Talk:International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences

Notable

I will work on the page and find some references. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On the souces. Introvigne's book does give the information in the sentence that cites it. I have the book and have used it as a source for some of the UC related articles. I'm sorry if the footnote implied that everything was in the one chapter that has been posted online. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. The opening sentence was left over from the original article. I had thought that I wrote it based on Introvigne's book, which does just mention the ICUS along with other projects. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I added another RS which discusses the the ICUS so removed the tags again. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm replacing them. The coverage on the ICUS from sources independent of the ICUS & UC are hardly "significant"; and a cited unencyclopaedic list is still an unencyclopaedic list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Introvigne's book does give the information in the sentence that cites it."

At the same time the Unification Church concentrated its energies on creating and developing many organizations and foundations. Some of these, created during the last thirty years, are: the International Conference for the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS), the International Cultural Foundation (ICF), and the Professors Academy for World Peace (PWPA). These organizations have promoted international academic conferences, often featuring personalities otherwise unaffiliated with Unificationism.

• Does this say that ICUS "was a series scientific conferences sponsored by the International Cultural Foundation"? No it does not! It simply says that these were two organisations created by UC, and makes no further mention of any relationship between them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I made a mistake. Introvigne only mentions the existence of the two organizations and that they were created by the Unification Church. The article in the Harvard Crimson (probably also a RS) mentions that the ICF sponsored the ICUS. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you ought to provide a URL that actually links to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to do that. There seems to be something happening on their site, maybe too much traffic because of graduation. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The list

The article is currently mainly an WP:EMBEDed list of notable participants, the contents of this list says nearly nothing about the ICUS, and nothing about whether these participants did anything noteworthy there (or just gave a canned talk and/or slept through the proceedings). Its sole purpose appears to be to allow this article to ride on the coattails of their individual notability. Sorry, (i) notability isn't transitive; and (ii) such bare, uninformative lists aren't encyclopaedic. If any of these participants' participation is worth noting, then it should be possible to write prose about their participation in these conferences (and no, simply listing the title of their presentations doesn't count -- people give presentations all the time, but this is WP:NOT a reason to throw "indiscriminate collection[s] of information" in, even if the information is WP:V). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and will remove the list of names. Redddogg (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the list being removed. I will keep looking for more sources. One problem, as I said, is the conferences took place in the 1970s and 1980s, before the Internet. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's fairly trivial. Still secondary sources (newspapers) did mention some of them. Borock (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but news coverage routinely contains coverage that isn't suitable for an encyclopaedic article -- hence WP:NOT#NEWS. Part of the editorial process is weeding such trivial material out. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have previously voiced the opinion that the inclusion of participants (even chairmen) who are nobel laureates is an indication that scientists at the very top of their fields took this conference seriously, which I think would be of interest to readers. You don't have to agree, but it doesn't seem appropriate to claim consensus on an issue where opinions seem to be divided (2 1/2 to 2, it appears). -Exucmember (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP report gives a clear motivation for Wigner's participation -- the UC was throwing large amounts of money at him. The report doesn't mention Eccles participation at all. For evidence that this conference was 'taken seriously' I would expect it to result in some mention outside the UC-echo-chamber (Paragon Press, the UC-owned newspapers & the like) and outside an article on expensive UC junkets. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only reason that the media took notice of the conferences at all was the well-known people who were involved. If Rev. Moon had only invited his church members no one would have noticed. Borock (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what the media "took notice of" was that the "Church [was] Spend[ing] Millions On Its Image" -- and this conference (and its attendees) was only one example of this lavish self-promotion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think that if reliable sources reported on someone's participation this should be included in the article. Borock (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> What the "reliable sources reported on" was that the UC was "spending millions of dollars a year on a broad range of cultural and political programs, including academic conferences, foreign trips for journalists and conservative lobbying activities, that are designed to improve the church's image with the American public and promote an ideological "world war" against communism." This series of conferences was only one small part of this effort, and the participants merely incidental. Per WP:DUE we should be giving proportional coverage to this viewpoint on the conferences, rather than cherry-picking details out of the source, which that source gave little emphasis to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But still if no one had attended the conferences they wouldn't have gotten media attention.Borock (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If nobody had attended then there wouldn't have been a conference. The main "media attention" in the source is on money spent, with 'who attended' only subsidiary to this (i.e. the Nobel laureate who attended was the one who Moon showered with money). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There are also other sources out there. Eccles (Nobel laureate) was chairman. Despite the conference's shortcomings, some top scientists found it valuable. -Exucmember (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then find one & cite it. And we have to date no evidence that any scientists "found it valuable" (except perhaps as a lavishly-hosted change of scenery). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing to be chairman means taking on extra work. So a nobel laureate being chairman is of sufficient interest to mention. If you are going to fight tooth and nail to squash any statement that might be construed as positive about this conference, I am not going to take the time to struggle with you over it. I have too much to do in the real world. -Exucmember (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A few points: (i) We don't as yet have a RS that Eccles was the chairman. (ii) Even if this were established, and if we accepted your argument, this would only allow the inference that Eccles hoped the conference would be "valuable" (at the time he decided to participate), not that it actually turned out to be so. (iii) The reason that I'm skeptical about attempts to introduce "any statement that might be construed as positive about this conference" is that we have no RS to back this view up. The secondary sources that bother with this topic at all describe it as an expensive PR exercise, so attempting to cherry-pick pieces of information to counter that viewpoint would appear to be WP:SYNTH & WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I don't think the article should be deleted or merged. The conferences were plenty notable, just look them up on Google. I am in the process of doing more research now. I just have to wait for my Amazon order to arrive. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't something that can merely be asserted. It has to be established, per WP:NOTE with substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Google hits are largely meaningless for that, as it includes a vast amount of mere mentions and/or unreliable sources. The only real way to establish that coverage is substantial is to cite it for substantial amounts of material in the article -- which is after all one of the reasons to have WP:NOTE -- to ensure that articles have sufficient reliable third party information to form the basis of a useful article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge: unless and until substantial coverage in reliable third party sources can be found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I just nominated the article for deletion as non-notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am indifferent between deleting or merging -- however the shear bulk of (apparently non-notable), unsourced stubs on UC-created organisations/summits/conferences/etc that have failed to make any sort of splash, may make it worth while to create a WP:STAND-alone list that they can be merged into, rather than going through and AfDing them all individually. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: These conferences attracted top scientists, including nobel laureates. I have just restored and added sourced material referencing this, which goes to notability. Steve Dufour promised on the article's talk page on 13 June 2008 to add other such material as soon as his Amazon order arrives. The nominator for AfD of this article either didn't read this on the article's talk page, or decided to nominate it anyway, for whatever reason. In any case the AfD is premature. I am a critic of the Unification Church, and Hrafn is right that there are a number of Unification articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted or merged, but this is not one of them. -Exucmember (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: no Exucmember, this name-dropping does not "go[] to notability" -- notability is not transitive ('inherited'), as even highly notable people do non-notable things, have non-notable friends and relatives, etc, etc. I'm sure Eugene Wigner went to hundreds of conferences -- the vast majority of which were not sufficiently notable to warrant a wikipedia article. Read WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Nobel laureates and other top scientists go to significant conferences, and do not normally participate in "vanity conferences." I (perhaps also Steve Dufour, who is more likely to find it) will look for a better source for the Alexander King quotation. This quotation was widely published in ICUS-related literature at the time. It is highly unlikely that King didn't say this. It shows that a prominent intellectual was very impressed by the conference, and goes to notability. Remember, this was the 70s, and truly international, truly interdisciplinary conferences were rare. -Exucmember (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nobel laureate have foibles just like the rest of us -- and would go to conferences great and small for a wide range of reasons. Regardless, notability is not transitive. To believe otherwise is to claim that every conference Wigner attended was sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. Are you asserting this? Yes or no. And thank you, but I'll take a cast-iron WP:RS for King's ludicrously over-the-top statement -- WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Such obvious hyperbole adds to skepticism, not notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also vote to remove the quote. It is just one person's opinion. It would be the same if Oprah Winfrey's opinion was the only one quoted in Barack Obama's article, for instance. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be 3 issues with the King quotation. First, both Hrafn and Steve Dufour apparently doubt that there weren't plenty of other genuinely international, genuinely interdisciplinary conferences which provided a good setting for "a multidisciplinary attack on global problems" before his statement was made. So I have removed the controversial portion of the quotation that claims this was the only such conference at that time. (Hrafn, I appreciate your restraint here in leaving the quotation instead of deleting it again, which gave me a chance to pull back and propose a compromise, thanks.) Second, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" - hopefully by removing the exceptional claim here the sourcing problem has been reduced. Third, it's just one man's opinion. [a] Ditto for the deleted exceptional claim portion of the quotation, hopefully the opinion is more universally shared by participants. [b] The opinions of leading intellectuals about something like an annual conference matter. (One could argue that the content of Oprah's opinions about a political issue matter far less, influential though they may be.) [c] The solution for having only one opinion in an article where opinions matter could be to add other opinions. [d] The statement summarizes a prominent characteristic of the conferences rather well.

Hrafn, I don't believe that every conference Wigner attended was necessarily notable. But when 4 top figures (and there are more who are not listed) in 3 different fields attend, the likelihood of notability increases dramatically. This is not because notability is transitive. It's because a conference's ability to attract top scientists is an indicator that the conference is significant. We can agree to disagree on whether this is an indicator, however. Phil Bridger has just solved the notability issue for us; he wrote: "If the Harvard Crimson isn't reliable enough for some reason then here is some more evidence of significant coverage. Are the New York Times, the The Philadelphia Inquirer and Encyclopedia Britannica reliable enough sources for you? It only takes a few seconds to do a Google News search that would have avoided the need to argue this out at AfD." -Exucmember (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I remain highly skeptical about the King quote -- particularly as the Google News archive hits that Phil Bridger turned up seem to indicate that the Conferences were more notable for their controversial ties to Moon than for anything they achieved. Incidentally, if these hits are being used to establish the article's notablity, then this controversy MUST be given WP:DUE weight in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There could be an article on "United States media coverage of the Unification Church". Steve Dufour (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here I have to agree with Hrafn and disagree with Steve Dufour. Part of the notability (at least in the popular press) of ICUS derives in part from the controversy over its sponsorship by Sun Myung Moon. That controversy should be added to the article. Media coverage of the Unification Church has focussed on characterizing members as brainwashed automatons; their poverty, hard work, and devotion to the church; church finances, etc., and those things are (appropriately) covered in the criticism section of the Unification Church article. -Exucmember (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's write about the relationship of ICUS to the Moon controversy. Detractors of Moon said that he only created "fronts" to make himself "look" respectable despite "never" doing anything for the benefit of the public. The church regards ICUS as having provided substantial public benefit, so the Club of Rome guy's quote is highly relevant.

Please, if you know anything about ICUS, help by writing about its purpose; about the interdisciplinary topics it addressed; about its copious proceedings (volume after volume of papers read out at conferences); prominent (but controversial?) scientists whose views got an airing at ICUSes, such as race and intelligence scientist Arthur Jensen, nuclear power scientists Petr Beckman, and now-prominent global warming theory skeptic Fred Singer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>Both WP:REDFLAG & WP:SELFANDQUEST would appear to apply to the King quote. It should not be used unless it can be cited to a solid WP:RS. Additionally, the ICUS quotation gives no indication whatsoever as to where/when/in what context he is purported to have said it (making more solid verification difficult, if not impossible). I would also modify Ed's request to read "if you know of any WP:RSs about ICUS" -- no WP:OR please. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chairmen (or should that be chairpersons?)

The ICUS's site lists the chairmen. If people are interested they can check that out. If you feel the article should mention two then why not list all of them? I personally don't think that's information that WP readers are so interested in, but I don't object to mentioning it. I am listing people who took part in the conferences if they have a WP article without trying to decide if they are important or not. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of ICUS

There is a dispute between those who say Rev. Moon created ICUS to unify the sciences and/or to restore "values" to the perspective of science; and those who dismiss the entire project (conferences and publications) as little more than an attempt to gain good publicity. Let's remain neutral on this dispute, while providing details on it.

I have added a quote from Eugene Wigner on the pro-ICUS side. Can someone help me dig up the professor at MIT who has an anti-ICUS quote? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. As there is no third-party RS describing these conferences as anything other than "an attempt to gain good publicity", there is no "dispute".
   • I would further point out that there is no evidence that these conferences resulted in anything other than the exapnding waists of its participants, a few press releases and perhaps UC-owned printeries causing a few more tress to be chopped down than would otherwise happen.
2. I could not verify even the existence of the source provided for this quote, let alone its reliability.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Took me less than 90 seconds to find the quote online; turns out I didn't have to type it in from dead tree source:

http://archive.upf.org/publications/peacekingonline/7.5.htm

Please do not delete information which contradicts your perspective on things: we contributors should all remain neutral. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a quote from Hayek: "Whatever may be said or believed about the religious foundation of ICUS, the scientific character of the meetings and their presentation and organization are thoroughly and admirably respectable. ICUS is attempting an almost unique job in devoting itself to clarifying the basic intellectual differences between the communist and capitalist worlds, and thus performs a very important task indeed. For these reasons I am grateful to have been able to contribute to its efforts." [1]

So now you have two sources which describe ICUS in terms opposit to "nothing but an attempt to gain good publicity". So there is indeed a dispute. If you accept the authenticity of the quotes, may I include them? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You did not "find the quote online" -- the link is for a different quote.
2. There is no indication that http://archive.upf.org/publications/peacekingonline is a reliable source
3. I will continue to delete information that is not verifiable to reliable sources, per clear policy
4. What we have is one Unificationist source, http://archive.upf.org/publications/peacekingonline, providing a number of uncited quotes eulogising Moon and/or his ICUS. So no, you may not include them.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

About one forth of hte article is taken up by people's speculation about the motivation of the church for putting on the conferences. This seems a little unbalanced to me. Besides that a good part of anything anyone does is to gain the respect and approval of other people. So is this case really so very remarkable? Borock (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is simply an indication that very few prominent people bother to say anything about these conferences -- so when one does, it is given WP:DUE weight. The point is that we have no evidence of these conferences achieving anything at all, apart from generating a bit of PR for the church. It is about the only analysis of the conferences in the article, so should stay. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that one sentence should be enough to get that point accross. If you want to nominate the article for deletion you have my vote. Borock (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the only prominent viewpoint expressed about this conference, so a couple of sentences is not unreasonable. You're welcome to nominate it for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If, as you seem to be saying, the topic is so unimportant that the article has to be padded with an ungrammatical quote from a 30 year old newspaper article then maybe it would be just as well to delete it. Borock (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked the sources and I think it would pass an AfD. Borock (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It was only 25 years old, and appears to be the latest (as well as most prominent) third-party comment on these conferences (which, it would appear, haven't been held since 2000). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that pretty much the only "significant coverage" that these conferences received was over the controversy due to their being perceived as promotional of UC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about putting the list back? That would solve some of the problem of unbalance. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Conference

[2] is the recent conference? Please provide right source?Dentking07 (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513174704/http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm to http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/unification.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224080317/http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/wigner.html to http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/wigner.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)