Talk:Faraday Institute for Science and Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of Cambridge (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

SYN[edit]

Implemented change [1] to remove WP:SYN as per Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Faraday_Institute--LexCorp (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Better to keep the refs but de-link them from the activity - though frankly the SYN idea is not very well supported IMHO (NB I am an Associate of the Faraday but I think this is NPOV) NBeale (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
But why keep the refs? They are basically irrelevant, as pointed out by LexCorp at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Faraday_Institute, and including them is no more than an attempt to boost the apparent notability of the institute. Look at me, I have a long list of pointless links at the end of my Wikipedia article! Or, Never mind the quality, feel the length! They should be deleted. They add nothing to an understanding of the Faraday Institute. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the AfD nominator challenged people to come up with refs. They should at least not be deleted during an AfD debate IMHO. And it clearly adds to the understanding of the Faraday Institute if you can check out what its spokesmen actually say NBeale (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:Complete bollocks! (i) The blatant WP:Synthesis was added, tagged, tag-tendaciously-removed & reported to WP:NORN before the AfD (in fact it was exactly this sort of baseless partisan wikidrama that led me to go ahead & nominate it when I did). (ii) The "challenge" was for "significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject", not for bare mention (or at times no mention) in sources that are often plainly not independent (like, say, articles written by the FI's own director). (iii) This piece of tenuously-related puffery both goes clearly beyond WP:COI#Non-controversial edits & is exactly the sort of editing that WP:COI is designed to avoid. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no COI. I support what NBeale says. I don't view the indicated text as tenuously related puffery, but rather as appropriate support for appropriately worded text. I really think this is getting out of hand, and has become even moreso as the AfD has unfolded. I would suggest a cup of tea for all, and shall take one myself.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That you would "support" NBeale's completely erroneous (see my first two points -- the material at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with my 'challenge') statements comes as no surprise to me. In any case, WP:COI does not apply to comments made on article talk but rather to edits made to the article -- so your "I have no COI" is a complete non sequitor. That you support all and any parts of this complete soufflé of an article is likewise no surprise. The AfD has "unfolded" without any new sources being turned up, or any serious attempt to rebut my assertion that all current sources are bare (or no) mention, non-independent and/or promotional. What we have is essentially an Emperor's New Clothes consensus to pretend that this soufflé is a very heavy fruitcake, and to collectively say "la la la ... I can't hear you" when nasty ol' Hrafn comes around pointing out otherwise. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You've brought an AfD asking that this article be deleted. So far, none of the 17 people who have commented there have seen things the way you see them. Not one of them, so far, has agreed that it should be deleted. You now revert to seeking to pick away at pieces of the article. There seems to be a pattern here of you ignoring consensus of the community, and insisting that your view is objectively the correct view and others are all wrong. But WP works by consensus--its a core policy. As to your query in closing, I suggest laughter. It goes better with tea.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"So far, none of the 17 people who have commented there have seen things the way you see them." WP:Complete bollocks. I may have nominated the AfD (something that you demanded), but I only did so because you and NBeale made it abundantly clear that you would do everything possible (including removal of legitimate templates, such as the one for the issue that led to this thread in the first place) to shout me down here. I stated above that my preference was for merging, and I note a number of opinions (including a couple explicitly citing me) supporting this view. I would thank you to stop violating WP:TALK by misrepresenting my views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) In case it helps - I disagree with Hrafn insofar as I think there is enough evidence of notability to merit keeping the article: i.e. I am prepared to interpret a large number of tiny mentions in a variety of external sources as (just) good enough to justify a keep. But I very strongly agree with Hrafn when he points out that the article is being stuffed full of self-generated puffery, and in his analysis of a clear COI in the case of the editor who is largely responsible for inserting this stuff. I think Hrafn's analysis is spot-on. He has issued a challenge, and nobody has come up with anything that answers that challenge. Instead, we are treated to self-important and puffed-up stuffing of at-best-tenuously-relevant citations, supported by no more than "trust me, I'm an associate of the Faraday Institute." SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Having taken my cup of tea, let me suggest the following. Perhaps we should hold off making controversial deletions of text or citations until the AfD is completed. That will be very soon (if speedied), or somewhat soon (otherwise). At that point, we can have a discussion here with all interested parties. I will be happy to go with whatever the consensus view is, and would hope that my fellow editors will as well. As to the COI issue, the guidance urges us to look at COI edits carefully. But that is where its relevance stops. Completely. Edits that are otherwise appropriate cannot be reverted because the editor has a COI. In this case, as in all like it, I laud Beale for making his COI known.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. And I am not suggesting doing anything until the AfD has run its course. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What use is an admission of a WP:COI, when the editor in question proceeds to edit the article as though he has none? In any case, his identity (and thus COI on this article) has been a matter of Wikipedia record since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (an article for which he himself was "the primary contributor", which has the dubious distinction of having had four separate AfDs vote for its deletion). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
and which FWIW were blatantly ridiculous wikipolitical deletions. Having written a notable book and being described by a Nobel Laureate as having "an outstanding reputation" is way above WP:N, erp with 21k GHits etc... And FWIW this week there is an invited paper in the Journal of Cosmology and a full-page article in today's FT about our work with Bob May & others. Ah well. It's that kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. NBeale (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic - but, NBeale, if you have a problem with "your" article being deleted, you know perfectly well that the correct course of action is to take it to deletion review instead of whingeing about it and using it as a stick to beat other WP editors with. Or does it suit you better to leave the deletion uncontested so that you can use it to further your own agenda as an illustration of the "Wikipedia is unreliable" point? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but if I put it up for DRV people would yell COI! What's needed is a fair-minded 3rd party. I do not at all like seeing/hearing Wikipedia being trashed having put a lot of work into >4,000 edits.NBeale (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

COI; Wiki guidance on how to handle[edit]

To answer Hrafn, the use is to alert others to look closely at the COI's edits. But the criteria applied in looking at their edits are precisely the same as if a non-COI made the edits. Second, if he wanted to avoid being open that he had a COI he could have opened his acct under a name that does not ID him. Third, I'm disappointed that the rest of your comment baited him, and I'm disappointed that he felt compelled to reply to your baiting, on wht Snalwibma correctly points out is a completely off-topic discussion. Its just that sort of behavior relating to this article that makes this discussion a needlessly emotionally charged one, and sucks up time from editors (all four of us) who could spend it better improving articles. At this point I think that if all of us stayed away from this article for a bit, it would be for the better. This page and the article page could IMHO benefit from cooling down. I'll seek to do my part to follow my own advice. Tea to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche:

  1. Your stance on COI is largely self-contradictory. If "the criteria applied in looking at their edits are precisely the same as if a non-COI made the edits" then "alert[ing] others to look closely at the COI's edits" serves a very limited purpose. The main thrust of WP:COI is that COI editors should not be making edits requiring close scrutiny in the first place.
  2. My point in bringing up the various stillborn incarnations of the article on 'Nicholas Beale' was to demonstrate his longstanding and deeply ingrained habit of COI editing (documented across the 4 AfDs and DRV). This is, I think, relevant to evaluating his current spate of COI editing. Given your frequent baiting of myself, I think I can endure your WP:POT and misplaced 'disappointment'.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • In an effort to follow my own advice, I'll limit myself to the following quote from WP:COI:

    "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.... All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles... encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies. Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.... During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions. Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage. Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute."

--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution, when:

  1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page along with a {{Request edit}} tag to attract users to review the edit, or to file a request for comment.

...

In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged.

WP:COI (bolded emphasis original, italics mine)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The extent to which COI applies clearly depends on the extent of involvement with an organisation. I am an associate of the F.I. and I have spoken at a couple of events that they have sponsored/co-sponsored (as have many of the UK's leading Christian experts in Science and Religion). But by no stretch of the imagination is it "my organisation", and I'm a member/fellow/freeman/liveryman of several other organisations. You tried your luck on WP:COIN and got nowhere. I suggest you drop this. NBeale (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx.[1] Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area.

The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse. However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

— 'Close relationships', WP:COI#Examples (my emphasis)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No editor apart from you thinks my edits have been in appropriate in the context of the mild and declared COI and The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. ... an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. End of discussion - at least as far as I am concerned. And please remember WP:NPA. NBeale (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember any editor (other than yourself) stating that you didn't have a substantial COI. You are not "an expert on" the Faraday Institute, you are a member of it (and the co-author of a book with one of its Advisory Board) -- which puts you easily as COI as "the band's manager or a band member's spouse". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see your confusion. I am not a "member" of the F.I. - merely an "associate". It must also be obvious to everybody that "co-author with member of Advisory Board" is completely different from "band manager's spouse". NBeale (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I am proposing that Denis Alexander be merged here for the following WP:MERGE rationales:

  • 2. Overlap: this article already has all the information contained in that short stub (that Alexander is this institute's director and that he edits Science and Christian Belief.
  • 3. Text: that article "is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time"
  • 4. Context: Alexander is notable mainly (solely?) for his work for the Institute, so it makes more sense to discuss him in the context of it, rather than in isolation.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it substantially within what I consider a reasonable amount of time, and it was readily apparent that Alexander is considered notable and has been so for quite some time by CNN, the New Scientist, Nature, and others. So, uh, no. And please no more stealth redirects. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The article still lacks non-overlapping material that isn't either (i) sourced to Alexander's Faraday Institute bio or (ii) a simple quotefarm of statements he's made. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No, he's a multiply-published author of some quite considerable books, and also did significant scientific work (Google Scholar seems to give over 300 scientific papers. (I do know him but I this is NPoV) NBeale (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The bedrock standard is (depth of) third party coverage -- "multiply-published author of some quite considerable books" is irrelevant, unless and until covered by third parties. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That is relevant to notability. We should only merge if there is so much overlap between the two articles that there is no relevant information in A that is not/should not be in B. eg Alexander's book "Rebuilding the matrix" has had a number of reviews in reliable sources(eg here, here NBeale (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
So why haven't you added material to Denis Alexander based upon this & all the other reviews you state are out there? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

<(a) I know Denis and it might be considered CoI. (b) I'm very busy, esp with a cosmology paper being sent to me that was inspired by a remark in Questions of Truth on top of my day-job work. Sorry. NBeale (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Isaiah Berlin:
    In his own lifetime Engels desired no better fate than to live in the light of Marx's teaching, perceiving in him a spring of original genius which gave life and scope to his own peculiar gifts; with him he identified himself and his work, to be rewarded by sharing in his master's immortality.

    From Berlin's Karl Marx, 4th edition, p. 75. This description covers several aspects of what it might be to stand too close to a subject.