User talk:DGG/Archive 0.11

'''User talk:DGG/Archive 0.11. -  BIAS, INTOLERANCE, AND PREJUDICE'''

James Omura
...


 * It makes no difference how strongly you or I agree with the his political viewpoint. If we used WP to advocate our own beliefs, we'd end up the same as  Conservapedia.  You may possibly think that in the current political situation in the US and some other countries, all honest citizens should feel themselves called upon to undertake action, or at least   write polemics. I would probably support this as a valid position, but the advocacy does not belong on WP. The role of WP in fighting actual or potential tyranny is now and always to write objective articles in purely dispassionate language. At WP we present the facts, trusting the readers to themselves draw the proper conclusions, not to tell the reader what   conclusions they ought to draw.
 * To avoid misunderstanding, I think the WMF, as distinct from the encyclopedia, can appropriately play a political role in defense of its values, and I support its past and present actions and statements.   And, also to avoid misunderstanding, there may indeed come a time when dispassionate reporting is hopeless, and direct opposition is the only possible course. But  the two should not be confused.  DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Heads up - userfied something else
Back in this MfD about a month or so ago (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance) I userfied the main article under deletion under your userspace (User:DGG/Jewish stereotypes in banking and finance). It was recently pointed out to me that there was a second bundled article, which I have now userfied to you as well at User:DGG/History of Jews in American banking. If you don't want that one, let me know and I'll undo myself. Cheers! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please leave them both, so I can work on them. But I'm going to do  the Role of Jews on the American film industry first--because this topic is  absolutely genuine; Jews did dominate Hollywood during the studio system, whereas they never dominated banking and finance.  That antisemites decried the Jewish dominance of the American film industry is undeniable, butt the phenomenon was real.  Jews tried in response to anti-semitism to hide this somewhat during the 20s and 30s (and even a little later), but that's part of real history also. It's characteristic of prejudice that the prejudiced group tends to disparage their victims for their real roles and characteristics, as well as the imaginary.   DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's anyone I trust to do a balanced article on this kind of topic, it's definitely you. Will definitely be interesting to see once it's done. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

High standards

 * I strongly support articles for all notable academics. In particular, I have from my first years of WP strongly supported articles for academics in fields that have traditionally been ones where the majority of the people were women. 10 years ago there was explicitly worded opposition to covering people in  such fields--I think the records of earlier afds will show I took a leading role in trying to get them included--we still have a long way to go in some of these fields-- there are a great many women who meet the standards for WP:PROF that need articles written, and I support the organized efforts to write them.
 * But: " the standards for the 21st century and the late 20th century academics are the same for all genders and ethnic groups and nationalities. I recognize there is still a considerable  degree of gender and  other discrimination in the academic world, but an encyclopedia has to go by accomplishments, not by what there might be if the world were better. (In earlier centuries, when opportunities for women were extremely limited, I certainly support taking account of this in the expectations for accomplishment).  Saying we should accept anything less than the same standard  is like saying good enough, for a woman, the traditional patriarchal condescending way of thinking.    I sometimes see that others still think that way; it is one of the insidious effect of prejudice that those discriminated against and their supporters have also had their own thinking influenced; that's part of the mechanism by which prejudice continues.  '''

.  DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) .....


 * I altogether understand your view that we need to provide information about those things that are rightly or otherwise in the news, and that people will come to WP to find information on. (That's the basis of my continuing effort to cover pseudoscience) I think your statement on that above is one of the clearest such statements, and I think what you say is a perfectly valid consideration.,Buy when we cover people this way, we need to cover them accurately. Covering them accurately means stating the limited nature of their actual scientific work, and those article I have seen rarely do that. They instead pretend that the person is notable as a scientist, and attempt to convince the reader of that .That was in fact the basis for my ill-starred attempt to write a rational article on Phelps. She's never been notable as a scientist, but rather as a figure that ORNL wants to publicize to pretend they are giving opportunities to minorities.
 * We have to cover the world as it is, but we also have to maintain objective standards, There are some areas where this is impossible, such as some areas of entertainment, and I simply don't work there.

 DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Linda Gottfredson
Hello DGG,

Recently you contributed to the Talk:Linda Gottfredson page and shared some helpful insights. As it stands, there are five editors in consensus over the proposed changes, and only one against. I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if you would, at this point, be willing to enact the changes. If not, I'd appreciate any advice you could offer regarding the next step forward.

Thanks for your assistance, 2601:42:800:A9DB:C552:99A0:180E:B293 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * perhaps you would specify the changes you would like to make. Alternatively, make them, and let me know, and I will go there and comment,  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey DGG -- The proposed changes were noted on the Gottfredson page, and I see you largely agreed with them. However, one person as expected still vehemently disagrees. Do you believe it's fair to proceed with the changes since the consensus appears to be in agreement? Thanks once again for your insight. 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will comment, but I cannot impose my own view of what is the correct version. No single admin can do that, though an uninvolved single admin can summarize a dispute.  I will however, make some suggestions  for going forward forward, including additional people to ask..
 * But, having read the material, I am no longer an uninvolved administrator. I  now have a definite view on the subject, which is that her published work is in no way racist . . All I can therefore do is argue for it, like any other editor. This is   why I do not act as an admin in fields where I are very much about personally--and for the ones I really personally care strongly  about, I will usually not even edit, for I do not like to get involved in the usual WP cross-exchanges about  who of the various people with strong opinions is the most  biased. I could have chosen otherwise, and used my skills in understanding scientific material and constructing effective arguments according to any arbitrary set of rules (even such as those used in WP) to try to bring important WP articles to express what I think a fair view of the subject. Some early experiences here have left me with the impression that anyone trying to give a fair view of a controversial subject will be subject to abuse from both sides and is unlikely to make progress.
 * I've therefore preferred to work in other aspects-, rescuing poor but improvable articles in any field I know enough to do so, and trying, conversely, to keep  advertising and self-promotion   out of Wikipedia.these are things I can do with needing to have an opinion on the subject.  That I'm going to get involved in the argument here is one of my rare exceptions.  I do need to ask you a question about conflict of interest--you can do this best by emailing me. in confidence. I'm still bound by the proises of confidentiality I undertook as an arbitrator.  DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In case your inquiry is in regards to my possible affiliation with Gottfredson, allow me to answer preemptively: I have absolutely no affiliation with Gottfredson; I don’t know her in person, nor am I being compensated in any manner for editing her article. My interest in her article is a product of my observance of the misrepresentation of her and others in controversial fields, and I’ve edited a few other articles on similar topics.
 * Should you have any further questions, or if this wasn’t relevant to what you were going to ask, I’m once again more than willing to answer via e-mail or on this page. However, if this answer puts you at ease, I’d like to redirect you back to the article at hand — Do you think we have enough of a consensus to proceed with the proposed changes? If not, I’d appreciate your experienced input regarding what our course of action should be. 2601:42:800:A9DB:F986:3B6F:D612:B874 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See above about uninvolved--I want confirmation. . I am asking  two very sensible editors whom I really trust to say what they think without necessarily agreeing with me :,  .  DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, DGG is involved; therefore, any edits he makes or opinions he expresses will not be in his capacity as an admin. Regarding the potential of a COI involving the IP, my initial thoughts are to WP:AGF, and accept his public denial of a COI in his paragraph above. Since local consensus agrees with what the IP recommended, I'm of the mind that an informal summary of those arguments would suffice as support for a BRD edit. If the opposing editor objects, then a formal RfC should be called. I will also add an excerpt from what I consider to be an enlightening discussion which may have some relevance here. I keep it displayed at the top of my user TP under the title "To include it in a BLP or not?": A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed.) Hope that helps. Atsme ✍🏻📧 11:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Atsme, I really appreciate the response, and agree with your referenced quote -- This line of thinking is what drives me to assist biography pages which have been written unfairly due to ideological bias.


 * With that said, DGG, do you intend to make the edit(s) based on the proposed changes, or would you rather another trusted member weigh in before we proceed? Thanks once again, 2601:42:800:A9DB:ECC0:551B:9183:5CD6 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for the conclusion of Amendment request: Race and intelligence,, because the issues there are closely related, I take the result to mean that the majority of the present arb com is in agreement with my view of it, though, there also, at least one person is not. But you will notice 's point, that this will probably lead to a formal RfC , in which case everything will have to be disputed here yet again. The result will be, as always, unpredictable. If so, I will probably feel that I have to comment in it, and this is a topic I very emphatically do not want to work on at Wikipedia.   I shall do what I think the minimum necessary.    DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Do you happen to know when a decision will be rendered on that case? 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * this issue is not going to be finally resolved for a long time. As I have said, I don't intend to follow it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite so sure about that any more; perhaps what I might do would be helpful  DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)`


 * Sorry, I was referring to the specific amendment request you linked — when do you believe that will be finalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * DGG, I’ve noticed the amendment request you linked has finalized and a positive decision rendered. Though I don’t want to appear overbearing, I did want to know if, as a result, you were going to implement the aforementioned changes to the Gottfredson article. I do understand your voiced reluctance to edit articles for which you hold a strong opinion, so if you’d rather not participate, that’s fine. However, in that case, I will be implementing the changes myself over the next few days. Thanks once again for your input. 2601:42:800:A9DB:A935:EBC7:C736:8F74 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(political editing)
... We have to be mindful of the consequences of treating political article talk pages as free speech zones in service of righting great wrongs. If the goal of an encyclopedia is to contain the sum of all human knowledge, proportionally reflecting reliable sources, then I see this approach as being highly detrimental to that purpose. - MrX 🖋 12:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable for an editor to challenge sources, even the NYT, or to argue for the use of even such sources as Breitbart. What is not acceptable to be a nuisance about it,. It is not acceptable to refuse to accept consensus, even if you are certain the consensus is wrong. I have read all the diffs, and what I actually think of the sources myself is not to the point here--I have said all of that in more detail at various times at WP:RSN and elsewhere, but it's a separate matter.

...
 * have discussed the need for absolutely neutral leads repeatedly, from my first years here, using the example that we need not call Stalin a tyrant. We say what he did, and the reader will draw the conclusions.  DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * But I certainly agree with your last paragraph, that we should not treat article talk pages as zones for political debate. ... is not the only one who has done that.  DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Günter Bechly
I recently restored Günter Bechly because my research suggests he passes WP:GNG with the sources I listed in the article. I've also found this source which says he "has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor. He has served on the editorial boards of two scientific journals, and has organized five large public exhibitions on Earth history and evolution." The sources in addition to his discoveries suggest that he passes both WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC, particularly #1: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Sources have criticized his deletion from the encyclopedia including Evolution News, ACSH and Haaretz. As far as I can tell there is no evidence this is a creationist push as those are not creationist websites particularly the American Council on Science and Health. I wanted to mention a statement from the second DRV you made, but did not want to get any unwilling participate involved. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , eh, that looks a bit WP:CANVASSy, and you "forgot" to mention that your "recent" restoration due to your "research" is based on your having had the article userfied on 2018-05-06. That kind of deception is one of the reasons people are suspicious of the motivation for including an article on a creationist.
 * You state that "there is no evidence this is a creationist push as those are not creationist websites". What part of did you misunderstand? The ACSH article is an opinion piece and a masterful example of the slippery slope fallacy (you really think we're going to delete the article on Heisenberg?).
 * It's also interesrting that the sources you promote as discussing our supposed bias against creationists doin't get round to mentioning that the main author of the deleted article was . Guy (help!) 09:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by deception? I restored an article in my user space is something wrong with that? There are other sources beyond the sources which you listed, I listed them in AfD, as per WP:CANVASS under Appropriate notification: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Valoem talk contrib 14:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am well-known to be interested in the topic, and notifying one or two people who have expressed prior interest are is not canvassing. I think the people who need to explain their motivation are not those who would include this article, but those who would delete it. An ordinary article on a taxonomist of his standing would not have been listed for deletion  except for the non-evolutionist aspect.  DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at this a few months later, I continue to think that the result of Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly was one of the 2 or 3 most disgraceful decisions I have seen at Wikipedia.   DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz
Please let me know if its qualifies as PROD. AfD is required in my opinion. Valoem talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 05:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

""of course afd would be required, and it deserves to pass afd and I shall defend it there.. But this is just the sort of mutually destructive warfare that can qualify as pointy, possibly on both sides. . it is a serious mistake for you to create minimal articles on comparably mildly notable paleontologists, to try to establish the disputed article. What you need to do is write a more solid article than those. Find all of his original papers. Find every reference to them. Find every listing of them in a standard database. In earlier years, this would require use of one of only a few specialized libraries, but now it should be possible for anyone to do it. Make it a A grade article, if you can. There is never any point in a disputed situation in making many weak articles--it's much more valuable, to Wikipedia and its readers, to make a few really good ones that will gain you the respect of being a serious article creator. If you go ahead with arlicles like this, several unfortunate things may happen; it's impossible to have a rational debate here spread over several venues. And need I mention that you won't succeed. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You will gain a reputation of being a pointy editor difficut to work with. That's your own look out, but I can predict it will not end well for you.
 * it is certainly likely to cost us the informal guidline that discovering even a few species is enough for notability . It is likely to even cost us the principle that the work paleontologists do is as notable as other scientific work.
 * As much such work is done in countries that do not yet have extensive facilities for laboratory science, it will increase the existing geographic bias of Wikipedia. As many paleontologists have been women, it will also increase the existing bias here.
 * Most impt. to me ,it will encourage those who wish to remove articles on ideological grounds, a tendency which can destroy the NPOV of Wikipedia


 * I absolutely agree, but this is the nature of what has become of this encyclopedia ... and it is unsurprising. Every vision of the future is mutually destructive, it falls under the fallacy of control, this is understood. Veracity and notability is what drives us. The nature of human ideologies overrides the initial focus of the goals of this encyclopedia which it to write from a neutral point of view, any changes would be considered reckless, I could read this over and over again only to conclude an ever changing message, but any message is distortable. It is in "the eye of the beholder", the truth is what they say it is. They do not understand the fundamental nature of this. We could continue this plight, but they do not care about guidelines, it is about maintenance ... these actions can destroy us as an encyclopedia, but this was what the initial goals have always been. What I do hope is that who is mostly like to close this, can finally understand who I am. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Bechly is unfortunately notable whather or not you agree with him and I don't. Closing is the most important power. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 07:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been in this category for quite awhile now. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 12:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

RSN comment
Hi DGG, I just wanted to ask if your recent comment at RSP is supposed to be a disagreement with mine? The framing seems to suggest that it is, but if that’s the case then I can’t figure out how it relates to what I said. (I also don’t understand the reasoning behind your first sentence, specifically what exactly must not have been considered if an RSP entry hasn’t been changed or removed after some time has passed. Certainly a source can change over time, but it can also remain the same.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 12:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was being somewhat unfair, and I have just said so there. It was less directed at you specifically, than as a springboard for a restatement of my views  . It is thus  intended as an extension and partial disagreement, and you are right that the  disagreement with your first sentence, more than with the rest of your comment. When you said, If an entry has been on this list for long enough, that is itself a form of precedent and implicit consensus. I think that, if taken without qualification, it is not a correct statement either in general, or as applied to RSN. But I was being unfair, because the rest of your paragraph, like mine, was a discussion of how consensus can change.
 * However, I really do not think at WP generally that the long existence of a rule necessarily proves anything, and I never argue on that basis, though I will argue on the basis of a long series of consistent decisions. Many of our long-standing  rules, have remained unchanged. of at least unchanged in wording, because there is lack of agreement about just what to change it to. Sometimes, rather than change a rule, we make a new one, which may in some part be supplementary and in some part contradictory. More often, we reinterpret or ignore the parts of the rule that no longer fit our circumstances.  Very often, we resort to determining case by case, in our usual inconsistent manner. (and that's the way I prefer to work, changing consensus by the accumulation of individual cases)


 * I recognize that the very purpose of the RSN is an attempt to get away from arguing case by case, and as I am out of sympathy with the approach usually taken there,  to avoid frustration I only occasionally comment. As  I have been saying for years: no source is completely reliable for all purposes, or completely unreliable for all purposes,  and each use of. a source needs to be separately examined--and never judged or used just on the basis of the headline.. A newspaper may have a general tendency, but individual stories may be different. Some sources are notorious for inflammatory headlines, while the actual account is reasonably fair. We need to give the full range of sources, and let the readers judge. The current approach to me implies, instead, an attempt to guide the reader.  DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply. :-) I agree with most of what you’re saying here. The intent of my first sentence was really only to state that WP:Implicit consensus applies. Philosophically, on the broader issues, I agree that issues should generally be determined case by case, but I would add that when similar issues come up repeatedly then there should also be a default assumption. I tend to be particularly concerned about unnecessary repetition consuming time and effort that could be better spent directly improving the encyclopedia, and potentially even causing editors to burn out entirely as well. So in an evaluation of source reliability, I would say that the starting point of the discussion should be an acknowledgement of a source’s “usual” or “average” level of quality, which can then be followed by determining whether the specific context justifies a divergence from the usual practice. The idea is to avoid having to constantly re-argue from first principles, and to place the burden of convincing others on the one who believes the current circumstances warrant a different approach than the usual. I suppose the result might be seen as guiding the readers, but I would tend to think of it as being part of our responsibility to maintain accuracy, e.g. minimizing the inclusion of false or misleading information, especially since readers will not necessarily consider the sources in the first place. (The specific description “let the readers judge” I actually associate with issues of false balance or even “teach the controversy”, but I do agree with the idea that it’s not our role to try and dictate anyone’s opinion.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 08:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with what you say about AfD. I too think some degree of consistency in AfD is a virtue--not just simplify arguing at AfD, but for the benefit of the readers, who can better predict what they are likely to find here, but for guidance in advising people with new articles and AfC drafts--which is what i do most these days. . Since there will always be special cases, your suggestion of starting with a discussion of what is usual --and why this might be different--seems sensible--and I notice looking back that I often discuss at afD in this comparative way.  There remains the question of what to do with borderline case, where they're borderline not because nobody as looked for material, but likely to remain borderline. The usual suggestions are merging, or draftifying--but merging can still lead to surreptitious deletion, and draftifying only works if there's someone to actually improve it. We need to be more willing to accept permastubs.


 * I do not, however, accept the "minimizing the inclusion of false or misleading information" especially to the extent now practiced, nor ought we to be guiding readers. We must present information to readers: if we personally think something is the right position, we should have confidence that the plain and honest presentation of the facts and arguments of both those supporting and opposing our position will show it. Otherwise, why are we so sure of ourselves in the first place, if we think the facts and arguments of our opponents will convince the reader. Why do we need to protect a reader from making the right judgment on their own? The people who are convinced of absurd ideas do so because in their experience and education they have heard only their side of the argument.That they haven't been taught to distinguish?--very likely so--but if they come here they will ought to find a presentation that will lead to a fair conclusion.  How are we to account for their errors--their intrinsic perversity?--if that's the case, protecting them isn't going to help much.   No, there is only one reason for hiding or obscuring of minimizing or denigrating one side of the argument--the fear that it might convince people after all. That's the way some politicians  do things: having no reasonable views of their own that might convince anyone, they hide, ignore, or mock the views of their opponents. If they pretend to consider the evidence, they present it in such false setting and misleading graphs and statistics--and they certainly don't let their opponents have a fair chance to explain their side without being made fun of.


 * I'm aware of "teach the controversy--a paradigmatic example of a misleading catchphrase. Those who pretend to teach the controversy do so in a way to avoid presenting the opposing side fairly. Actually presenting objectively the history of evolutionary and anti-evolutionary thought in a neutral but academic way is an excellent way to show the falseness of the anti-evolutionary position.  Actually explaining the historical development of current economic and political thought, is the clearest way to show the real motivations of some popular views. Presenting biased history of course leads to biased conclusions. How can the reader know which side is resorting to unsupportable evidence and false logic  unless their views are fully presented in detail?


 * People who might come here to read a controversial topic who are already certain of the rightness of their positions will not be convinced by anything said here. An imaginary reader who has never heard of American politics who should happen to read certain news sources, will recognize at once they have no good case to make, just like someone who might never have heard of some pseudo-medical treatment will be, if they see the typical advertisement for it. But people who come here in order to find out what position they should support, if they find one side is minimally treated in an unbalanced way, they will just conclude we are biased and ignore us.. If the current general opinion is correct that in current politics it is just such voters who will determine the result, we have a special obligation to be scrupulously neutral.  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

ARCA-pseudoscience
Hi, there's something I wanted to clarify for the Arbitration report for next issue of The Signpost. At ARCA-Pseudoscience, you have posted a somewhat more lengthy rationale for why the community needs to decide what pseudoscience is. It's hard for me to tell if this is agreeing with the other arbs, or if you are trying to take your approach? Or maybe it's all overcome by events by the last post by GW? Can you help with my confusion? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * in preparation--this is extremely important to me, and I want to check what I have written and post it tomorrow afternoon.  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , as may be evident from that page, my views have changed somewhat in the course of discussion; I cannot write the extended essay I had hoped to here without much more time to think, and consideration of the consequences and interrelationships, but my current positions  as an arb is that
 * 1. Arb com deals only with behavior. Arb com can  not determine which POVs are acceptable, or what POVs are mainstream.
 * 2 I consider that the original pseudoscience discussion was fundamentally erroneous insofar as it attempted to deal with content, and similarly are all subsequent arb com decisions in the area
 * 3. Arb com can determine how we conduct discussions, and when to remove troublemakers, but it can not do so on the basis of the positions they take on content. It can not declare in what fields WP considers certain positions to be correct. For example, it cannot say how WP can treat topics that may be called pseudoscience, except by  insisting that people who obstruct discussion in this or any other area must be removed.
 * 4. So in terms of the question asked, we as arbs are not entitled to say this particular field is pseudoscience, and we as arbs were never so entitled to say this about any fields whatsoever.
 * 5 The community itself cannot declare that certain views are pseudoscience. It can only report whether they are called so by reliable sources, and it must take into account all relevant positions. This is the basic principle of NPOV, which neither the committee nor arb com can ignore. The community can determine the details of how NPOV is to be interpreted, but it is a content rule, so arb com cannot.
 * 6. It is my opinion that the effect of declaring how WP can handle certain fields, by using Discretionary sanctions, encourages and perpetuates bias. As it works at present, rather than destroying cliques it facilitates them, by giving an inordinately strong first-mover advantage. There is not now any basis for using DS at all, in this or any other subject. It encourages people to use their bias, and makes it too difficult to stop them. It may not have been completely wrong for arb com to use DS in an earlier stage of WP, as an attempt to deal with "unblockable" editors, but this is not a problem at present, at least not in the same fashion.
 * 7 Arb com can change the rules for conduct in an area under disruption, but only if it does it in a content-neutral way. It can for example make a field subject to 2RR, or 1RR. It can remove specific troublemakers from a discussion, or from a field, or from WP., or warn that the rules for conduct in a given field or a given discussion will be interpreted strictly, and do so in a way that makes it very difficult to appeal.   These are dangerous powers, for it could do so in such a way as to selectively help one of two contending sides, and in my opinion it has done just that in some decisions. But at least it requires an agreement of a majority of the  individual arbs to do so. Discretionary sanctions allows any of the individual admins to do the same, while making it almost as difficult to appeal as to appeal an arb com decision. This is too dangerous. It is possible that 8 out of 15 arbs may be biased, knowingly or not. It is inevitable that some one of 500 admins will be biased.
 * 8. One of the responsibilities of arb com is the supervision of the actions of arbitrators, and if the committee thinks that they have been making decisions in a way that effectuates bias rather than NPOV, the committee is entitled to take action. This again is a dangerous power, for it might, and in some cases has, been used unfairly. But it remains a necessary function, and the committee must do it until some fairer  scheme can be devised.


 * I have refused on that page to give my personal opinion of Ayurvedic medicine. I do have one. Its current practical application is pseudoscientific, but we must make allowances for cultural bias. It seems unlikely a priori that we are the only civilization on earth that understands the world correctly.  Its practitioners think they are using theory based science validated by experience. The same is true for Western European medicine as practiced until about the mid 19th century: physicians thought they were using   theory-based science validated by experiment and experience. In both cases, their theories were wrong, their experimental methods crude, and their ability to  analyze experience inadequate--and their treatments correspondingly irrational and generally ineffective.   In its historical aspect, ayurvedic medicine made no less sense than sense than any other any premodern medical theory,.


 * In our articles on ayurveda, the historical aspects would in my opinion would more clearly be treated separately from the current practice. In my opinion our repeated emphasis in our articles, especially the lead of the main article, that ayruveda is considered a pseudoscience is excessive, and indicates bias rather than NPOV. A proper statement is appropriate, but the present orientation of the entire article gives the reader the impression we are not actually a NPOV encyclopedia. (And I think we have made the same error in other subjects.)  I would say these things in a discussion on the relevant talk page, except that I think that the mere fact that I'm an arb would affect the discussion..  DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

AP
...


 * There is however some effective practical advice I can certainly give you--advice I have given others, and a few WPedians have actually taken it. Get out of the topic field of American Politics, at least until 2021.  Feelings of the majority of WPedians are so strong about the immediate  situation in real life,  that there's been a loss of perspective. By now, reasonable judgement cannot be expected. WP is not suited for advocacy.  If it's advocacy you want, and I find that a perfectly rational desire, there are more suitable places. If it's true encyclopedic coverage you want, it's too early. If it's the immediate provision of accurate  information for the benefit of the public., WP should be capable of it, but experience has made it quite clear that our method of working can not hold up in the middle of an emergency.   DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)