Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Philosophy Alliance (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Philosophy Alliance

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Natural Philosophy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous article on the subject was deleted and this one was recreated out-of-process. Seems to me to fail WP:CORP with apologies for the WP:FRINGE issues involved where WP:ONEEVENT coverage seems to have happened as a part of various "News of the Weird" segments. It is clear that this organization has not yet received the prominent notice necessary for it to be covered in Wikipedia. It's just a club for cranks and there are a few webpages and off-handed mentions of it in obscure outfits. jps (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is nothing but an alliance of deranged cranks, but it is a notable alliance of deranged cranks. The significant coverage by Wertheim, Farrell and Horgan in reliable sources demonstrates that this group is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article, even if most of its members are demented. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by fringe proponents like Wertheim does not contribute to notability, coverage "that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers" is required. Did you read what Farrell wrote? Because he does not mention the NPA. What coverage does Horgan give? He gives one paragraph [1] in a blog at SA where he gives only one paragraph; that is trivial coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim's coverage counts. She is an expert on outsider physics and has attended NPA events but she is not a supporter of the organisation's beliefs - she is a science writer who also writes widely on mainstream physics and applies a skeptical eye to both sides[2]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim is not a physicist. As such, there is no way she can be counted as an expert on physics, outsider or otherwise. The idea that she applies a skeptical eye to both "sides" is itself a rather precious position to take, as though there are two "sides" to the question of, for example, whether or not CERN will destroy the world. There is, after all, a 50% chance it will destroy the world, don't you know. jps (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim has a degree in physics. [3] LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implying what? A great many people of all stripes are "listed members of the NPA." Just because someone is a "listed member" does not necessarily mean that they agree with anything that a given member or even the prevailing majority hold true. Perhaps the individual merely supports the notion of free and open dialogue on science, or merely "joined" as part of attending a conference with journalistic intent (honestly can't recall whether membership was required in order to attend; probably not, but can't recall). Others have noted the individual covers a wide variety of "alternative physics" topics (in a "blogger" or "citizen journalist" capacity). Anyway, speculation on motives or meaning of "membership" is merely that, "speculation." Mgmirkin (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can read her article The edge of reason and judge for yourself. She is hardly a proponent (and this description of NPA was published in New Scientist, a mainstream publication).
  • I would say that she is a supporter of the NPA even though she doesn't agree with everything every other member advocates. 16:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this is not always the case, i.e. Snowden is a reliable source on NSA even though an employee. I think the correct statement is that "A supporter of X is not a reliable source about X". But you can be a member without being a supporter, as is Wertheim (and Snowden). Also each editor that chooses to review her work, and mentions NPA in the review, is a reliable source that the topic is notable, as the editor is choosing to make a public statement about the organization. Remember, we are discussing whether the organization is notable, not what people think about it. LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC), comment modified LouScheffer (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not what they are proposing is "true" is not relevant here. What is relevant is that they are a widely known clearing house for unorthodox theories. There are more than 300 references in 'books.google.com' and more than 250 in 'scholar.google.com'. In the academic world they serve a useful purpose - you are expected to provide a reference for each theory you mention, even if your next sentence is to dismiss it as wacky. NPA provides a source of such references, and is notable for this in the academic community. LouScheffer (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it is true that the truth-content of the NPA's presentations and members' positions are not relevant, what is relevant is the fact that they are a fringe organization that is set upon self-promotion. The NPA is a good source for people looking for really weird and out-there ideas, but we're talking about an article on the organization. For that, we need to establish that the association is notable independent of the promotions that are done by its members and comrades-in-arms. This is where we fall short on sources. It may be that this is an excellent resource for people who study pseudoscience, but it's not mentioned enough in the independent sources on the subject to be recognized as such. jps (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with Google searches is that it does not show the significance of the coverage in those sources. For example, there are plenty of routine individual papers with over 500 citations, so claiming that this shows notability sets the criteria rather low (i.e pretty much every minor institute in the world). For example, here is a paper which seems to be about funny shaped sperm in fertilisation which has nearly 900 citations [5]. I doubt anyone will claim the individual article is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other independent/mainstream references to the NPA, with neutral or derogatory descriptions of what it is and what it does. Many of these references are short, so the question becomes if they are enough to cause someone to turn to Wikipedia to find out about the organization.

  • Here is description and discussion about NPA in "Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia", edited by Sal P. Restivo, Oxford University Press, in the chapter on Grassroots Science.
  • Here is Challenging dominant physics paradigms, a "conventional science" article by by Campanario and Martin that describes how scientists attempt to go against conventional wisdom.
    • The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a fringe journal. The two authors are members of the NPA: [6], [7]
      • Sure, but did you 'read' the article? It seems about as neutral and well-referenced as you could expect, given that any article on opposing the status quo will likely be written from that perspective.
  • In The Big Bang - A Hot Issue in Science Communication, by Griffiths and Oliveira, refers to NPA as an organization started by Van Flandern "to propound his unscientific viewpoints". Definitely not a supporter or proponent.
  • This is clearly only passing mention. You quote the entirety of what the article says on the subject.
  • This passage is quoted in the book "Cambridge Academic English: An Integrated Skills Course for EAP", by Martin Hewings, Craig Thaine. This might well be the most "mainstream" of mentions, in the sense that it could be run across by someone who has no idea what NPA is.
  • They are mentioned several times in Skeptical Inquirer, for example Volume 24, and as you might imagine in a not particularly favorable light.
    • Seems to be no more than a passing mention and doesn't allow for any article writing based on that source, I find.
    • From the snippets shown by google it seemed like a more serious discussion, but I do not have access to the full articles. If someone who does have access could quote the relevant passages, that would be great.
  • The article In Physics, Telling Cranks from Experts Ain't Easy by John Horgen of Scientific American talks about NPA.
  • Slate saw fit to reprint Wertheim's 'New Scientist' article as Other Theories of Physics, showing that they, at least, think the subject is of general interest.
  • Delete I've gone through every source in the article and those linked on this page. They either go back to Wertheim's piece, which is an unreliable source for determining independent notability, or are passing mentions that don't provide any knowledge to write an article, other than the organization's existence and purpose. I'd actually like to see an article on this topic, Wikipedia is the perfect forum to write about True Believers, but there doesn't seem to be sourcing with "significant coverage" to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each editor that reviews Wertheim's books, and articles, and then descibes NPA in the review, is making an independent decision that the *topic* is notable. In terms of whether the group is composed of cranks or geniuses, they are relying on Wertheim. But not whether it's of interest to them or their readers. They decide this for themselves.

More examples:

There are a number of blogs with neutral or skeptical takes on NPA. These are of course not reliable sources, but can serve of evidence of notability.

Here is a press release from NPA. I could certainly imagine someone would like to look NPA up on Wikipedia after seeing this, since Wikipedia has a much better record of neutrality than press releases.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs)
(You can sign posts using 4 tildes such as ~~~~, or with initials, it's difficult to follow where one thread ends and another begins. Thanks Green Cardamom (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

From WP:NOTE. See WP:GNG footnote #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." That is exactly the case here with different sources covering the same Wertheim sources and even using the same quotes from it. At best they count as a single source.

The Scientist is a solid source as far as I can tell. The book reviews are about the book not the organization. Complicated by the fact the book author is a member of the organization (in terms of using these sources for the org's notability vs. the book's notability). The Blogs don't count towards notability. Basically we have one source from 1995 The Scientist, then Wertheim and everything that originates from Wertheim, which I think at best counts as a single source - so two good sources total. Beyond that, there is apparently now enough sourcing to support an article for Physics on the Fringe [current redirect] by Margaret Wertheim, since multiple book reviews in very high quality sources make the book notable under WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I respectfully disagree that reviews have no bearing on notability. The author of a review cannot include all of the book, and out of the hundreds of pages of material, must decide what is most interesting to their readers, and what they wish to comment on themselves. This is the exact definition of notability. Of course, this is very different from relying on a fact stated in the book, where the number of references is irrelevant. If they were using Wertheim to show the existence of NPA, then it would be just one reference. But instead they are showing which portion of the book they found interesting, which they are doing independently.LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the comment above "The book reviews are about the book not the organization.". The Wikipedia guideline is: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (Italics mine) In this case the main topic is the review of the book, but many of the reviews address the subject in detail (in the sense than anyone who read the review, but not the underlying book, would know what the NPA is, who its members are, and what it does).LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best those reviews might in aggregate count as a single source about the organization, since they all point back to the same book, and WP:GNG says when that happens they are treated as a single source when determining notability. That means there are two sources total: the reviews + The Scientist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim's book counts towards notability, despite the fact she is a member of NPA. When a member of a group writes about that group, notability depends very much on the extent that the goals of the person and the group are aligned. So when the president of a group writes about the group, it's presumably aligned and not notable. But when Edward Snowden wrote about the NSA's PRISM program, it was extremely notable, even though he was a member/employee of the NSA. In fact it was much more notable, and would not have been believed had he not been a member. Likewise criticism of a political party is much more notable if it comes from a party member, claims of unethical behavior by a company are more notable if made by an employee, and so on. So membership in a group is not a ban on notability; it also depends (strongly) on the content of the work. Reading Wertheim's material, she is sympathetic to the NPA but her goal is to describe the organization, not promote it. Despite her membership, she herself does not believe the primary tenet of NPA, namely that modern physics is wrong. The reviews reinforce this view; even the ones that think she is too charitable towards the NPA do not believe she holds this belief because she thinks the NPA is right - she thinks it is valuable even though it is founded on an incorrect premise. So her book (and articles) definitely count as notable references to NPA. LouScheffer (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really I don't see where you are going with this straw man of the situation. Edward Snowden is not notable based on his own writings he is notable based on the very substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of him. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here is that PRISM was notable, even when it was only described in one source, and that source was a member of organization involved. So Snowden's revelations were solid evidence of the notability of PRISM, even though he was a member of NSA. This is a counter to the assertions made above, that Werthiem's book cannot be used as evidence that NPA is notable, since she is a member of NPA. LouScheffer (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the difference is that with Snowden's revelations, the investigative work of other researchers went into overdrive and now there are thousands of independent sources on the subject of PRISM. If Werthiem's book had produced a similar level of interest, then we wouldn't be having this discussion of the problem that the article can only be written from the point-of-view of Werthiem because that's the only source that's used (all the other ones are derivative of Wertheim as well). The argument is that because independent sources have not (yet) noticed the NPA, it becomes impossible to write an article on them. jps (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we are not arguing whether PRISM is notable now. I explicitly stated even when it was only described in one source. And this was true for the first several weeks, when all the many newspaper reports were based on Snowden's documents. It was not until, under duress, the administration opened up on PRISM that there was another independent source of notability.LouScheffer (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are dealing with problematic comparisons, then. If NPA was notable then there would be a scenario by which other independent sources would develop on this subject. Imagine that the whole Snowden thing was somehow kept under wraps and there was only one source on the subject. We'd be having this very discussion. But counterfactuals are not good points on which to base an argument. The point is that until there are others who notice the NPA who are dispassionately disconnected from the subject, we cannot write an article that both adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That's why we have notability guidelines in the first place. jps (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming that if the administration clammed up, and Snowden remained the only source on PRISM, that we'd be debating whether PRISM was notable? Good luck with that argument - it differs completely from the view of the major media of the world, who thought it was exceedingly notable while there was only one source, and that one a member. Anyway, the argument here is that the Wertheim book is perfectly good evidence of notability. It's published by the mainstream press, it's reviewed by mainstream sources, etc. The only question is whether it is sufficiently objective and independent. This *cannot* be settled by simply noting that Werthiem is a member of NPA, as the Snowden case shows - this has to be determined by content. (If another previously unknown NSA administrator smuggles out materials stating that the NSA is law-abiding, it's not going to be notable. If it claims violations of the constitution, it will be.) And Wertheim disagrees with the fundamental tenet of NPA, that modern physics is wrong. That alone makes it plenty independent. LouScheffer (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing what the media and the outside world considers "notable" for what Wikipedia considers notable. One source, no matter how fantastic or exquisite, is not enough to build an article on. jps (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community appears to disagree with you. The PRISM article appeared the day of the Guardian disclosure, while there was only one source, not later after the administration admitted to it. The article history shows no voices on the talk page expressing concern about notability, nor any requests for deletion as not notable. LouScheffer (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the day of the publication of Werthiem's book, so it's odd you'd be trying to compare to the day the Snowden leaks went live. I'm telling you, if PRISM had been based only on Greenwald's piece and there was no corroboration, such an article would have to withstand a deletion discussion. These are simply not comparable situations. jps (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you honestly believe there would be a deletion discussion on PRISM had the government clammed up? That mentions/analyses in the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, and so on, would not count, since they were all based on one source, himself a member of NSA? I think the opposite, that the article would stand, because Snowden, although he was member of the NSA, is not a supporter. Likewise, Wertheim, though a member of the NPA, is not a supported, and her book counts as a notable reference. LouScheffer (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim writes in New Scientist (24 December 2011) "For the past 18 years I have been collecting the works of what I have come to call 'outsider physicists'.... NPA members insist that they can commune with [the natural world] directly and describe its patterns in accessible terms. Regardless of the credibility of this claim, it is sociologically significant." That's the attitude of a journalist studying them and finding them interesting, not the attitude of a supporter. -- 101.119.15.169 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Cullen. I'm kinda surprised to see how much sturm und drang appears below such a concise and obvious explanation. Assuming, arguendo, that something is nutty, said nuttiness has zero bearing on notability. Coverage in independent realiable sources makes a thing notable whether the thing is the United Nations or the Flat Earth Society, Masterpiece Theater or Hee-Haw, Interpol or the Justice Society of America.
    The near-palpable intensity of the comments supporting deletion, especially the contortions of logic necessary to argue away the plain truth of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources bespeaks a level of zeal to banish notable nuttiness that ill-serves the encyclopedia. Multiple reviews aren't multiple because they trace back to a disfavored source. Multiple mentions in multiple reliable periodicals aren't enough because they're all, every last one, passing mentions. Freeman Dyson is writing about a crank, so it doesn't count. The Wall Street Journal and the New Scientist don't count because, um, because, well, it's FRINGE dammit. FRINGE is bad. FRINGE must be eradicated. It's not enough to put FRINGE in context. It must be ridiculed until it can be made to disappear. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. David in DC (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please keep your pseudo-intellectual diatripe to yourself thanks. It is a straw man to suggest anyone is suggesting deleting this because it is fringe. Rather people are suggesting it should be deleted because it is non-notable. Instead of making any actual argument for keeping this article you have merely attacked those you disagree with by making vague accusations. Focus on actually addressing the concerns, rather than dismissing it with your overt hostility. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A) Separating out the parts that are policy-based:
"Assuming, arguendo, that something is nutty, said nuttiness has zero bearing on notability."
"Coverage in independent realiable sources makes a thing notable."
Multiple reviews are multiple coverage in independent sources. This is agreement with Scheffer above and disagreement with others.
The Freeman Dyson essay cited above is a seperate reliable source. Again agreeing with a prior point of another editor.
The WSJ and New Scientist references count as separate sources. Again, agreeing with others above and disagreeing with others.
B) I mean this next statement literally and not as criticism: "pseudo-intellectual diatripe" is a wonderful rhetorical flourish that made the corners of my mouth turn upward, and "diatripe" in particular ought to become a neologism. With the single change of a "b" to a "p" you've turned a common deprecation into a memorable and funny one. Props to you. David in DC (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wertheim On the question of Wertheim's independence, it may be worth noticing that, in addition to writing an admiring biography of Jim Carter (the circlon guy and early NPA member who thought up the name of the organization) as the centerpiece of her book, Wertheim has also curated Jim Carter's circlon illustrations for an art gallery, has made a documentary film about him, and has appeared side-by-side with him at joint public speaking engagements, often introducing him as "the Leonardo of outsider physics". According to a New Scientist article
"Wertheim really likes Carter [and] thinks it is wrong that men like Carter are frozen out of mainstream science. Wouldn’t the world be better if... we let “a hundred flowers blossom” and granted these men some recognition? In order to show that Carter’s theory of “circlons”... is worth scientists’ regard, she narrates the theory of vortex atoms... Wertheim argues that if string theorists can spin theories of “sheer bizarreness” and still call themselves scientists, why not Carter?"
In addition, Wertheim tells us that Jim Carter introduced her to the NPA, of which she then became a member, and the two of them have attended annual NPA meetings together, beginning over 15 years ago, taking walks together in the evening to talk over the day's presentations ("with a spectular sunset as our backdrop"). Is this independence? Granted, both she and Carter regard many of the other NPA members as nuts, but that is true of every member of the NPA, i.e., each of them thinks the others are all crazy (as Wertheim herself has noted).
So, taking all this into account, I don't think Wertheim is an independent source, either on Jim Carter or on the NPA. She is clearly an unapologetic friend, supporter, and promoter of Jim Carter and his brand of "outsider science", which she associates with the NPA, of which she herself is a member. Although she acknowledges that NPA members like Carter are not doing what is considered to be mainstream science, she argues that what these "outsiders" are doing is not so different from mainstream science, and we should accord them some measure of respect and acceptance. She is definitely a promoter of the idea that "outsiders" should be accepted into the scientific community - more broadly defined as anyone who thinks of things that “make them feel at home in the universe” - which is what its members crave. (Wertheim herself notes how paradoxical this is, since the NPA members simultaneously despise mainstream scientists and crave their acceptance.)
I think what Wertheim's book, and the reviews of it, represent is really her advocacy of the thesis that science should be more like art, in the sense that anyone can pick up a brush create a "work of art" that is just as worthy of respect as a Vermeer. She talks about this at length in an audio podcast, and in some web videos. The NPA is just an example of "outsiders" that she cites to support her thesis. Since the NPA has no notability outside of Wertheim's thesis, I suggest that this topic be re-directed to the article on Wertheim, where it can be mentioned that she refers to that group.Fiddlefofum (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natural_Philosophy_Alliance_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1071572009"