Talk:Science for the People

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Science for the People. 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/20070928192107/http://www.scienceforthepeople.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=21 to http://www.scienceforthepeople.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=21

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Organization identifies as left-wing

User:generalrelative, Science for the People identifies as part of the "broader-left" on it's own website. I would imagine this is sufficent to label the group as "left-wing" if not socialist. https://scienceforthepeople.org/2018/04/12/dual-nature-of-science/ 2600:1012:B049:3409:2C3A:43A1:4B7C:1ED4 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. I'd suggest that a statement saying basically just what you've said –– Science for the People states on its website that it identifies as part of the "broader-left". –– belongs in the article body. I'm not sure that a simple self-designation is enough to put it in the lead though. Generalrelative (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: I went and added the content that I believe is DUE, as stated above. Generalrelative (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention "left-wing" in lead? (Edited header)

@RadioactOlive: @Merlin04: Explain why you are censoring any mention of the organization's left-wing ideology. In particular, explain why you are censoring this well-referenced material. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to describing it as left-wing (after all, see the discussion directly above this one, which seems to reach the same conclusion almost 4 years ago.) However, as I stated on your talk page, adding a quote in the lede claiming the organization is "an action group that promoted Marxism-Leninism in a manner specialized to subordinate science to the service of that ideology" is very much not neutral or in keeping with the body of the article. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I made an edit that should hopefully be agreeable to us both, in that it keeps the description as left-wing but removes the quote. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive: You are lying. You didn't move the well-referenced material to the body. Instead, you deleted it entirely. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that was my intention; I apologize if that didn't come across. While I do think that placing that quote in the lede is particularly egregious, I would argue that under WP:NPOV it doesn't belong in the article at all. It is, as far as I can tell, a single person's opinion on the group - just because someone is notable does not mean that every statement or opinion they have or make is notable. I would also ask that, while discussing content's inclusion or exclusion from the article, you avoid adding it without achieving a consensus (especially since you are now in violation of the WP:3RR). radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive: That's just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. It's both a reliable source and a notable one. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I "don't like it" because it is in violation of policy, as I explained. See WP:DUE. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive: It isn't. You merely falsely claimed it was.

Also, I am not in violation of 3RR, so stop making things up.~2026-17853-49 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You've made significantly more than three reverts on a single article within 24 hours: , , , , , . radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive: Those are not all reverts, nor are they all mine. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what a revert actually is. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies; I linked the wrong revision for the last two (though that still leaves four reversions, in violation of the 3RR.) The corrected list is as follows: , , , , , . These are all reversions - note that the 3RR includes any whole or partial reversion, not only completely undoing someones edit. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive: Again, those are not all reverts. It's incredible that someone with rollback rights doesn't know what a revert is. No wonder Wikipedia has such a bad reputation nowadays. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

In the context of WP:3RR, The term 'revert' is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. Cadddr (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr: The first link isn't even a revert, nor is the last. Do I need to handhold you? ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, the term "revert" has a broad definition in WP:3RR. The first and last diffs were reverts that were done completely manually. Just because you made another change at the same time doesn't mean it's not also a manual revert. Please stop trying to wikilawyer; it's not helping your case.

Also, everyone involved has been quite lenient so far. As far as I can tell, nobody has reported your edit warring behavior yet, despite the fact that you've clearly violated WP:3RR. Cadddr (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr: No, the first is not a revert. Try again.

You're the one wikilawyering to censor reliably-sourced notable material because you don't like it, so don't project. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You added the word "left-wing." Someone reverted that edit. Then you added the word again (while also adding more material in the same edit). By the definition I quoted above, adding the word back is a revert. Just because it doesn't have a "Undo" tag doesn't mean it's not a revert by that definition.

I haven't censored anything. The only thing I've done is inform you about Wikipedia's policies. I haven't even taken a stance on the actual substance of the changes you made. Meanwhile, RadioactOlive has tried to compromise with you and didn't even object to the use of the term "left-wing." Please stop being hostile to people who are just trying to help you. Cadddr (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I had never heard of Science for the People before today. I don't think I've said anything to suggest that I don't like the changes you're trying to make. In fact, it seems to me like it probably makes sense to call the organization "left-wing" (as the article currently does). Cadddr (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Discospinster changed it from "a left-wing organization" to "an organization". Then you changed it back. You undid that action and changed the sentence back. Or in other words, you reverted that sentence to a previous state. I hope this clears it up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive: Since you're either unfamiliar with what WP:NPOV and WP:DUE actually say, or are pretending to be, by deliberately misrepresenting them, I'll quote:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources

~2026-17853-49 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

We clearly disagree over what qualifies as a significant view. Since it seems unlikely the two of us will agree on that by posting various policies at each other, I'm going to go ahead and post about this on the NPOV noticeboard and hopefully get another opinion. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 03:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@RadioactOlive: It's obviously a significant view. See E. O. Wilson. Stop playing stupid because you don't like it. What a shameless act. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll just pop in to applaud radioactOlive for her superlative patience and clarity in addressing the temp account user's concerns (and not responding to their ill temper). I agree with everything she's stated here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ditto that! Bringingthewood (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: @Bringingthewood: Then you should be able to explain why the view is "insignificant", as your friend RadioactOlive claims. I look forward to it. This should be good. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Not going there, besides, I can't explain that to someone who can't count. I've been warned in the past for edit warring the moment I hit three ... and brother, you have more than three. Good luck going forward. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: Not going there Why not? Because you can't.

I can't explain that to someone who can't count. Refrain from personal attacks.

you have more than three. Then produce the diffs. Apparently, I am not the one who can't count. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

ROFL! You're not worth it. See ya, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: As expected, you can't defend your absurd claims. Nice act you've put with your user page, by the way. ~2026-17853-49 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether it's "significant" for this purposes depends entirely on what reliable sources say—we don't interpret importance, the sources do. Are there independent secondary sources about Science for the People that describe Wilson's opinion? If, for example, a book about Science for the People considered Wilson's opinion worth mentioning, then it would be worth including. If we have to cite Wilson for Wilson's opinion, that means it's not due and we're just trying to cram it in because it feels important. Also, specifically seeking out sources to insert a specific opinion is still cherry-picking. If you want to write an article, then find all of the general sources about it and just summarize them. The due things are whatever those sources describe. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)