Talk:Emergence/Archive 2

message: I notice some NPOV problems and unsupported claims.  The introduction is atrocious.  I am going to be going through this article with a fine-toothed comb.  There are no proper citations in this article and I question that most of it is supported by any credible science.  Credibility aside, the controversial claims need to have *some* direct citation or they will have to be removed.  First I am going to tag sections, then attempt to edit for neutrality.  I'll leave the bulk of the article alone for the time being, until I can take a closer look at it and examine solid sources.
Also contradictions - "emergence" is defined at the top as meaning something which is unpredictable from reduced elements, yet many of the sections below explicitly describe the constituent causes of the "emergent property".  There is no consistent use of a particular definition of "emergent" in this article.  Fourdee 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a real hero. I would recommend to read a bit more about the topic before marking every second word as "dubious". As you probably know, the subject of the article - "Emergence" - is a very broad and general concept, you will not find a special precise definition which fits for all cases. By the way, with all the "citations needed" tags, the article looks much better now . Look at your own comments, they could need some tags, too. For instance, the sentence "the introduction is atrocious" is clearly an opinion . So you should mark it with . --JFromm 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it makes the article look messy.  The places I tagged are controversial and need balancing and/or citations.  Please feel free to associate the statements with the proper sources with inline citations.  To say something is "irreducible" and cannot be predicted from its constituents is conjecture; it's a metaphystical/epistemological/religious belief which is not universally held.  At the least it needs a clear citation showing which expert has made the claim.  Articles about controversial opinions should be phrased as such rather than as accepted fact.  Further, if "emergence" is to be defined at the top, the definition needs to be applied consistently throughout the article.  If there is not a definition for emergence which can be consistently applied to every section, how can they all be included in the same article?  I don't understand your sarcasm either, opinion is appropriate on a talk page, but not in an article about a purportedly scientific topic.  Fourdee 02:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You might be right, Hu, but it has been my experience that the next best thing to a good friend is a good enemy.  Fourdee is challenging us to find sources.  I see no reason why we can't do that.  I certainly don't want to just ignore or cover up the call for sources.  I think this article will be stronger if we rise to the challenge Fourdee is making instead of trying to cover it up.  Towards that end, I am looking for the sources he is requesting and am trying to put them in the article.  I think we'll need more time than the customary week because there are so many sources being requested all at once, but I am confident that we can provide them.  Having said that, I challenge him to provide detailed explanations of his various  tags so that we can see whether they are worth addressing (perhaps they can point to a lack of clarity in some part of the article that we can fix).  I am also not convinced that all of his tags address legitimate concerns and some can probably be safely ignored, but lets do address as many as we can-Psychohistorian 20:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, it is not appropriate to remove NPOV tags etc. unilaterally especially when the whole article lacks inline citations for a subject it acknowledges is controversial.  Revert war ensues.  Fourdee 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I take quite the other position than you have attributed to me.  I say that by claiming something is "irreducible" and not explained by its constituents you are proposing a mystical explanation rather than scientific.  The basis of science is causality.  Fourdee 20:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also don't see why you'd remove the categories, they are appropriate either way.  I need to add Psychohistorians edits back (busy at the moment) but I notice they were still POV biased and did not seem to be citing a physicist.  Let's work together. Fourdee 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I have some stuff to do today but I am very interested in working on this article.  Please do not enter into an edit war.  The article itself admits the topic is very controversial, I don't see why you would object to it being tagged as such and places missing a balanced opinion and/or inline citations tagged.  Every where that asserts something new has arisen which is not "explained" or "predictable" by its constituents is a tenuous claim which needs support from a PhD in physics, chemistry, or the like (philosophy etc. would not be acceptable in my opinion but would be a start).  Other scientific claims need to cite their source or they appear to be original research.  I don't see how a bibliography at the bottom fills this requirement on a controversial page.  Fourdee 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the 3 existing inline citations are not in the proper format, please read the style guide.  Have to go, talk to you guys later. Fourdee 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should I need to quote a physicist??  Systems science isn't limited to physics.  Also, sources can't be POV (or, rather, they can, but it is irrelevant in Wikipedia).  What is relevant is whether the -Wikipedia- article is POV, not whether sources are.  The only relevant issue regarding sources is whether they are reliable or not.  Regarding your tags of POV, they need to be connected to a part of the discussion page which explains what you think is POV about the content.  Else, the POV tags are just noise (and, unless I'm mistaken, can be removed for not following policy).-Psychohistorian 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Editors should not be in over-awe of PhD's.  A Ph.D. is not required to report on scientific concepts or to educate or even to do good science.  Further, Fourdee should not make assumptions about the presence or lack of PhD's of editors. Hu 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourdee, sorry, but "since this is a science article" is wrong.  Emergence is a concept used in several fields one of them being systems architecture (the field that I am currently working on my Master's degree in), systems architecture is not science but can and will be used as a source in this article.  I'd be more than happy to discuss this in more detail with you, but do not presume that you can steamroll through this.  I take offense at your presumption that other academic disciplines are of less merit on this issue than are the scientific disciplines.-Psychohistorian 13:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The article makes claims about science such as I have described (that something is "irreducible" or not explained by the actions of its constituents).  Those claims are outside the field of Architecture.  They are also outside the field of Systems Science - those are claims about physics, primarily, or more broadly the physical sciences.  Also, regardless of your credentials, only a published source from a recognized authority is a citable.  Your original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia (it is specifically forbidden) and at any rate would have no place in this article outside of the Architecture section.  I am not trying to "steamroll" anything I am demanding credible citations from recognized authorities in the relevant fields.  I do not have an agenda for how this article should read beyond it fairly representing the opinions of genuine experts.  Fourdee 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify.  I would find citations of those in Systems Science or even Philosophy, if published and reputable, to be reasonable for the time being in the introductory and definition section.  However, any statements which go so far as to make assertions which could be interpreted to be about physics, physical science, or the epistemology of science I feel should be supported by a published expert in that field.  Other fields have no business in this article outside specific subsections.  Fourdee 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You need to review my edits in this page.  You say that my original research is not acceptable for the article, but fail to remember that I have been pushing for more sources and less original research.  "Something is 'irreducible' or not explained by the actiosn of its constituents" -  I have no idea what that means, but "something is 'irreducible' or not depending on whether characteristics of the gestalt can be found in the constituent parts or, instead, arise as a result of the interaction of the constituents" is not a statement owned by physics - to claim it is is orignal research on your part.  Again, I am not disputing whether reliable sources should be provided, but your insistence that they need to be from physics is without grounds.-Psychohistorian 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  I am asking that any claims be made by a published qualified expert.  If he/she be a Philosopher, Systems Scientist or Architect, and is making a statement within his/her field, fine.  Let's get this page filled out with citations and if I disagree with the POV presented I will provide counter citations. Fourdee 13:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no harrassing, there is no "etc." or other "examples".  There is only that single edit, where the new comment was simply moved to the end of the Talk page, per Wikipedia convention.  Please drop the over-reaction.  Hu 13:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well how did you even find the request for protection?  I assume by watching my contribs (again).  Whatever, no big deal.  I don't appreciate when people I am having a dispute with follow me to other articles to niggle me though.  There is no good reason we can't work together to bring this article into compliance with the relevant policies about NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research (sorry to keep repeating this, it seems to me we should all be able to agree it is not in compliance).  Can I delete the request for protection before I/we bring more trouble on this article than it deserves?  Fourdee 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Deleting this section was accidental.Fourdee 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If none of you want the page protected I'll unprotect it as long as no-one edit wars on it. -- Steel 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fourdee wants it protected.  It was his carefully considered request that he forcefully made a case for (and attempted to put words in my mouth in the process) and that he defended vigorously.  His hasty angry edit to the page clobbered good edits by more than one editor and now it is frozen into the state he wanted it frozen in.  We all backed off when he came down like a ton of bricks, which is why it is locked into his preferred state.  His take-no-prisoners actions lead me to wonder what commonsense edits he might accept, let alone what level of PhD citations and narrowly interpreted point of view he will accept.  We are at his mercy.  Despite his attempts at playing the statesman after the fact, his actions do not encourage me and I don't know how to proceed now that heavy duty machnery has been engaged. Hu 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's unfortunate for the article to be protected but I don't see how to avoid an edit war without some further discussion about how the introductory section should read and what citations are appropriate.  Hu, I believe the article is 99% the way you wanted it to be - free of all the inline tags.  This is a reasonable state for the time being.  Fourdee 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again, putting words into my mouth. It is not 99% the way I wanted it to be, not even close.  You clobbered every single one of my edits, and none of them have been restored.  It is frozen in your edit state, which is why you call it reasonable.  When it gets unfrozen, you will still be holding the TotallyDisputed Fully Protected club over our heads, ready to unilaterally define what you feel is an acceptable scientist-only PhD reference and impose standards that have never been imposed on any other article in Wikipedia, without discussion, and with you accusing us of edit warring.  A single reversion, such as I made does not make an edit war.  However, when you revert a reversion, that begins an edit war, especially when you declare one openly  the way you did. Hu 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: *I did not "declare" a revert war, I observed that you started one.  The spirit if not the letter of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule will automatically place you in the wrong if you persist in deleting my edits wholesale.
*You cannot replace  tags with "this is obvious" comments, you need to replace then with actual sources.  Nothing is obvious if it's not cited.  
*Most of these citations will need to be from published scientists since this is a science article and makes claims about the sciences.  Other fields may apply to subsections.  Any citation will need to be from someone who is a credible authority to make the claims.
*The only one in this dispute who believes in the mystical appears to be you, I have no idea why you accuse me of it.  I do not believe things magically appear without being directly caused or that complex behaviors are "irreducible".  This definition of emergence is bogus in my opinion and at the least needs a citation from a physicist or other qualified source who believes it.
*Why not work with me and balance the article and provide full citations.
*In a properly cited article, especially of a controversial topic which the introduction already states this is, every distinct statement or assertion will have an inline citation.  Anything which is not directly cited needs to be deleted unless it an obvious consequence of a cited statement.  The onus is on you to find citations from credible published scientists for any claim about a scientific fact such as the irreducible or unpredictable nature of a system.
*If it is difficult to find published PhDs in the sciences who believe systems are irreducible and not predicted by the behaviors of their constituent parts, that might tell you something.  I am sure you can find some though.  Again, the onus is on you.  I don't see how a philosopher, BS or layman is qualified to make such a claim.
*I have supported my placement of the tags.  Each tag I placed is after a statement that is either uncited and not based on a cited statement, or dubious/arguable for the reason that it uses the definition of emergence which describes systems as irreducible, or relies on a very similar matter of opinion.  If any of the tags are extraneous by all means let's get rid of them.  Can we please discuss the specific ones which are improperly placed?  I will go through the article and see if there are any tags placed for a reason I have not clearly described.
*I have tried to restore the edits caught in the crossfire between me and Hu.  This is a waste of my time and yours Hu, let's work together.
-- Fourdee 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourdee, sorry, but "since this is a science article" is wrong.  Emergence is a concept used in several fields one of them being systems architecture (the field that I am currently working on my Master's degree in), systems architecture is not science but can and will be used as a source in this article.  I'd be more than happy to discuss this in more detail with you, but do not presume that you can steamroll through this.  I take offense at your presumption that other academic disciplines are of less merit on this issue than are the scientific disciplines.-Psychohistorian 13:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article makes claims about science such as I have described (that something is "irreducible" or not explained by the actions of its constituents).  Those claims are outside the field of Architecture.  They are also outside the field of Systems Science - those are claims about physics, primarily, or more broadly the physical sciences.  Also, regardless of your credentials, only a published source from a recognized authority is a citable.  Your original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia (it is specifically forbidden) and at any rate would have no place in this article outside of the Architecture section.  I am not trying to "steamroll" anything I am demanding credible citations from recognized authorities in the relevant fields.  I do not have an agenda for how this article should read beyond it fairly representing the opinions of genuine experts.  Fourdee 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify.  I would find citations of those in Systems Science or even Philosophy, if published and reputable, to be reasonable for the time being in the introductory and definition section.  However, any statements which go so far as to make assertions which could be interpreted to be about physics, physical science, or the epistemology of science I feel should be supported by a published expert in that field.  Other fields have no business in this article outside specific subsections.  Fourdee 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You need to review my edits in this page.  You say that my original research is not acceptable for the article, but fail to remember that I have been pushing for more sources and less original research.  "Something is 'irreducible' or not explained by the actiosn of its constituents" -  I have no idea what that means, but "something is 'irreducible' or not depending on whether characteristics of the gestalt can be found in the constituent parts or, instead, arise as a result of the interaction of the constituents" is not a statement owned by physics - to claim it is is orignal research on your part.  Again, I am not disputing whether reliable sources should be provided, but your insistence that they need to be from physics is without grounds.-Psychohistorian 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  I am asking that any claims be made by a published qualified expert.  If he/she be a Philosopher, Systems Scientist or Architect, and is making a statement within his/her field, fine.  Let's get this page filled out with citations and if I disagree with the POV presented I will provide counter citations. Fourdee 13:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Fourdee|Fourdee]] 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC):

message: I have responded  to Fourdee's request for Full Page Protection. Hu 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no harrassing, there is no "etc." or other "examples".  There is only that single edit, where the new comment was simply moved to the end of the Talk page, per Wikipedia convention.  Please drop the over-reaction.  Hu 13:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well how did you even find the request for protection?  I assume by watching my contribs (again).  Whatever, no big deal.  I don't appreciate when people I am having a dispute with follow me to other articles to niggle me though.  There is no good reason we can't work together to bring this article into compliance with the relevant policies about NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research (sorry to keep repeating this, it seems to me we should all be able to agree it is not in compliance).  Can I delete the request for protection before I/we bring more trouble on this article than it deserves?  Fourdee 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Deleting this section was accidental.Fourdee 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If none of you want the page protected I'll unprotect it as long as no-one edit wars on it. -- Steel 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fourdee wants it protected.  It was his carefully considered request that he forcefully made a case for (and attempted to put words in my mouth in the process) and that he defended vigorously.  His hasty angry edit to the page clobbered good edits by more than one editor and now it is frozen into the state he wanted it frozen in.  We all backed off when he came down like a ton of bricks, which is why it is locked into his preferred state.  His take-no-prisoners actions lead me to wonder what commonsense edits he might accept, let alone what level of PhD citations and narrowly interpreted point of view he will accept.  We are at his mercy.  Despite his attempts at playing the statesman after the fact, his actions do not encourage me and I don't know how to proceed now that heavy duty machnery has been engaged. Hu 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's unfortunate for the article to be protected but I don't see how to avoid an edit war without some further discussion about how the introductory section should read and what citations are appropriate.  Hu, I believe the article is 99% the way you wanted it to be - free of all the inline tags.  This is a reasonable state for the time being.  Fourdee 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go again, putting words into my mouth. It is not 99% the way I wanted it to be, not even close.  You clobbered every single one of my edits, and none of them have been restored.  It is frozen in your edit state, which is why you call it reasonable.  When it gets unfrozen, you will still be holding the TotallyDisputed Fully Protected club over our heads, ready to unilaterally define what you feel is an acceptable scientist-only PhD reference and impose standards that have never been imposed on any other article in Wikipedia, without discussion, and with you accusing us of edit warring.  A single reversion, such as I made does not make an edit war.  However, when you revert a reversion, that begins an edit war, especially when you declare one openly  the way you did. Hu 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourdee requests Full Page Protection 

message: Whether or not I agree that individual neurons cannot think, it is a statement which may reflect original research and/or an unsourced claim, and is the most trivial example of things which I tagged, and is the kind of generalization which is endemic of this dispute - the question is whether it is possible or not to reduce a system to its constituents.  What IS thinking?  Isn't a single instance of logic (a neuron or a transistor or whatever) in fact a rudimentary kind of thinking?  I don't know, lets find out what the experts think.Fourdee 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Individual Neurons Think? 

message: Unfortunately the page is now protected from edits, which is a hassle to all of us.  I would like to come up with a consensus(consensual), cited definition for emergence which we can place in the introduction and use consistently throughout the article.  Then we can get this unprotected and get back to work.  Sorry for the dispute becoming heated guys, really see no reason we cannot work together. Fourdee 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected - Consensus Definition? 

message: We are having a heated dispute (see Talk:Emergence#Disputed above) over a proper definition for Emergence and what sort of citations should be required for this article. 
My positition is:
* The article is not balanced and does not reflect all prevalent points of view.  Particularly, the definition used at various points in the article claims that complex systems are "irreducible" and cannot be predicted or fully explained by the actions of their constituent parts.
* The article lacks proper citations and should have only statements supported by published experts speaking in their field.
** Any claims about Physics, Physical Science, or the Epistemology of Science should be supported by a published PhD in the relevant field.
** Citations of Philosophy PhDs, Systems Scientists, etc. will be appropriate as long as they are speaking within their field.
** Citations of non-experts, original research, unsupported statements, etc. will not suffice to support a controversial claim.
Please help us resolve these disputes and get the article unprotected. Fourdee 16:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I cannot take the time to fully review your conduct, however I agree with your assertions about sourcing in the article.  It is incredible what "facts" find their way onto Wikipedia, and this is a topic that PhDs are still arguing about (and likely will continue long after we're all dead).  Unsourced claims should be eliminated or, perhaps, grouped into a "believe at your own risk" section for adventurous seekers of knowledge :)  It might be good to spend a little more effort not stepping on others toes (or at least making them feel as if you had), however I do agree with your principles fully, and I'm really tired of seeing psuedoscience on WP being touted as an "alternate viewpoint."  I think that the list you just enumerated (if it is, in fact, original) should be enshrined somewhere to help deal with all the psuedoscience articles.  Lets forget all the drama and fix this article already :) - JustinWick 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: * The field of Emergent Phenomena is a broad-ranging interdisciplinary one that is established and respected among scientists, even though there is still much debate.
* Many fields beyond Physics or Physical Sciences are involved, including but not limited to Mathematics, Computer Science, Biology, animal behavior, population dynamics, Neurology, Psychology, Philosophy, Economics, History, and Sociology.
* The brightest, most creative minds like Nobel Prize physicist Murray Gell-Man, computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter and many others who have engaged this subject can not be restricted to a single narrow field.
* Arbitrary narrow definitions of acceptable qualifications are unworkable and unprecedented at Wikipedia.  We generally do not know what a book author's or web site author's academic qualifications are.  Other articles do not require PhD sources exclusively.
** The complainant can't be the one to arbitrarily set hurdles and restrictive qualifications.
* Other articles at Wikipedia do not forbid cross-disciplinary sources.
* The complainant (Fourdee) has not produced a reasonable list of objections to the article.
** As user Psychohistorian pointed out, "This effectively stonewalls us."
* The only objection that he has made is not well formulated.  The essence of emergent phenomena is that higher level behavior (such as a termite colony's) can't be explained by considering the behavior of the constituent parts individually at the lower level (a worker termite for example).  It is not a worthwhile complaint to object against the fact that the totality of the complex system "cannot be predicted or fully explained by the actions of their constituent parts", since that is the whole point of studying emergent behavior.
* The complainant has not explained what point of view the article takes and how that point of view is pushed in the article.
** I contend that the article describes some emergent systems and the general characteristics and is neutral point of view.
** I contend that complex phenomena have clearly emerged from physical systems such as the evolution of the human mind, without the intervention of a watchful creator or other mystical cause.
* The complainant has not proceeded in good faith:
# He unilaterally without prior discussion attempted to bludgeon the article to death with two  tags and 52 , , and  tags.
## Some of those tags were on simple restatements of the definition, which is a requirement for exposition in various parts of an article and shouldn't be tagged.
## Other tags were placed on obvious facts, like requiring a citation for "neurons are not individually capable of thought".
# Some of us objected to the overbearing edit.
# After a little discussion I reverted that heavy handed edit.  A reversion does not make an edit war.
# He then reverted the reversion, which does mark the beginning of an edit war.
## Further, he declared an edit war on this talk page. 
# A couple of editors, me included, attempted edits to address some of the issues, including starting a references section, beginning proper  references, conforming bibliographic titles to Wikipedia Manual of Style, and structuring the See Also section.
# Then Fourdee made a brash edit that clobbered all that 
# He then made a forceful Request for Page Protection and defended it vigorously. 
## In doing so, he made an ad hominem attack on me by claiming "Hu believes no citations are needed", which is false.
# The other editors backed off and stopped editing the page, leaving Fourdee's clobber in place.
# The page was frozen (protected) in the clobbered state.
** His claims to have repeatedly requested to "work" with us have always been made after his actions, and now that he has got the page protection he argued so strenuously for, and got the page frozen in his state, he calls it "unfortunate".
This could have been handled more smoothly if the complainer had not been so brash, angry, arbitrary, and doctrinaire.  It was not a collective decision to invoke the Request for Page Protection machinery, and it was not a collective decision to invoke the RfC machinery.  In both cases it was Fourdee's unilateral decision.
-- Hu 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I cannot take the time to fully review your conduct, however I agree with your assertions about sourcing in the article.  It is incredible what "facts" find their way onto Wikipedia, and this is a topic that PhDs are still arguing about (and likely will continue long after we're all dead).  Unsourced claims should be eliminated or, perhaps, grouped into a "believe at your own risk" section for adventurous seekers of knowledge :)  It might be good to spend a little more effort not stepping on others toes (or at least making them feel as if you had), however I do agree with your principles fully, and I'm really tired of seeing psuedoscience on WP being touted as an "alternate viewpoint."  I think that the list you just enumerated (if it is, in fact, original) should be enshrined somewhere to help deal with all the psuedoscience articles.  Lets forget all the drama and fix this article already :) - JustinWick 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hu's position 

message: If a published expert has assertions on this topic which do not clearly fall in a different field than his own (versus within the interdisciplinary field of emergence), that's fine.  Hofstadter and Gell-Mann sound like good starting points for a supportable definition of emergence, I welcome your offer of providing citations of them.  Regardless of what assumptions you believe are essential for the study of emergence, as with any controversial topic, those assumptions need to be clearly supported by a reputable expert source.  Any old webpage on the topic is no kind of citation for this sort of article.  I think you have some misunderstandings about the NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research policies:
*"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
*"Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source."
*"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
*"Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criteria can always be considered reliable. However they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."
*"Expertise of the originator with respect to the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics."
*"Has the material been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by in the academic journals."
As to the good faith etc., I don't see the point of rehashing that yet again as the chain of events is visible above in Talk:Emergence#Disputed and the history, for anyone who is interested - it simply clutters this section which should be about trying to find a resolution. -- Fourdee 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I cannot take the time to fully review your conduct, however I agree with your assertions about sourcing in the article.  It is incredible what "facts" find their way onto Wikipedia, and this is a topic that PhDs are still arguing about (and likely will continue long after we're all dead).  Unsourced claims should be eliminated or, perhaps, grouped into a "believe at your own risk" section for adventurous seekers of knowledge :)  It might be good to spend a little more effort not stepping on others toes (or at least making them feel as if you had), however I do agree with your principles fully, and I'm really tired of seeing psuedoscience on WP being touted as an "alternate viewpoint."  I think that the list you just enumerated (if it is, in fact, original) should be enshrined somewhere to help deal with all the psuedoscience articles.  Lets forget all the drama and fix this article already :) - JustinWick 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resonse to Hu 

message: I hope Psychohistorian and Hu and anyone else who cares have been spending this time while the article is protected to find the citations.  Bickering and debating does nothing to secure the points of view you prefer in this article.  I have already found the citations for any new material I would wish to add to this article, please find citations for the parts you wish to keep and we can hopefully, harmoniously and without 3RR violations and revert wars, bring this article into conformance with the relevant wikipedia policies about NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research.  All the unsourced statements are in question, yes, including "neurons can't think".  I am willing to be flexible about this and not try to put into effect the policy allowing for summary deletion of unsourced statements, but some "good faith" efforts on your part would be nice.  I do consider all of the definition and introduction section to be up for immediate removal of unsourced statements.  My idea is to make a copy of the article under the talk section and edit it there before requesting unprotection.  Sound fair? Fourdee 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I find your novel definition for ad hominem amusing, the rest of the list is perplexing (is that ad hominem too?) given how hard I have tried to work with you and reach a reasonable compromise.  This article is not useful in the present state, it is factually inaccurate, uncited, and presents a mystical (unscientific) point of view.  I fear for any innocent person who stumbles on this article and walks away believing that mysticism and idealism (in the philosophical sense) have any basis in fact.  It is better to have no article than a lot of nonsense.  However if you would like to properly cite the mysticism there's nothing I could do to get rid of it.  Feel free to ask for the page to be unprotected, I certainly won't contest it.  Fourdee 05:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Hu's use of "ad hominem" was rather decoupled from its actual meaning, however I believe your amusement comes accross as unnecessarily arrogant and smug.  Please do not escalate this matter further, whatever the provocation. - JustinWick 09:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Geeze can we quit this bickering already?  It seems we're going to need more outside opinions or something, because neither Fourdee nor Hu seem willing to alter their tacks.  FYI, Hu, accusing someone of an "ad hominem" attack, without apparently understanding what it is, is unproductive.  Ad hominem attacks are attacks on a person's character designed to discedit an argument they are making.  I don't know whether or not you believe that no citations are needed, however accurate or inaccurate, this is hardly an attack (of any kind) on your character.  I do not believe that Fourdee thinks you are a bad person (nor do I), but I do believe that you are escalating simple comments in a very unhelpful manner.  I think Fourdee has sought outside help (I occasionally do the RfC thing, this article is of particular importance to me) and does not in any way wish to be the sole determinator of anything.  His views seem to line up with established Wikipedia policy, but if you can cite WP policy that contradicts his ideas, please do so.  Also, if you would please cease the use of loaded terms like "demand" and "insist" - you have systematically escalated what should be a scholarly debate.  This should not be personal.  I do not care who you are, or who Fourdee is, etc, but I do want this article to contain only information for which there is a credible source.  Given the amount of material freely available, there is no excuse for why it does not.  I do admit, my formal training has biased me towards scientific thinking, however I do not believe that Wikipedia official policy recognizes the validity of using scientific findings to support metaphysical or philosophical concepts.  - JustinWick 09:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Our definitions of ad hominem accord.  The fact is I am all in favor of solid citations and my formal training has also biased me towards a scientific outlook, though Fourdee assumes otherwise.  The edit record shows that I created the first reference section (tiny though it was) and properly formatted Wikipedia style reference before Fourdee reverted it and froze the article.  Thank you for looking in here and I look forward to working with you. Hu 12:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution and Unprotection - [[Talk:Emergence/NewVersion]]