsky. Nondistinguished 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: See the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott Nondistinguished 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. "Pensee" was a notable publication in the 'velikovsky affair' and the mileu of student activism/radicalism in the 1960s/70s. It provided a focus/catalyst forthe velikovskian movement, and the success of its publications & conferences was probably was the single biggest factor in prompting the AAAS to hold its public seminar on the whole affair. A collection of Pensee articles was published by mainstream publisher Doubleday, and the AAAS published a counter-volume with material by Sagan et al. If Carl Sagan & the American Association of the Advancement of Science thought Pensee was sufficiently notable to bother with, I don't think it's inappropriate that wikipedia has a small, neutral, well-referenced and verifiable article on them. The Immanuel Velikovsky article is probably too big already and has a tendency to suffer further bloat abd edit wars, so I don't think it's a good idea to merge this article into it.--feline1 14:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no evidence that Pensee in and of itself was the impetus for the Sagan's criticism of Velikovsky or the AAAS seminar. Therefore this claim of notability is not valid. Nondistinguished 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire :) This article says AAAS president Walter Orr Roberts wrote to Pensée to suggest a conference. --feline1 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! According to that article Roberts wrote to S.L. Talbott, not the magazine. Nondistinguished 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

S.L.Talbott was the publisher of the magazine, listed on its mast head.--feline1 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing a letter to a person who publishes a magazine does not imply one is writing to the magazine. The two are different activities. Nondistinguished 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it would be a bit silly writing to an *actual* magazine, as it's just some bits of printed paper, not a human being. I mean it would be like that time in Derek & Clive, when Derek simply "sent Robin round", as illustrated in the lengthy transcript here http://www.phespirit.info/derekandclive/ad_nauseam_13.htm (warning: contains rude words) --feline1 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, reading my copy of Pensée IVR 4, it reports: ""Walter Orr Roberts, astronomer, atmospheric scientist, and a past-president of the AAAS, was the first publicly to suggest a symposium on Velikovsky's controversial works. After reading a copy of the first issue in Pensee's "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered" series, Roberts wrote to editor Stephen L. Talbott (18 July 1972): 'Perhaps the AAAS could be interested in holding a symposium on scientific logic using the Velikovsky case as a specific study. Perhaps the symposium should be narrowed down to a smaller point, in order to try to reach a conclusive position. For example, one might take the matter of In any event, I do agree with the editors of the journal ... that the public deserves a better assessment of the validity of Velikovsky's work than it has received to date ....""--feline1 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this seems to indicate that Roberts wrote to Talbott and not to Pensee. Nondistinguished 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity User:ScienceApologist isn't here to help out, I'm sure he'd be able to advise us.--feline1 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply. It is a "brave" editor that can claim to know all, and categorically state there is no evidence. This article says AAAS president Walter Orr Roberts wrote to Pensée to suggest a conference. No Pensée, no conference, no Sagan criticism. 89.14.47.52 10:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto Reply: Er, Nondistinguished, you are just plain wrong in your assertion there. There AAAS conference, its causes & reprecussions, is pretty well documented by the various 'Velikovsky Affair' commentators; you could easily educate yourself on the facts.--feline1 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon and feline1 are offering a counterfactual reading of what happened in the so-called "Velikovsky Affair". Ellenberger points out that the offer of a symposium on Velikovsky came due to the consensus of various scientists (namely Roberts, Sagan, Gingerich, Goldsmith and King) who decided that to aid in the public relations between astronomers and the general public, they should organize a debunking conference. Roberts contacted S.L. Talbott because Talbott was the person closest to Velikovsy. It had nothing to do with his self-published magazine Pensee. Indeed there is no evidence to support this attempted claim of notability for the magazine. Nondistinguished 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with your interpretation here - perhaps C. Leroy Ellenberger himself will be along later tell us if *he* agrees with your paraphrasing of him :) Anyways, on the other point, that Doubleday published a collection of Pensée articles, and the AAAS took them seriously enough to published a countervolume...? More generally, I think there's little point the two of us arguing back and forth about this - we clearly disagree - I think the article is fine to stay, you think all material on "pseudoscience" should be eradicated from wikipedia. Of course, you realise that that's not line which would go down well with the community, so you're always careful to insist that your criterea is WP:N et al, but your edit history belies the fact that your editorial activities are all focussed on getting rid of 'pseudoscience', rather than pruning wikipedia of fancruft, minutiae, Buffy Episode Guides and the other morass of non-notable material on the servers.--feline1 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my butting in here, but there is just too much disinformation being posted here. "The Genesis of a Symposium" in Pensée IVR VII (not IV as feline1 indicated), pp. 24ff (written by editor Steve Talbott tho' unsigned, as all insiders know), makes it clear that had there been no ten issue feature on Velikovsky in Pensée there would have been no AAAS session on Velikovsky in Feb. 1974. Walter Orr Roberts, a past-president of the AAAS, wrote to editor Talbott after reading Pensée IVR I suggesting some sort of session on Velikovsky would be a good idea. Letters circulated among Talbott, Roberts, AAAS officials, Sagan until June 1973 when AAAS in Science invited proposals for symposia for their February 1974 convention. "Through Dr. C.J. Ransom, a AAAS member, the editors of Pensée submitted a proposal for a symposium titled "Venus--A Youthful Planet?" The review committee rejected this specific proposal while deciding to hold a Velikovsky symposium to be sponsored by the Astronomy Committee of the AAAS, whose members were Donald Goldsmith, Ivan King, and Owen Gingerich. It was King (Steve Talbott was not involved) who then visited Velikovsky in Princeton on July 13, 1973 to present the committee's idea to him. There followed much discussion of proposals and counter-proposals, but the end result was what happened in San Francisco on Feb. 25, 1974. And it was all set in motion by David and Stephen Talbott with their "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered" series that was advertised in several national magazines such as Psychology Today, Intellectual Digest, and Industrial Research. Phaedrus7 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to verify the background to the inception of the AAAS symposium on Velikovsky, Pensée IVR VII can be accessed on the catastrophism.com CD or at any of the 31 libraries holding the IVR series, including UCLA, Library of Congress, Univ. Illinois, Cornell, Princeton, Indiana Univ., Univ. Oregon, Washington State U. and NYPL Res. Lib. Phaedrus7 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. I have explained that what I want is to remove items which are not notable from the encyclopedia. The content is irrelevant. Check out some of the other AfDs I have started if you don't believe me. Impugning my character is not a very good practice and you have been blocked in the past for being belligerent. I am going to ask you to stop telling me what I believe and what my activities are "focussed on". Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, feline1. Would you appreciate it if I told you that I believed your agenda was to be an Irish malcontent who didn't do so well in his studies of chemistry at Oxford? No? Then stop telling me what my "agenda" is. Thanks. Nondistinguished 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't really mind if you said that, I'd just shrug, tell you I got a 2.1, and some of my research published http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1219790 lol. That aside, if this AfD is to reach any kind of sensible conclusion, I suggest views of some more editors are sought, rather than the two of us simply going "yes it is!" "no it isn't!" at each other. --feline1 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep Compared to other student newspapers its notability, notoriety and contributors exceeds most. If Pensée goes, then all the other student newspapers must go. 81.31.38.19 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in, but this is ridiculous. Nondis. is asking you to stop putting word in his mouth and you go "nana, I had something published"? Whether you care about what he says of you is not the issue, the issue is that we try to be civil around here, and assume good faith. Lundse 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Inappropriate use of WP:ALLORNOTHING supposition. Also, the anon provides no supporting evidence for the assertion that this periodical's notability, notoriety and contributors "exceeds most". This is not a proper reason for keeping an article. Nondistinguished 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A minor byproduct of the Velikovsky affair--and excuse for an article listing his supporters yet again. That Sagan used it as a reference is not importance. He used a great many things as references. It was just another in theattempted defenses of Velikovsky that encouraged him to write. DGG (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some of the contributors listed in the article were anti-Velikovsky, hardly the material to include in an article if people wanted to just "promote supporters". And a circulation of about 20,000 is hardly a "minor byproduct", when for example, the membership of the American Astronomical Society is only 6,500,[1], and its Astronomical Journal and Astrophysical Journal get a mention. 219.99.216.109 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no notability here. The references cited are to insider sources, and I see no secondary references that would support notability. MarkBul 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bauer is an independent academic who considers Velikovsky to be pseudoscience, and Alfred de Grazia is a professor of Social Theory. Kronos had no connection to Pensee, and Bauer himself said that its staff had "impeccable credentials". To suggest they are all "insider sources" would be to suggest that an article on astronomy that used astronomy sources was using insider sources. 202.89.32.166 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep without prejudice if an article appears where it could be merged (Delete or merge). I am having some difficulty assesing this. Velikovsky certainly is notable, but not enough to make a publication on his theories automaticaly so. If this was only important to his work, then we should merge some of this in his article, or one on his theory in general. Unless there are other reasons this is interesting, of course. Consider my vote provisional... Lundse 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete there is no reason to consider this notable. I do not see that provoking the publication of a notable book is any reason for independent notability. This is part of the chain of minor controversy, and merely an attempt to get one more article out of the subject. DGG (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It says please add NEW comments below the relisting notice, not post the same one again :) Statements such as "merely an attempt to get one more article out of the subject" are hardly in the tradition of WP:FAITH either, and a cynic might say belie the fact that this whole AfD is simply another of User:ScienceApologist's campaign to purge wikipedia of any article which so much a mentions a notion contrary to scientific orthodoxy, no matter how neutral and verifiable. --feline1 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This publication does get mentioned in a non-negligible number of the independent sources on Velikovsky, so is worth including in some article, but as far as I can find none of those mentions provides enough information to write a stand-alone article, or to merge the current article's contents elsewhere (not even basic information like the number of issues or the years in which it was published). --Delirium 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment/Question To those voting keep, I'd like to ask how this article becomes a good one. What do we include here apart from "this was part of a debate which we have a link to here"? This, and some namedropping aside, how does this become interesting and encyclopedic - what information does a reader really gain here? (not ranting, hopefully, just asking semi-politely :-) ) Lundse 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the List of student newspapers, I note for example, The Daily Toreador or The Lantern. How are these any more notable, without even the notability of an international readership, prestigious contributors and book spin-off? I think the answer is that notability is not the criteria at issue, but the ability to just information the reader of various verifiable material. And if it's not good enough, tag it as stub for improvement. --87.122.6.187 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I am not going to go into whether another article is notable or good - I am only going to discuss this article here. And my question was not about notability at all (not that I am arguing it should be ignored). I was asking how this article becomes more than a stuffed dictionary entry with namedropping and links. I am not arguing for deletion because this article is not good now, I am asking how it is ever going to be a good encyclopedia entry. Lundse 09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the information is available, we could provide background on how the magazine came about, and on the Student Academic Freedom. We can summarise each of the issues of the magazine, describing notable articles. We can provide background summaries on some of the contibutors. And yes, the magazine is part of a wider debate, the so-called "Velikovsky Affair", but there is currently no article specifically about it. --87.79.143.249 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (or merge) A self-published, short-lived, college fan-'zine writes a mini-series on a known kook, and this somehow deserves it's own wikipedia article? Yow. I guess we've already covered the important stuff in the world. Ronabop 04:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good summary. I agree. Lundse 09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please - and as for your own recent editorial contributions to groundbreaking articles such as Emo (slang), Albatross (Monty Python) and Gay square dance...? --feline1 09:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, what are you trying to establish here. Does "oh, please" mean that you do not believe I am serious or that my agreement is absurd? If so, please let me know why, as I am more than willing to hear your arguments (although silly comments like this one will probably be ignored the next time).

If you have comments about my behavior at other articles, please address those matters there or on my talk page. Preferably without the sarcasm. And could I please note that my contributions to those articles were "wrong name, we need another article on the subculture itself", "this should not be here" and "neither should this"? I am not claiming they are groundbreaking or even good articles, in fact, I am claiming the exact opposite. Get your facts straight before your personal attacks, or simply stop doing it? (personal recommendation: just stop). Lundse 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

lol You tell me not to be sarcastic ... and then are sarcastic right back to me! ("(personal recommendation: just stop)") (Not that I mind, it was quite a good one ;-). But you're taking the exact same "do as I say, not as I do" line with your comments on this AfD. It does not hold water with me for editors to say claim that we should only comment on the current article, and comparisons to the notability of other articles are not a valid criterea: the reasoning is that they are only considering the current article purely on its own merits under Verifiablity, Notability, etc, and it just randomly happened to be that they noticed and scrutinized the current article. In actual fact, it is more often the case that the editors in question specifically sought out the current article as part of an ongoing edit war or personal bias (in this case, the interminable Immanuel Velikovsky saga) and looked for which wikipolicies they could use as ammunition against it. (Which isn't to say that articles which don't make the grade shouldn't be culled, of course... but let's not pretend all these things on wikipedia happen from an entirely neutral point of view and never reflect editor's personal biases...)--feline1 10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning sarcasm, then you're basically right, although I would classify my own remarks as "snide". :-)

About comparisons to how other articles are handled, I have to add that it is against policy. More importantly, I can only see it leading to suspicions of bad faith. That said, one should be free to use it as analogies to explain ones points about the use of policies.

You are also right that nothing here is entirely without personal bias, but that does not mean we should not strive to minimize it. And it is still far better to argue rationally and cite policies and sources than to point fingers and claim that "you are only saying X because Y". Whatever my real motivation is for not including this article (and I'll admit that I am afraid that having an overabundance of articles on this subject gives the theory undue weight), then my argument and question stands: how does this ever become a good article? Lundse 11:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lundse, you ask "When will this article stop beating its wife?". I put it to you that the article is not even married.--feline1 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying this is already a good article? Why not just say so? (What you are really claiming, per your analogy, is of course that the article is not even trying to be a good article or is otherwise not subject to the demands of one).

And the reasons I have for claiming this is not a good article is pretty clear already, from what I have said. The article consists of short description of the issues, which is fine although not terribly interesting. Then it goes into details regarding contributors, which is uninteresting if they are not notable in their own right - it is not good content to simply enumerate facts. What is missing is something notable and interesting, which is not found under other articles - nothing is told here about Velikovsky, his work and the "controversy" that we did not know from those articles already. There is nothing new here, this probably deserves a mention in one or more Velikovsky-related article, but no more. Staff, contributions, etc. are all disguised trivia-sections. There is no real content here, as I see it. Lundse 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious keep The series of articles existed, and it generated controversy that continues even now 30+ years later. The issue here is not the validity of Velikovsky's views. There were clearly several notable individuals who participated in the publication; we already link to several who already have Wikipedia biographies. Scientific American's comments were clearly unsupportive, but Pensée was at least notable enough for them to make the comment that they did. That someone should write a whole book whose title includes "The History of a Public Controversy" tells us about where the focus of the article should be, and cements its notability. If some members of the scientific mainstream consider such theories as Velikovsky's to be trolling, they show their religious fanaticism by feeding such trolls. Eclecticology 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that Velikovsky should get an article, bot that hardly means every article or article series to mention him should. The controversy was generated by a lot of things, and if this series was one, then they should be mentioned in the article about the controversy. No reason to have an entry for each reason in turn, unless they are notable in their own right and can make for a good article. Lundse 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an article, nor article series, but magazine series featuring many notables. I have no doubt that if the Pensée series was on trains, there would be no discussion, just as there is no discussion on these special issue of magazines here, here, here, here. All of these are notable to someone. So why should we deny a reader from being able to find out something about Pensée: Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered? No-one here was denied it. --81.198.233.180 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Given this logic, everything should be included. "All of these are notable to someone. So why should we deny a reader from being able to find out something about X". Why is this series notable, besides being about something notable we already have an article on, and besides some important people being involved with it? Why does this need an article in itself and not a mention/section under the Velikovsky affair?

I am more than willing to accede, as I mentioned from the start, that there might be notability here. But noone arguing for the inclusion of this has tried establishing it. Why is this important, what content in this article is interesting and not just trivia and namedropping? Lundse 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I already listed some of the reasons why Pensée's IVR series was notable in my very first comment on this AfD. Moreover, this notability (unlike many of the fancruft ariticles on wikipedia) is verifiable and referenced in the article. At this point, I might start getting sarky with our friend from Lund, but luckily the Stranglers have written a song on the subject instead, so you don't have to http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=btJvIQcPlyg --feline1 08:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your first comments where actually the most enlightening, thanks for linking to them. I do not really care for the condescending tone of the rest of your post, though. This AfD would have gone much smoother without stuff like this. Lundse 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not claimed. The sum of human knowledge includes more than notable items, and what may be notable to me, may not be notable to you. Why should the article be included? (1) The series of magazines is as significant as any other student newspaper (2) It is distinct from the original Pensée in that the entire 10 issues was dedicated to "Velikovskianism" (3) It has significant contributors (pro and con) (4) It spawned a book based on its articles (5) The AAAS conference resulted from the magazine (5) Editing contributor Lewis M. Greenberg went on to co-found Kronos journal (6) The magazine is well cited in other "Velikovskian" journals such as Kronos and SIS Review, and books. All of this is verifiable, and whether a reader considers this to be notable or not, is up to the reader. --83.64.118.178 09:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do not agree that notability is (only) subjective, you do make good points on how this could be considered notable. Especially 2 and 5 (both 5s) are convincing. While I am not sure this is the right thing in the long run (especially about what good content will appear here), I will err on the side of caution and change my vote to a weak keep - although I do believe it would be better to have a fuller article on the Velikovsky affair and merge the content there. Lundse 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as per Feline1 above. The article claims "It achieved a circulation of between 10,000 - 20,000, with the first issue reprinted twice totalling 75,000 copies" and it spawned a book by a major publisher. Remarks above that it was just a "college fanzine" seem inappropriate in that context (presuming those claims are verifiable). Bondegezou 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.