Talk:Natural Philosophy Alliance

Wertheim a Proponent of Circlons?

I just heard Margaret Wertheim interviewed on National Public Radio in which she made it very clear, as does her Wikipedia entry, that she is no "proponent", qua believer, of John Carter's "circlons". She merely believes his work is an interesting example of the interface between real science and public misunderstanding of science. This false attribution needs to be changed. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Page updates about conflict within NPA

It's always good to bring pages up to date, but modification need to meet Wikipedia notability and reliability standards, no matter what you think of the NPA. So if you say there are dueling web sites, provide links. If there is debate over the database, provide sources that state this, and so on. LouScheffer (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If we were to impose normal Wikipedia notability standards, this article wouldn't exist at all. At the present time, the version of the article that you have restored is highly inaccurate, with dead links, etc. This surely does not make the article better. My edits made the article much more accurately portray the facts as they stand today. You apparently don't disagree, you simply think sources should be added. By all means, feel free to add them. That's the correct course of action, not reverting to the now highly inaccurate former version of the page. But bear in mind that the page was already marginally notable when the NPA was a single functioning entity, and now that it has fractured into two warring factions, each disputing the legitimacy of the other, and being revealed as basically just a handful of guys having an argument, I would say we really ought to be re-visiting whether the article should be here at all. Note that the most official faction of the NPA (that holds the legal rights to the name) is even claiming that the "members" of the NPA have no more standing than the homeless customers at a soup kitchen (literally). This confirms the suspicions of Wikipedia editors who argued against notability of NPA in the first place. Documenting the on-going grudge match between these individuals is not really the role of Wikipedia. So the best course of action would be to delete the article, but the second best course is to make it as accurate as possible. Reverting to the former inaccurate version is not helpful.Choosemehelp (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think the page should definitely exist. Take yourself, for example. You know enough about the NPA to hold a strong opinion on it. Don't you think that some other person, with your education and experience, might hear of the NPA and wonder about it, and go to Wikipedia to see the general idea of the organization? And the Wikipedia article, warts and all, provides a much better summary than their own (current) web site. Along these same lines, I think the old version (with live links to old pages, which I've updated) gives an accurate portrayal of the spirit and mission of the organization, even if is not the most up to date. LouScheffer (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal awareness of a subject is not grounds for notability. Also I don't think "something someone might wonder about" meets Wikipedia notability requirements. But that's beside the point. At the present time the current article is outdated and inaccurate. My edited and updated version correctly and accurately portrayed the organization as it previously existed, and also explains that the current state of affairs is two different groups, each claiming the other is illegitimate and misguided. The web site, data base, and conferences discussed in the article have all been discontinued, and 95% of the 132 dues-paying members have vowed to stop paying dues. We could fill this article with direct quotes from the two battling web sites, each explaining deplorable behavior and nuttiness of the other, but really this is not notable. For practical purposes the former entity no longer exists, so all we can do is talk in the past tense. I don't think we should conceal or suppress these facts. By sneakily re-directing links to point to a web archive because the actual links to the now defunct web site are no longer valid, you are concealing the real situation, which I'm sure is not your intent. Surely a web archive of a fringe science web page that no longer even exists at the NPA address does not qualify as a Reliable Source for an article on the NPA under Wikipedia rules.Choosemehelp (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Problems with the article

I think the article, as it stands on Aug 23, has some serious problems. For example, the article does not even contain a link to the official web site of the subject organization. Instead, it contains a disguised link to an internet archive copy of the organization's web site as it appeared eight months ago. The only acknowledgement of this legerdemain is a sentence at the very end of the article alluding to an mild-sounding "internal dispute", with emphasis on "finances". I think the article should point to the actual official web site of the subject organization, which is essentially barren and has virtually no members beyond the six members of the "board", and has repudiated many of the past practices of the former organization. If the article is also going to point to material of the "other" faction (consisting essentially of the two guys who have been repudiated by the new organization), then it should clearly explain that there are now two competing groups of individuals, each claiming to represent the "true" NPA, and disputing the legitimacy of the other.

The article gives statistics about number of members, number of archived (non-reputable) "abstracts", number of archived (and non-reputable) "papers", etc., but fails to mention that none of this information is correct any more. The NPA, as it stands today, has essentially zero dues-paying members, and the abstracts, etc., are no longer hosted by the official version of the organization. The article is badly misleading and misinforming the readers. At the very least, I think a banner is needed, warning the readers that almost everything in the article is inaccurate.Choosemehelp (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Problems with References

The article includes several references to publications of Margaret Wertheim, all saying the same thing. First the article says what Wertheim said, and cites a reference, and then it says this was just a distillation of what Wertheim said in some other places, where she just reiterated her view, and we cite more references. This is really making a meal out of a single source, that Wertheim happens to have succeeded in getting published numerous times in different venues. I think we should just include the summary of her view, and then tag it with those sources. We don't need to explain why she has made the same statement in multiple places.

Also, the latest edit changes Wertheim from a "member" to a "one-time member". What is the source for her withdrawal of her membership? Are we calling her a "one-time member" now just because the organization has disintegrated? If so, then we should state that it has no members at all. If it's just Wertheim who is no longer a member, we need a reference. Based on the archived link, she IS a member. Also, if she has indeed resigned her membership, considering that she is the only "reputable" source for the NPA's notability, the article really ought to mention why she withdrew.

In support of the statement that the NPA is a central(?) meeting place for people who oppose relativity, the article cites "Al Kelly (2005). Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press. ISBN 978-1-58112-437-8. p. 173." However, I don't think this is a suitable reference. It's true that Al Kelly opposes relativity, and the book does contain two passing mentions of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, but the first is just Kelly disagreeing with a paper that was once hosted on the NPA web site, and the second is just to mention, after quoting John Chappell, that he founded the NPA in 1994. Neither of these constitutes a valid source for the claim that the NPA is (or even was) a central meeting place for people who oppose relativity. I think the article already says the NPA opposes relativity, and cites the NPA's own web page as a source. So we should delete the in appropriate and (in any case) redundant reference to Al Kelly (whose book does not meet Wikipedia standards for a Reliable Source, even if it supported the article, which it doesn't).

In support of the claim that the NPA conferences and procedings provided a forum for ***, the article cites "Martín Lopez Corredoira (Editor) and Carlos Castro Perelman (Editor) (2008). Against the Tide: A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics and Astronomy Get Done. Universal Publishers. ISBN 978-1-59942-993-9.p. 26." I think this is a questionable source, because it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for a reputable source, and more even more because it brings in an entire fringe book just for a single sentence that says "In the United States the Natural Philosophy Alliance has held meetings of dissidants" or something like that. This is entirely redundant to what has already been said in the article. It does not warrant bringing in this non-reputable source that is 99.99% unrelated to the NPA just for such a banal and redundant statement.

Also, one of the references in the article is a dead link, and labeled as such. This is not appropriate.Choosemehelp (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK, I supplied references for many of the uncited statements, from one of the factions involved.

As far as Wertheim, the other point of view notes that her books and articles have been reviewed in several mainstream source, by mainstream scientists. Each reviewer, as they decide what to mention from a book/article, is independently making their own decision about what is notable. Many of them choose to mention the NPA. This is analogous to (for example) the Snowden revelations, where they gain notability each time they are mentioned by the New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, etc., even though the source material is unchanged and from one source. Note also that the dead link is for Wertheim's membership in NPA, which some people thought extremely important and must be referenced. I myself think this is not so important, for although she is a member she is rather skeptical of their physics, but others insist this colors her views.

By the way, these (and many other) arguments for and against notability were made in the recent proposal for deletion. The result was "no concensus". LouScheffer (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I re-arranged some of the text, because you had introduced references to a competing web site prior to mentioning that there were two competing sites. I think we need to introduce the dispute before we start linking willy-nilly to alternate web sites.

I think this whole practice is highly questionable, since precedence would normally be given to the "official" web site of an organization, which is presently run by the six "board members", and that is fairly barren, except for comments on the dispute. By pointing so often to the competing site, which really has no official standing, one could argue that this article is tilted toward the two individuals running the competing site. At some point, those two individuals may create an organization with a different name (since the name is legally owned by the six board members). Will you still advocate linking this NPA article to the web site of a different organization? Or will you then advocate changing the name of this article to whatever new name is chosen for that new organization? Or will you insist that the official NPA article remain in existence, even though it is no longer the organization that you originally wanted an article about?

Yes, I've reviewed the deletion history of this article. I see it was put up for deletion in 2005, and the outcome of the discussion was a resounding DELETE. Then apparently someone in 2013 tried again to re-instate the article, on the strength of the Wertheim essays mentioning this fringe association of individuals, and again the article was proposed for deletion. The outcome of this second deletion discussion was "No consensus", which means the question of notability is still undecided. I find the arguments against notability to be persuasive, and the arguments for notability to be... not.Choosemehelp (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I combined a bunch of the references, and fixed some of them. (In particular, the dues-paying members was supported in the "Recent Controversy" page, not the previously cited page.) At this point the only non-cited statement that I can see is the Wertheim membership, which (as I noted before) some editors were very against removing.

As far as the name of the page, we'll need to see how the dispute settles out. Maybe NPA is the final name, or maybe NPA will just re-direct to the "history" section of the new organization. But just like a (much less important) version of a country during a civil war, the country does not cease to exist just because the members are fighting each other. Either one faction will win out, or we'll reach a stable state with two parties. or perhaps both will go extinct. Wikipedia (IMO) should just wait, see, and report. LouScheffer (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Lampooning These Individuals?

The lead paragraph presently includes this:

According to its web site "The mainstream believes that NPA members do not understand or study mainstream [science]", but that "this could not be further from the truth". The NPA claims that its members "have studied very thoroughly mainstream science", indeed "knowing it [mainstream science] better than the mainstream".

Admittedly this is funny, and gives the article some humor, and probably conveys a good sense of the nuttiness of these individuals... But is it really appropriate for us to lampoon these individuals in this way? Wouldn't it be kinder to delete these sentences?Choosemehelp (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IMO, calling them a bunch of cranks (as many have done) would be non-neutral. But here there is no editorial opinion at all expressed here. The article is simply presenting their own statements (backed up with references), then letting people draw their own conclusions. The only problem I can see would be selective quoting of the reference, but I think the chosen quotes capture the spirit of the document and organization. This seems as neutral as possible. LouScheffer (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages. Please be careful with phrases like the one using a derogatory adjective in the the phrase about the "[state of mind] of these individuals."

On the merits, I see no humor being injected with the complained-of sentence. Rather, I agree that the most non-neutral way to describe their view is using their own words and letting the reader decide.

On another matter, Cmh: why have you appeared in the last week to edit only this single article? Single purpose accounts are not, per se, bad. Some contributors are only interested in a single topic and come here to build up the article on that topic to make the encyclopedia better. Single purpose accounts that show up out of no where, with an evident animus toward the subject of the article (see my BLP warning above in regard to your adjective that seems unlikely to be about tree nuts), arguing for the deletion of an article that recently survived a nomination for deletion, making some of the same points that were raised in that article for deletion discussion and edit-warring over major changes in the meantime are something else again. The whole set of circumstance is making my spider sense tingle.

I'd welcome a reply that put my mind at ease about all of this. I could be seeing coincidence and mistaking it for causality. I'd like to think that I am. Can you help me here. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, my reason for questioning the suitability of those quoted sentences was precisely in recognition of BLP concerns. In my honest opinion those sentences make a laughing stock of the source, and I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to be lampooning living persons. I'm genuinely surprised that you see no implicit ridicule in those quoted sentences. Surely anyone reading those sentences recognizes immediately what they are seeing. But if you're willing to let those sentences stand, then so be it.

You asked "Why have you appeared in the last week to edit only this single article?" Well, I happened to notice recently that the NPA was in a state of disarray, and then noticed that this Wikipedia article on NPA seemed woefully out of date, with dead links, etc. Hence, since it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I boldly edited!

You say the article "recently survived a nomination for deletion". Well, as I read the two deletion discussions linked here, one from 2005 and one from 2013, the first was DELETE and the second was NO CONSENSUS. Surely you agree that this hardly represents a settled consensus in favor of retaining the article. The question is still open - and recent disclosures may shed light on the answer.

You mentioned that edit-warring "is something else again". I'm not sure what to make of that statement. It seems to not be relevant here, since there has been no edit warring (as far as I know).

You asked if I can "help you here", since you seem to have some complaint about my editing. I'm not sure what sort of help I can provide. If you have suspicions that I have some kind of conflict of interest, or am in some way personally associated with one or the other factions of the NPA, I can only assure you that I have no such personal connection. Rest assured that I would immediately recuse myself from editing this page if I had any personal connection or conflict of interest with this subject. To do otherwise would be highly inappropriate.

I think the article still has problems, but at the very least it is more accurate and up to date than when I started editing.Choosemehelp (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My last try. For someone whose account is so new, your knowledge base about things like AfD's and BLP seems robust. Is this the only account you have ever edited from. I'm trying to get your help in assuaging my fear that the editorial behavior I'm seeing here is not precisely the kind of editing that WP:SPA warns against. Your reply to my initial inquiry intensifies, rather than assuages that fear. David in DC (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what point you are making with regard to my edits. As I understand it, "the editorial behavior that SPA warns against" is summarized in the sentence "If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page [SPA], pointing that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy." Is this your concern? I've assured you that I have no conflict of interest at all. I am not in any way personally associated with the subject of this article, nor am I engaging in any kind of advocacy (other than advocating Wikipedia policies be applied to editing this article). And I would fully support you in discouraging anyone with such a conflict of interest from participating in the editing of this article. Of more relevance, I note that you have not identified on this Discussion page any specific complaints against any specific edits of mine to the article. If you have some specific things in the article that you believe are inaccurate, not well sourced, not notable, etc., or in any way inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, then please raise them. I note in passing that your comments here about alleged "animus" and your "intensified fears" regarding my editing, without ever having voiced any substantive criticisms of my edits, might be taken to suggest some emotional involvement on your part with this subject. I personally don't take any offence though. I'm just trying to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia standards, as I'm sure you are too. Cheers.Choosemehelp (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My 2 cents: First, there's lots to like about your behavior - though we do not agree on many points, you use the talk page, discuss civilly, don't wildly revert, are aware of Wikipedia standards, and so on. On the other hand, I get the impression that you personally dislike NPA. There is nothing wrong with this, either - I know plenty of folks who get steamed up over folks using the trappings of science to promote bogus ideas (the anti-vax crew comes to mind). But combined with a single purpose account you could run afoul of "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

As does David, I find your knowledge of Wikipedia arcana surprising, so I assume you've edited Wikipedia before and made this account just for this purpose. (If this is untrue, just say so and I'll be impressed at your research before your first edit.) Of course a new account can be for some completely innocent, or even helpful, reason such as not enraging your friends/family or escaping from past incivility in some dispute. But it risks looking like "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint".

As far as edits you have made, I find the edits you did not make more questionable. For example, I got the impression (could be wrong) that you were aware of the World Science Database, but did not add a reference to it, since it makes them look more serious. A more neutral view (in my opinion of course) is to acknowledge it exists, but list the problems with it (as you did once I added it). This is also reflected in other (non) edits, where by referencing only the weaker of the two factions, there's a stronger argument for non-notability. In general, the impression I get is "don't like" followed by "should not be in Wikipedia", perhaps since mere appearance in Wikipedia gives them too much authenticity. But the only grounds for non-appearance is non-notability, so that's where the argument goes. This leads to deliberately not including information that an editor knows, but might make them more notable - a very non-neutral form of editing by omission. My view is the opposite, that they have more than enough notability, were they not so strongly disliked. It's just as well so people can easily find their views and form their own judgments. (In my mind, it's even better since then they can't claim conspiracy to suppress, etc.) But we already know we disagree on this point.

Anyway, thanks for being civil, LouScheffer (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You say As far as edits you have made, I find the edits you did not make more questionable. Well, I'm glad you didn't make any complaints about the edits I actually made. As for the edits I have not made, I can't deny that many of those are highly questionable!  :)

You say I got the impression (could be wrong) that you were aware of the World Science Database, but did not add a reference to it, since it makes them look more serious.

No, that isn't why I didn't make that edit. First, I honestly don't think that database makes anyone "look more serious". Second, and more importantly, as I've mentioned before, I thought it was questionable (at best) in an article about "the NPA" to link to a different web site and imply that it represents the NPA, even though the official NPA explicitly repudiates it. Is this really such an unreasonable position for a neutral observer like myself? Yes, I understand that the database you mentioned used to be on the NPA web site, but it is not there now. The links I found in this article were dead. Third, I am lazy, and did not feel particularly motivated to locate the former NPA material and create links to it on this page, even if I had thought it was appropriate (which I still question). I did my part by pointing out that the current page needed to be updated.

You said: This [my alleged non-neutral editing] is also reflected in other (non) edits, where by referencing only the weaker of the two factions, there's a stronger argument for non-notability. I have no idea which faction is "weaker". Again, my reason for linking to the official NPA web site is because I think that's an appropriate site to link to in an article on the NPA. I think this is reasonable. If someone wants to add links to other sites claiming to be the former and/or future NPA, they are free to do so (as you have done), and then those edits an be evaluated and challenged if any other editors see fit. Are you telling me that you have information about which of the factions is "weaker"? Or are you just stating your opinion?Choosemehelp (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Since the conflict is pretty central to the organization as it exists, it's a little worrying that you were too lazy to look at the arguments/database of one of the two sides. The argument "but this article is only about the official organization" seems weak when the organization is known to be in the middle of a dispute. By the way, to me as a complete outsider, the break-away branch does look stronger - it seems to have the support of more members (at least those willing to sign petitions, etc.) and has the articles. But this is my personal opinion, meaning that this branch is surely worth following, but can't be called stronger in the article.

I think that as neutral editors, we should follow all branches until the situation sorts itself out. Zero, one, two or even more branches may survive, and then we should reconsider the article, its name, and its contents. Until then, I think this is the best place for the info (basically regarding the NPA as a collection of like minded individuals, who were up to recently represented by an organization of the same name.)

I also believe the article is about as neutral as practical, so I removed the POV tag. As far as I can tell, the the remaining questions are over notability (the subject of the previous AfD) and undue emphasis (should the rebel faction be included, even though they do not possess the official web site?) Of course, your opinion may vary. LouScheffer (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your views may have evolved on this subject. Immediately after I began to boldly update the article to at least mention the current actual status, you wholesale reverted my edits back to the original version, which said nothing about the dispute. On this Discussion page you justified your revert by saying "...if you say there are dueling web sites, provide links. If there is debate over the database, provide sources that state this...". If? My response was "My edits made the article much more accurately portray the facts as they stand today. You apparently don't disagree, you simply think sources should be added. By all means, feel free to add them. That's the correct course of action, not reverting to the now highly inaccurate former version of the page." Then you continued to resist my attempts to inform the readers of the actual situation, saying "I think the old version (with live links to old pages, which I've updated) gives an accurate portrayal of the spirit and mission of the organization, even if is not the most up to date". But your sneakily "updated links" concealed from the readers that the links now pointed to a completely different site! You still resisted revealing the true situation. Only at my insistence does the article include any actual information at all about the dispute and the current status. And now? You criticize me for not being energetic enough in presenting the dispute in the article! You say ominously "Since the conflict is pretty central to the organization as it exists, it's a little worrying that you were too lazy to look at the arguments/database of one of the two sides...". Please. I was the one who initiated the update to acknowledge the dispute in the first place, and you resisted every step of the way. Look, it is plain for anyone to see that all your edits have been directed toward presenting the unofficial faction as representing the true NPA, and when that failed, you've worked toward representing that faction as prominently as you could possibly get away with, as opposed to what you call "the weaker of the two factions", which is your own personal POV. And then you unilaterally remove the NPOV tag from the article. And then you accuse me of non-neutral editing and trying to suppress information about the disputed status. My friend, permit me to emit a low whistle and roll my eyes.Choosemehelp (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Transferal of Notability?

Mindful of the current events involving the subject group, this article seems to face an interesting and somewhat unusual difficulty regarding notability. A review of the two deletion discussions shows that the article was originally (and resoundingly) deleted in 2005 due to lack of notability, but the article was then re-introduced in 2012, based on the notability supposedly conferred by the published writings of the journalist Margaret Wertheim (who compared the individuals associated with the NPA both with Martin Luther and with mental patients in an insane asylum). Now, one could certainly question whether Wertheim is suitable as the sole source of notability for the NPA, both because she was/is a member of the NPA herself, and also because she is a close friend and associate of one of the NPA's founders... but this is not the point I want to make (even though it is a valid point). It seems to me the article now faces an additional complication, even if the Wertheim writings are accepted as legitimate and independent sources of notability for the NPA.

The question is this: Now that the NPA has split into two factions, each disputing the legitimacy of the other, which of these groups can rightfully claim the notability conferred by the Wertheim writings? Suppose the current official group retains the NPA name, but some of the former members depart to form an organization with a different name. (This strikes me as a very plausible outcome of the current dispute.) The Wertheim writings refer specifically to the "NPA", so will that notability be transferable to one or more new groups that might be formed by former members of the NPA? One would think not. But by the same token, in that event, can the Wertheim notability still be claimed by the official NPA after many or most of the former members have departed and the basic charter of the organization has changed? Again, highly questionable. Perhaps the notability would flow to whichever organization Jim Carter (Wertheim's friend) joins, since her writings were primarily about Carter, and only secondarily about the group he co-founded.

I would say the notability of the article has always hung by a very slender and tenuous thread (at best), and that with the current state of affairs even that slender and dubious thread is about to break. The only way I could see this article being retained would be to broaden it and rename it to something like "Non-Mainstream Pseudo-Science Associations", and include all the splinters of the old NPA along with all other similar organizations and non-mainstream journals, including things like Walter Babin's General Science Journal, which hosts writings from many of the very same Martin Luthers who are (or were) members of the NPA. Babin's journal was speedily deleted from Wikipedia back in 2009 (non-notable), but it's level of notability is actually comparable to that of the old NPA, and certainly to that of any future fragments of the NPA. Just my 2 cents.Choosemehelp (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't find this persuasive. I don't know if the third editor here does, but WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding, I'm going to guess the answer is no.

If I turn out to be right, you might want to consider filing a new AfD nomination. I'd oppose the nomination, but not the filing of it. I have no corner on the wisdom market. Hell, I'm sometimes moved to wonder if I have a stall there. David in DC (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Other options might be an RfC or seeking a WP:3O. David in DC (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think notability is lost (I'm not even sure it *can* be lost). Wikipedia states (in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) that "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose". There is no reference to the organization of this group. Now even in dispute, the people still exist, and the purpose remains the same, so they remain notable. The formal organization that represents these people can, and seems likely to, change (just as a country can be taken over by a coup, but the country still exists). This would require a name change to the page, and presumably re-direct NPA to the history section of the new page. As an example, Leningrad now redirects to Saint Petersburg.

However, I think usefulness is an even stronger argument than notability. The Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states: "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." I think NPA passes this test. If, for example, you hear that theories of "ether" are being reconsidered in light of cosmological measurements, you might type "cosmological ether" into Google Scholar (without the quotes). If yours is the same as mine (curse personalization) the top two articles returned will be one from a Proceeding of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, and the other from The Astrophysical Journal. Now a searcher might well be curious about the relative repute of the two organizations, and an explicit article describing their views is much more useful than the lack of an article (which means only that they are obscure).

Google scholar returns more than 300 references to "Natural Philosophy Alliance" (with quotes). This is at least mild evidence for notability, since it's a third party, intending to index scholarly stuff, that makes reference to the Alliance. Also interestingly, it also includes academic criticism of NPA. For example, Walter Noll, who would like to use "Natural Philosophy" in an academic context, complains about the NPA. In a short but telling statement, he says:

There is now an organization called The Natural Philosophy Alliance with the following description:

"The great majority of us are intensely critical of special relativity, general relativity, big bang theory, and Copenhagen quantum physics. Revision and/or replacement of Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics is a common theme. Most of us accept some type of an electromagnetic aether."

This "Alliance" is to genuine physics or natural philosophy as "Creation Science" is to genuine biology.

— Walter Noll, (Noll, Walter. "On the past and future of natural philosophy." Journal of Elasticity 84, no. 1 (2006): 1-11.)

Although short, this strikes me as more than a passing reference, since he bothers to quote from their material, and he clearly forms and states an opinion about them. LouScheffer (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You say "I think usefulness is an even stronger argument than notability". This discussion section is about notability. I suggest opening a separate discussion section if you want to discuss the idea that even a subject that fails Wikipedia notability requirements may still qualify for an article due to "usefulness", and then your case for the usefulness of this particular article. (I think both of those are questionable, but it's best not to confuse them with notability.)

Getting back to notability, you say "I don't think notability is lost... the people still exist, and the purpose remains the same, so they remain notable". If a given organization simply changed its name, then perhaps notability would transfer, but if an organization is effectively dissolved and some (but not all) of the individuals who were associated with it create a new organization, with different membership and different charter, then I don't think it's reasonable to argue that notability is transferred. Remember, the official NPA has stated that they want to change the purpose and membership of the organization, so that what they call "serious researchers" are not ashamed to have their names associated with it, and so that they can qualify for tax-exempt status, etc. Also, much of the former membership seems to have lost interest in supporting this organization, with its new direction, even if the organization would still accept their participation. So, by your reasoning, surely the Wertheim notability would not transfer to the new official NPA.

Yes, I realize that your POV is that the "real" NPA consists of the folks who either resigned or where expelled from the NPA. These are the people who you say "are the same people with the same purpose". But surely it's wrong to say that notability can be transferred from a previous organization to whatever other organizations may be formed by former members of the previous organization. Yes, there exist (and have always existed) people who reject mainstream science, and who advocate ideas that are, in turn, rejected by mainstream science. Such people existed prior to John Chappell organizing the NPA, and I'd venture to say that such people would exist even if the NPA is disbanded. Look up "The Academy of Nations" (if I'm remembering the name correctly), which was an international organization of individuals exactly like the NPA, but back in the 1920's and 1930s.

Also, notice that the very same people who post their abstracts and "papers" on the old NPA site also post them on Walter Babin's "General Science Journal". It's the very same people pursing the very same purpose. So, by your reasoning, Wertheim notability should transfer to Babin's site. And there are many other similar web sites and pseudo-science journals and organizations. In fact, many of the prominent members of the old NPA organized regular Cosmological Conferences, there were nearly identical, with many of the same participants, as NPA conferences. So, does the Wertheim notability transfer to any and all individuals who oppose mainstream science? If not, how do you identify which particular "organizations" as the "true" inheritor of the Wertheim notability? You can't say "whichever group inherits more than 50% of the members of the former NPA", because that would transfer the notability to Walter Babin.

If you say the Wertheim notability applies to "the people with a purpose", then you're agreeing with me that it should be a generic article about all the people with that purpose, regardless of what organization they are in, i.e., an article about non-mainstream folks and groups, of which there are many, usually with all the same members and purpose. On the other hand, if you say no, this article is only about the NPA that Wertheim mentioned in her essays, then I think you need to face the fact that that organization no longer exists, so this article would be purely in the past tense.Choosemehelp (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

By the way, when I google "cosmological ether" I don't get any NPA hits, but I get mostly Orgone Lab hits (James DeMeo). Also, if someone does come across the name Natural Philosophy Alliance, should they be directed to the organization of that name? Or should they be directed to some organization of a different name formed by couple of the guys who used to be associated with it? I really think you are under-estimating the difficulty of trying to rationally defend the existence of this article in its present form.Choosemehelp (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)— Choosemehelp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've genuinely tried to read your related posts with an open mind, but I'm unpersuaded. This is a notable organization. It's got an internal dispute going on. Notability does not wax and wane. It's measured by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. NPA has that. Two AfD's have failed, both full of arguments about notability. No new consensus is being generated on this talk page. It's time to accept that or to seek a WP:3O, file yet a third AfD, or engage in some other form of dispute resolution. David in DC (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait for some actual substantive discussion of the issues that have been raised here. I've described in detail the two arguments against notability, first that the only alleged source of notability (the Wertheim writings) is a single source and not independent (two strikes against it), and second because the group has fragmented, and notability cannot be inherited by related organizations, per Wikipedia policy (strike three).

You say "Two AfD's have failed", but I think that's somewhat inaccurate. The outcome of the first AfD (2005) was a resounding DELETE, for lack of notability, so that AfD succeeded, and the article was not re-inserted until seven years later, in 2012, prompted by the Wertheim writings. The result of the second AfD (in 2013) was NO CONSENSUS, which simply means the issue of notability remains to be resolved.

You say the NPA has "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", but that too seems to be untrue. During the first RfD there were zero accepted sources of notability, so the decision was DELETE. During the second RfD there was essentially only a single source under discussion, the Wertheim writings, whose independence was questioned because of her membership in the organization and her close friendship and professional association with one of its founders (Jim Carter). None of the other references in the article count toward notability, because they are all NPA links, and although selfies can be used as sources of information about the subject itself, they do not count toward notability.

So, the entire case for notability rests on the Wertheim writings, which were already questionable due to lack of independence (and single-thread), and are even more questionable now, since the Wertheim notability (even if you believe it was independent - which it wasn't) cannot be inherited by other organizations, post NPA breakup, simply because some of their members used to be members of a group mentioned by Wertheim.Choosemehelp (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the Dispute Internal?

The present article says the NPA is in the midst of an "internal dispute", but this was always a POV statement (calling the resigned former members "internal" is a dubious judgment at best), and it's seeming less and less plausible as events unfold. The current official NPA just announced on their web site that they have received notice from the Internal Revenue Service that they have granted the Natural Philosophy Alliance federal tax exempt status under IRS code 501(c)(3). This is contingent on the work of the current official board members "to formalize our organizational structure and business processes to meet strict federal guidelines for tax exempt operation", and to "create a world class scientific organization". So, the entity called "Natural Philosophy Alliance" now has this legal standing, with the official board members and their new policies that have intentionally tried to change the organization, and these changes led the vast majority of the former members to disavow the organization. Can this rightly be called an internal dispute? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that there is a dispute between the NPA and a group of former members?

We could try to describe this situation in the article, but I fear that we again bump into the notability problem. Remember, the only notability supporting the existence of this article is the Wertheim writings (which weren't independent to begin with, but set that aside for the moment). The problem now is that Wertheim's writings do not seem to confer notability on this new organization, and certainly not on the disputes between these individuals. So at best it seems the article would have to be written in the past tense. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a generic article about non-mainstream organizations, past and present, which could include mention of the old NPA noted by Wertheim?Choosemehelp (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(Reply moved to next section, just now created)

To reiterate, this discussion section is intended to consider the question "Is the Dispute Internal?". I explained why I think the answer is clearly No. Since you didn't disagree, I will go ahead and correct the article.

The second part of my comment above was really just to point out the extra difficulty with correcting this article, because the only way to correct it is to introduce material about a dispute between two entities (the six board members comprising the official NPA on one hand, and a bunch of unaffiliated former members on the other), neither of which is notable. As Margaret Wertheim said in a Wall Street Journal book review, "Nothing destroys a fringe movement so much as fragmentation". It's my expectation that when all the inaccuracies are removed from the article, the non-notability of what remains will be painfully evident. But it looks like there's no alternative, so we'll have to go through the process of first making the article accurate, and then discuss what remains.Choosemehelp (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is like a divorce, or the USA separating from Great Britain. It started as an internal dispute, but at some point becomes a dispute between former members. So I think that's the way to state it: The NPA is an organization that.... Up until later 2013 it did <stuff>... In early 2014 an internal dispute arose over finances and directions, leading many members to resign in protest and form a competing organization, the World Science Database ... This caused further disputes over ownership of articles and database, who could claim whom as members, etc. ... As of fall 2014, the founders of NPA have legally retained the name, but the majority of members (and the data base of articles) have switched to the rebel alliance ...

This is exactly how the Flat Earth Society history is treated. And as in that history, I think that even if the official NPA shrinks to nothing, the notability is not lost - the articles and references are not unwritten just because an organization dissolves. LouScheffer (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the NPA info be part of a larger article on non-mainstream science organizations?

Considering the diverse opinions on the last AfD, and that of the 3 people who care enough to comment here, 2 think NPA notable and 1 not, I think it will be difficult to obtain consensus on NPA's notability. On the other hand, I see no objection to a more general non-mainstream science organization page, with the NPA being only part of that page. There is already a Fringe science page, and many non-mainstream beliefs have pages of their own already (Vaccine controversies, creation science, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Flat Earth Society, etc.) but as far as I know there is no general page for fringe science organizations. LouScheffer (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your list of "non-mainstream beliefs" includes one "organization", namely, the Flat Earth Society, but the title of that article is a misnomer, because the article is actually about flatearthism, rather than about any particular organization, of which there have been several over the years. It just so happens that most of those organizations have adopted the same name, but they are really not much more related to each other than the Natural Philosophy Alliance is to, say, the Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics (SAA), which coincidentally was founded by the same individual who was, until recently, running the NPA. The subject of flatearthism is somewhat more limited than the generic non-mainstream pseudoscience encompassed by groups like the NPA, so it's easier to write a focused article on flatearthism and collect together all the published references to it, and claim that the collective notability applies to the whole subject of flatearthism and all its representatives.

I think those examples support the idea that what's needed is to replace the NPA article with a more generic article on non-mainstream and pseudo-science organizations. This could cover the history of such organizations, much like the Flat Earth Society article covers the history of flatearthism. It's a bit worrying, though, because such an article may open the flood gates for every non-mainstream organization wanting to be represented in Wikipedia, since they have been kept out of Wikipedia for so long. In fact, some of the founding principles of Wikipedia (according to Jimmy Wales) were designed specifically to exclude what he called "physics cranks", which, according to Wales, are plentiful on the web. The only limiting factor would be that such an article would need to be based on mainstream coverage of those organizations, which of course is quite different from the self-image of the members of such organizations. So they may not have much incentive to be represented on such a page. But then we have to deal with the BLP concerns. This is why it has often been concluded that it's best to simply exclude such individuals and organizations entirely, since the only accurate portrayals would necessarily be considered unflattering by the subjects.

For example, take a look at the first Keep vote in the most recent Deletion Discussion for this article: "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." You see? This editor was voting for an article to describe an "alliance of deranged cranks". But BLP concerns essentially prevent us from having such an article in Wikipedia, so that editor's vote should really be set aside, since he wasn't voting to keep THIS article, he was voting for an article on deranged and demented cranks.Choosemehelp (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Strictly speaking, the article should read like this:

The Natural Philosophy Alliance is a tax-exempt organization, consisting of six board members, whose web site states that they "seek to create an alliance of critical thinkers from diverse scientific disciplines, who through free and open exchange of ideas may most favorably advance our scientific understanding". (Reference the NPA web site, and perhaps the tax exempt public records to document the tax exempt status.)

That's it.

The rest of the current article is actually something that the official NPA is trying to distance itself from, so it is potentially slanderous to attribute those things (such as the embarrassing and comical quote about "nothing could be further from the truth") to the official NPA. On the other hand, the official NPA is not notable. It has done nothing other than achieve tax exempt status. It's web page is fairly barren. It has arranged no conferences. And it certainly isn't the organization that Wertheim had in mind when she wrote her articles about her friend Jim Carter and his non-mainstream associates.

So it seems we need to disambiguate the current official NPA from the former NPA. But having made this disambiguation, everything about the former NPA must be written in the past tense. And the article needs to clearly identify when it links to Wayback Machine archived pages of a fringe web site that doesn't even exist any more. It's hard to imagine a less valid source for a Wikipedia article. So we really have a problem here, trying to preserve this article while complying with Wikipedia standards. The only way is to make everything about the old NPA in the past tense, and clearly explain that we are linking to obsolete pages. I feel sure that eventually this situation will be cleaned up when it comes to wider attention.Choosemehelp (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Now article links to section in page on fringe science

OK, I created a page for fringe science organizations, and linked this page to the section on that page. That way the article does not link to just one faction of the controvery. As always, feel free to improve! LouScheffer (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)