Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer

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

The result of the debate was Delete. This was not an easy MFD to close. We generally give users fairly wide latitude in their user space to express POV, which was a primary concern of this debate. If you take raw numbers into account, there are 2 keeps and 8 deletes; however MFD is not explicitly a vote. The fact that the creator explicitly said that he does not care what is done to it weighed heavily in on my decision to close this as delete. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer

As discussed by SeraphimBlade in this RfC, MartinPhi has been using this page as part of his repeated POV pushing and has been directing new editors to it. The essay fundamentally disagrees with basic parts of NPOV and includes such statements as "The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe" (which apparently applies to "paranormal" subjects)."Parapsychology is a scientific field", as well as a section demonstrating serious misunderstanding about how NPOV deals with issues that have an established scientific consensus. It also includes examples of his own self-declared weasel words, as well as examples of what he claims is NPOVing which are in fact POV-pushing. This "essay" is a hopelessly flawed tool for misdirection and POV pushing. JoshuaZ 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep a user is allowed to present his Wikiphilosophy or views on Wikipedia in userspace. I may disagree with his views but we are all entitled to write Wiki essays to present them. Go look at WP:ESSAY for essay instructions. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also there is even worse essays on Wiki project space, like Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you and often support giving much leeway to userspace. However, the user has spent time directing new users to his essay as part of his general POV-pushing and disruption. This makes the flaws in the essay much more serious. JoshuaZ 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the case tell him not to message new users, not to delete his essay page. There are some points in his essay that are wrong, but there are some good points as well. We should have a policy on how to welcome new users. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck if you delete it. However, I think I may have given it to only two users. I never was the first to greet any user. Also, I had no idea this was even frowned upon. I still don't have any reason to believe it is actually against any rule. And the essay has a template on it saying it is only a user opinion, not policy. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - possibly archive as an example of POV-pushing - Here [1] he cites it to another editor in order to sell his POV in the Parapsychology article. And here [2] he directs a new user who disagrees with his POV in the Psychic article to refer to it. Here [3] of course he recommends it to new user Annalisa Ventola. And here [4] I'm not sure what's going on. The only value of the essay is as an example of what not to do. --- LuckyLouie 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete After consulting with my psychic no, uh, after having my palm read, no, uh...upon looking at my aura oh, just get rid of this POV nonsense. •Jim62sch• 08:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Clear violation of Advocacy (see: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). -- Fyslee/talk 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I would want it kept if any of it had just a one in a zillion chance of becoming policy after being adopted by the community. However, it goes against our most important founding principle: NPOV, which is not subject to consensus. This reduces its chances to zero. I also note that Martin appears to believe this essay is actually supported by our current rules. Deleting it gives the firm message that it isn't. AvB ÷ talk 10:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Fyslee. Harmful to the encyclopedia; there is a policy about this, and the essay is an attempt (whether intended as such or not) to do an end-run around that policy. As the author is not only referencing his essay in policy disputes, but even pointing new editors to it - who may not understand the difference between policy and essay, and take this as helpful authority giving guidance rather than an editor pointing to his own personal opinions which run counter to policy, the essay may be doing long-term damage as new editors learn the "wrong thing" and that is passed along. Impossible to calculate how much harm this could do, but clearly it must go. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment what about Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man? You think that is going to have a chance to become policy? What a joker! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 17:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Has nothing to do with this whatsoever, and you've tried to make that non-poin twice now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is, if this essay deserve deletion because it is wrong and will not become policy, then spiderman essay is even more erroneous, but Wikipedians have cherished it and kept it for its sake. We should not use double standard here. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is, I am sorry to say, pointless. WP:NCR is humor, not an essay which runs counter to one of our most valued and core policies. Further, "something else has this problem" is not a valid argument for keeping something. If you believe another page should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If you feel it should not, don't. But don't use "something else is worse" as a Keep argument - it makes no sense whatsoever. It is like saying "we should keep this unsourced article because there are other articles with fewer sources" - utter nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is pointless as well. There is no policy that says an essay should be deleted because the opinion expressed in the essay is considered wrong. What you think is wrong is probably the truth to someone else. My essay WP:RDAL, many people disagreed with it and debated it with me, but no one wanted to nominate it for deletion. Just because you disagree with an essay's content, you should discuss about it on the talk page, not here. If I see an essay that I consider utterly wrong, I will tell it is wrong on its talk page, not to suppress it with a MFD. Also, importantly, this essay isn't all wrong, at least from my perspective as an editor, there are many valuable good points. For example, I agree with him that the skeptics on Wikipedia misused NPOV on articles discussing paranormal. True NPOV should give each sourced (non-trivial) views equal footing. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated that you don't understand NPOV at all (and just endorsed that Martinphi's interpretation is wrong as well). NPOV in fact says the opposite of "give each sourced (non-trivial) views equal footing". "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

Get it yet? --Minderbinder 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then I must say I hope the policy get changed. Anyways, writing an essay to advocate a policy change is OK, since WP:ESSAY is also a policy. I must say I agree with Martin's opinion on NPOV despite it isn't in accordance with the current policy. But myself will not push my opinion in article editting until the policy is changed, because sometimes we should follow policy even we disagree with them. However, we all do have the privilege to discuss about policy we disagree with on userspace or project space. Like myself did on WP:RDAL. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder, you speak of the NPOV rule as if they are gospel, yet have you ever wondered why the rule is the one consistent bone of contention in just about every dispute? In just that paragraph you posted here in bold, I counted 15 indeterminate phrases that are subject to dispute and interpretation. I submit that you interpret them to eliminate paranormal views while we "proponents" know enough to seek balance in our interpretation. Here are the phrases: fairly represent; significant; in proportion to the prominence; as much or as detailed; more popular; small minority; as much; tiny minority ; undue weight; significant-minority; the shape of the dispute; in proportion; equal validity; strong arguments; and, strong moral repugnance.

In the end, it comes down to two warring tribes. The more you all insist on the Skeptical Dictionary way the more we are forced to contest your efforts. Of course you are winning, as the status quo is always the majority view, but most people feel that the tyranny of the majority is "strong moral repugnance," as well. It also impedes progress, something that is far more important to most of us than a slightly disrupted Wikipedia community. Tom Butler 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the reason NPOV is contended so often is because editors simply don't want to follow it since it means they can't get wikipedia to advocate their personal position. Look on this page, undue weight is being called into question right here. "the status quo is always the majority view" - I guess so, wikipedia's philosophy could be described as reporting either of those. If you find the majority to be "tyrannical" you're in opposition to wikipedia policy and may find that wikipedia isn't the encyclopedia project for you. Also, the notion of "progress" isn't the point of WP either - we are here to report progress as found in reliable sources, not make it ourselves. --Minderbinder 16:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:POINT, disruptive. JFW | T@lk 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• comment, is "The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe" really the worst statement in there? I mean, Wikipedia isn't in the business of telling people what to believe, full stop. If this essay is really so bad, maybe you should give an example of something it says that's _actually_ against policy. --Random832 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The authoritative and definitive standard on essays is WP:ESSAY, which this essay did not violate. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep (If it is even legal to have a vote on this one.)

I think Martin's essay is a good effort to teach paranormal "proponents" how to take the high road in Wikipedia. That is good moral advice that I wish skeptics would follow.

Following his statement, in part, "The essay fundamentally disagrees with basic parts of NPOV...", his first point cited by JoshuaZ, "The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe" is exactly the advice I have been giving all along. The less you say the less opportunity you have to say something wrong. When an editor only knows what is written about a subject from something like the Skeptical Dictionary, then the less said the less misleading the article.

JoshuaZ also cited the point, "Parapsychology is a scientific field." That is a true statement and violates no Wikipedia policy (Unless the skeptic's club is making Wikipedia policy now). The people who are college trained as parapsychologists do consider it a science. Wikipedia is not the place to decide otherwise.

The only people who seem to be offended by the article are skeptics. I, in turn, am offended by the Skeptic's club page,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism) especially from the Scope:

=====================================

The neutral point of view must be preserved where it exists and created where it does not exist.

This WikiProject aims primarily to coordinate the efforts of Wikipedians who wish to promote science and reason in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on various topics, while maintaining the NPOV.

The goals of this WikiProject are as follows:

To create new articles relating to science and reason.

To create new Wikipedia articles regarding those topics not yet covered by Wikipedia, but which are covered by The Skeptic's Dictionary.

To place pseudoscience tags on articles related to pseudoscience, fraudster tags on articles concerning convicted fraudsters, and add to criticisms sections where criticism is due.

To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.

To improve those articles which need help.

To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.

=================================

If you delete Martin's page, then you must delete the skeptic's page for the same reason, as it is clearly pushing The Skeptic's Dictionary point of view.

This is a pretty clear attempt at censorship. Wikipedia is a publicly supported 501(c)(3) organization and there may be questions of constitutional law concerning free speech. Are you sure you want to go down that path as you and your skeptic friends do everything you can to eliminate "proponents"? Tom Butler 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Tom Butler. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FREE. AvB ÷ talk 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:ESSAY for instructions of what essays are allowed and what are not. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And let me point Tom to Wikipedia:No legal threats as well. --Minderbinder 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's not a legal threat. As an editor to numerous articles on jurisprudence and legal studies, I know it is not a legal threat. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Responding to various of Butler's comments: First, defending the statement that ""The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the lead should tell the reader what to believe" by saying that you have been advocating this for a while simply demonstrates that you have a longstanding misunderstanding of NPOV. Nothing in NPOV says that. In fact, NPOV specifically makes clear that fringe views should be described as fringe views. Second, no one is "offended" by MartinPhi's page- it is disruptive, whether you are offended by things is a separate issue which might indicate that you need to take a step back and calm down. Furthermore, there is nothing in the WikiProject guidelines which violates NPOV, and the inclusion of the Skeptic's Dictionary matter is for a simple reason- the work is the best comprehensive list of notable fringe, pseudoscientifc or otherwise paranormal topics that you will find. If any major paranormal advocates or such had made a similar list, the project would likely also use that as a guideline for what topics to add. Now, if you think that the Rational Skepticism page should be deleted, then nominated it for deletion, or alternatively join the project and discuss changing the project goals. You are more than welcome to do either if you think there is a serious policy problem. However, the argument "If you delete X, you'd better delete Y" isn't very relevant. Finally, the claim that parapsychology is a scientific field was listed because of the controversial nature of that statement. While, I would think that in many respects it is a scientific field (this depends to a large extent on how one defines the term "parapsychology" and how much of a Popperian one is). But to claim as a baldface statement that parapsychology is a field of science is problematic and one symptom of many of the problems with this essay. JoshuaZ 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to user page While this page violates WP:SOAP, WP:USER, advocates breaking WP rules, links to an external advocacy page with personal attacks on WP editors, etc, since there's an ongoing user RfC (and the potential of future dispute resolution) I'd propose "deleting" the page via redirecting it, preserving the page content and history. I'd have no objection to actually deleting it once DR is complete. --Minderbinder 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that the law protects Wikipedia's right to govern content in articles, but I think the Wikipedia page is misstating the facts with, "Wikipedia is a private website, hosted by the privately incorporated Wikimedia Foundation." As a USA 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization, it may not be private, but is probably a publicly funded organization, and there are conditions set by the government which must be met and followed. For example, my organization is not allowed to lobby for a political view. Again, I am not an attorney, but this is a pretty blatant attempt to suppress a person's expression of an opinion on a personal page. Tom Butler 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether the law prohibits Wikipedia to censor. Because Wikipedia is not a public forum, the owner Jimbo and the Board of Trustees certainly have to right to censor its content. But the issue here is the merit of suppressing this essay by Martin. And speaking of merit, I have to say deleting this essay is not only unwise, but detrimental to our development as an encyclopedia. So for the purpose of bettering public participation on encyclopedia, it's compelling that we have to keep this essay. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Also a possible candidate for MfD is User_talk:Martinphi/NPOV. This does not appear to be an essay. Note in particular many controversial revisions to WP core policies, such as [5] in which the User issues such dictates as, "However, when we are presenting the viewpoint of a paranormal topic in the main body of an article, we must present it as if it is a fact". A psuedo-policy such as User_talk:Martinphi/NPOV has the potential to be highly disruptive to the community and get in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia. -- LuckyLouie 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Martin what the point of his "NPOV" page is. --Minderbinder 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Experiment to see how NPOV might work on another site or section of Wikipedia. I've asked for its deletion. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

Please tell me under what rule you have the right to delete one of my user pages. I will allow the template to remain on the user page for a little while in order to give people a chance to reply here. It will be removed if a clear and decisive explanation is not given. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think deleting this page is doing you a favor. It now serves as evidence against you. But it would be better if you would read the reasons given above, understood the reasons (such as the WP:NPOV policy), and then deleted the page yourself.

Removing the tag instead of waiting for the MfD to run its course would be disruptive behavior. AvB ÷ talk 10:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AvB here. I agree with AvB's comments above. (updated for clarity) Even if the page deserves to be deleted, I'd recommend deferring the actual deletion until after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi is completed (and longer if it becomes apparent that more DR will be necessary after that). --Minderbinder 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I said, but not a problem since I agree with it. In the meantime Martin is advised to refrain from inviting people to read the page. AvB ÷ talk 12:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear - I agree with what you said and my comments were meant to expand on my opinion, not paraphrase what you said. Hope this makes more sense now. --Minderbinder 13:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for explaining. I agree with everything you said above, and not only to achieve three degrees of recursion. AvB ÷ talk 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This whole MFD is designed to suppress Martin as an established editor. His views are flawed, but I read the essay and the essay firmly support NPOV. I don't believe the so-called "scientific consensus" has discredited parapsychology. Wolf Messing has even convinced Albert Einstein and Sigmond Freud about the truthfulness of psychic power. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you can start with Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space and Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?, particularly "polemical statements" and "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea" (Wales quote from that section). Also WP:SOAP which applies to user pages and talk pages as well as articles.

I should also point out that beyond this deletion discussion, anyone has a right to edit that page as well since nobody owns any pages, including their own user pages. --Minderbinder 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting this essay will in no way enshrine the pseudoskeptical mis-interpretation of the NPOV rules. Neither will it allow you to POV push on Wikipedia. You can do that only by sheer force of numbers, as you have. Deleting this essay in order to "send a message" as stated above, is not in accordance with any Wikipedia rules. The essay has a template on it clearly stating that it is not a policy, but only a personal opinion. Thus, the only way the essay could mislead is if it is convincing to users, after they have read the policy pages which the essay discusses. Even if this essay were saying something which is not already in the NPOV etc. rules, it would not qualify for deletion. This is pure censorship. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How did I miss Wikipedia:User page#Removal? --Minderbinder 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how you could have missed that. It seems that this is purely a vote? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally doesn't vote, this is a decision by consensus meaning the closing decision is based on the arguments presented here and whether they are supported by policy, not a numerical headcount. --Minderbinder 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, in that case, since I didn't break any rules, then deleting it is out. Thanks. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't break any rules" Obviously, a number of other editors disagree. See above. --Minderbinder 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already filed a policy change proposal on village pump, in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#"Undue Weight" on NPOV policy, please discuss there as well. Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, no other editor has pointed out any rule I disobeyed. So, unless anyone can state which rule I was controverting, I say that I broke no rules. The only thing other editors have said is that, basically, they don't like my essay. No surprise there. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of editors have explained this already and listed specific WP policies. If you want to continue to pretend otherwise, have fun. --Minderbinder 22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

None that I know of. They send me to pages, but never say how it applies. Since I can't see myself, please explain. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this essay is a push in the wrong direction. If it was meant only to discuss this one editor's opinion, it would be fine, but not for meme-infection of Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. He lost me at "Astrology is a highly controversial subject, and its scientific validity is often questioned". Um, no. The labeling of moonbat idiocy as "controversial" as if two equal schools of thought were contending is not the way to go about making an encyclopedia. Herostratus 04:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One could also say, "there is a scientific consensus that astrology is invalid." What one cannot say is "there is no scientific evidence," as that is a negative claim, which is not supportable. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:40, 10 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.