Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Statement by mostly uninvolved editor MastCell
This is a set of articles where two sides have become quite entrenched. There have been quite a few inappropriate editorial actions, including edit-warring, sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, wikilawyering, etc. Many of these problems are evident at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for comment/Martinphi. This user-conduct RfC provided some gauge of community feeling about the actions of the involved editors, but went nowhere in terms of resolving conflict and facilitating consensus. Therefore, I'd ask ArbCom to look at this, primarily as a matter of user conduct which has been refractory to lesser methods of dispute resolution. Personally, I think the content aspects have important implications for how we interpret WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, but I think the user-conduct issues are most pressing at the moment. MastCell Talk 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by no longer involved Bishonen
I consider the behaviour of Davkal around these articles to be an urgent problem. I tried to deal with it in September 2006, decided that I was getting burned-out by the sheer unpleasantness of the interaction, and opted out like a coward. I've been keeping an eye out since, though, and nothing seems to have changed. See this recent ANI thread for diffs and further comments. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Statement by occasionally involved Guy
I'd like to add one more voice in support of ScienceApologist, Bishonen and the tireless Minderbinder. The comment re AAAS above is a perfect example of the approach of these paranormal supporters: the AAAS at one point decided to admit a parapsychology group, therefore parapsychology is a valid scientific discipline, therefore the paranormal has scientific acceptance; the logical disconnects are obvious to us but not to these editors. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by occasionally involved BillC
This is an important matter which goes beyond concerns over individual user conduct. There is a small body of editors who seek more respectability for paranormal beliefs than such topics would normally expect to receive in traditional encyclopaedias. The WikiProject Paranormal banner has been applied to hundreds of articles, including many on which one would not expect to see it, such as Megalith, RMS Queen Mary or SETI, with at times contentious results. Now articles even further removed from the paranormal, such as evolution, have been targeted. &mdash; BillCtalk 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by tangentially involved Reddi
A number of the editors have attempted to maintain paranormal articles through WikiProject Paranormal. As a member of the WikiProject Paranormal, these are some thoughts. The WikiProject Paranormal is a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal and anomalous phenomena. Wikipedians have formed the project to better organize information in articles related to the paranormal, protoscience, and fringe science.

A number of editors which are convinced that paranormal events are only a fantasy have been particularly adamant in their advocacy. Among the more problematic issues are:
 * Editors believe that the threshhold of verifiability and reliability should be extremely high for attributing claims of the paranormal.
 * Demonstration of bias in pejorative wording have been made to the tune of advocating unfavorably to a subject rather than a neutral point of view.
 * There is a persistent insistence that proto-sciences be called 'illegitimate science' and that it is not science.

Interpretations of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE does mean that a consensus of the groups that have studied a particular topic should be used, but does not exclude "popular culture" data to be included. The interpretation of due weight to controversial views states that editors should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. The policy may have been designed with an intent to use "mainstream" (you can substitute a variety of terms used by pseudo-skeptics here, such as 'conventional peer-reviewed') views, at times in the majority (but in the minority as to some paranormal issues), as a tool to push a POV.

J. D. Redding 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE notes ...
 * "Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community."
 * "lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection"
 * "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives"
 * "Ideas which have been rejected [...] should be documented as such".
 * "Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources."

It only takes a few to believe something is "wrong", or be non-neutral to, (such as the editor that want to remove all references of fringe science, occult, and paranormal information) to prevent the completion of the proposed goal of Wikipedia.

Popular culture (eg., mainstream discussion; familiar to the masses) and academic books are the main attribution found among sources of an idea's standing for much of the topics.

This includes books found in most libraries or in electronic form (e-books) from Google Books. J. D. Redding 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by occasionally involved Michael Busch
Like Wikidudeman, I have been invoking the regulations against Pseudoscience with regards to the paranormal articles. I was also somewhat involved in the request for comment on Martinphi's conduct. More recently, I've been involved in an edit dispute at Topics in ufology. I strongly agree with the position that Wikipedia must reflect the scientific consensus, which is one point of this dispute (the matters of undue weight and fringe).

But there is also a question of viewpoint and language, which has become apparent to me during the Topics in ufology dispute, and may explain why this dispute has gotten to this point. I don't expect it to instantly resolve, but here is the problem I see:

I (and, I believe, various other editors) speak in the terms and language of science, and place extreme importance on clarity, distinction, validity, and the scientific consensus. Those who support inclusion of the paranormal material as something categorized or derived from science seem to have a different outlook: they invoke any reference or usage, even inappropriate, as grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will provide two examples: Martinphi has flagged the statement 'crop circles are of human origin' with a 'fact' tag, claiming that because we haven't traced the cause of every crop circle, we can't say that they are caused by pranksters or artists (whichever term you prefer), despite every crop circle that has been so traced is from a human. The second example is from Topics in ufology: I have removed material such as perpetual motion from this article, because it has nothing to do with UFOs, it has merely been invoked by zealous UFO advocates, only to have it added back with the claim that that invocation makes the inclusion notable.

The above may simply be a matter of educating the editors concerned on Undue weight, but given the futility of prior attempts to do so, I am afraid that this deeper misunderstanding is the problem. I am not sure how to resolve it. Per prior ArbCom decision, Wikipedia must reflect the scientific consensus, but with the current wording, I foresee many disputes like this one. Michaelbusch 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by occasionally involved Annalisa Ventola
There are misunderstandings on both sides of the issue about what parapsychology is and is not. There is a distinction between 'parapsychology' and 'paranormal research' that is not being addressed here. Parapsychology is a tiny, tiny field made up of mostly university professors, and it does enjoy some status (albeit marginal) within the scientific community. In general, the field of parapsychology has very little to say about topics like Electronic Voice Phenomena and Jonathan Edwards (at least not anything that would support a paranormal interpretation). There is no such thing as a "consensus of parapsychologists," especially given that a portion of academic parapsychologists (i.e. members of the Parapsychological Association) are skeptics who hold no particular belief in the paranormal. Any legitimacy that parapsychology enjoys as a science should not be invoked and then generalized to legitimize all paranormal topics here at Wikipedia. On the other hand, many of the broad criticisms of paranormal research do not necessarily apply to parapsychology, yet this tiny field has been inaccurately lumped into lists and categories of pseudoscience right along with belief in fairies and King Tut's curse.

We don't need the Arbitration Committee to solve the problem of demarcation for us...at least not right now. I think that despite the differing worldviews that these editors present, it is still possible for us to stabilize these articles without arbitration. I urge the arbitration committee to limit the scope of their decision to the user conduct issues that have been brought forward by Minderbender, and allow the larger community of Wikipedia editors to work out the rest. -- Annalisa Ventola (Talk 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by J.smith
I would like to register disagreement with Pjacobi. The project on the paranormal is attempting to cover articles that the general public may consiter "paranormal" in nature. Most articles in "pseudo"-science cats have been included to meet that aim. Trying to decide the umbrella of a project with such fuzzy boarders is never going to be easy.

As for the EVP article... I was deeply involved in that article for a few weeks... until a number of editors showed up and drastically changed the atmosphere from one of cooperation to one of combat. I'm not going to get into the specifics of the various fights that started, but many of them were frankly stupid. My point is that the behavior of those "defending" science has become a major roadblock to collaboration and that has been more damaging then anything else.

Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal is always going to have a systematic bias for the main-stream. As I stated on IRC once, "Wikipedia is the whore of the mainstream." I'm not criticizing that. Thats just how Wikipedia is. However, this this doesn't stop us from accurately representing "the fringe". (I put that in quotes because "the fringe" often has more acceptance in the general public then the POV of the scientific mainstream.) We need to strive to accurately describe the notable opinions of the people involved and then present what science exists. However, some of the people in this case are more interested in forcing the "fringe" into the corner and dragging everyone involved into quagmires of semantics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Reddi
Suppression of dissent occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than another tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party, rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party's arguments or viewpoint. A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively opposes an established opinion (e.g."mainstream science"), policy (e.g. "science orthodoxy"), or structure. J. D. Redding 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning behind NPOV: For the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. J. D. Redding 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about User:Dreadlocke
Hopefully one of the folk involved with arbcom can answer this. Editor Dreadlocke has been highly involved in some of these editing disputes and has made some of the same POV and other policy violations described here, but he has been inactive on wikipedia for a few weeks. I think it would make sense to include him, but obviously it would be inappropriate to have a situation where he doesn't have the opportunity to participate and give his perspective and respond to any accusations. How does arbcom generally handle a situation like this? Thanks. --Minderbinder 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you tried to email him? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If other editors present evidence of edit warring or other disruptive behavior by Dreadlocke on the evidence page, the arbitrators may consider proposing remedies involving him. If so, he will be added to the list of parties and an attempt will be made to contact him.  You can certainly contact him now if you wish. Thatcher131 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not very good at gathering evidence like the other folks here are, so I'll leave it up to them to gather the evidence on Dreadlocke. I wish I could be more helpful. Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Wooyi
I'm not very familiar with parapsychology as a subject, as I mostly edit law-and-politics-related articles. However, I found it very disconcerting that the so-called "skeptics" has formed a quasi gang to suppress any different opinions. In the evidence page we clearly see that the skeptic editors have deliberately remove expert qualification of professors that don't agree with them. Look at this edit, the skeptic editor basically conducts a smear campaign even on experts and distinguished professors. Anyone they disagree with were labeled "unreliable" even though they have enough academic qualifications. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not nessary
The paranormal only exist in fictional TV shows like the X-Files. If it did exist, it would be scientifically provable. One of my personal heroes, James Randi, has proven that parapsychology is wrong. Therefore, this is a complete waste of the arbitrators time and Davkal should be blocked for vandalism. Chemist3456 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Account created on April 26, eh? Time for another checkuser on Davkal!  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Chemist3456 is one of the most zealous skeptic editor, he might be a SPA, but if a checkuser is to be done it should be on skeptics like you and Minderbinder, and LuckyLouie. He is the exact opposite of Davkal. Why would Davkal use a sock to advocate his own ban? WooyiTalk, Editor review 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed the strange account too. Is there such a thing as a WP:POINT-PUPPET? This account was created only a few days ago and seems to be a parody of scientific skepticism (?) Most odd behavior. - LuckyLouie 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for my ignorance, but I am really confused. Were you joking or sarcastic about the whole thing? As far as I know Chemist is the opponent of Davkal, why would they be puppets? WooyiTalk, Editor review 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious parody account, Wooyi. Note initial spelling of "the sciencetific method", LOL. - LuckyLouie 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously have no good arguments that I'm a sock puppet of you have to resort to personal attacks. I don't believe in the paranormal, and I find it insulting that you suggest I do. Chemist3456 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's obviously a sock-puppet in my opinion. I don't know whether or not Davkal created it or Wooyi or someone else but it is clear that it is a sock-puppet in my opinion, created with the intention to parody. Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Wikidudeman I don't keep sockpuppets, please do not randomly accuse people. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't random and it wasn't an accusation. I'm throwing out possibilities. If it's not your sock puppet or if it isn't a sock puppet at all then there's no problem. However based on the users previous edits it seems clear that it is a sock puppet and that it was created as a "straw man" puppet to parody. If this is the case then a user who's previous edits are generally in support of parapsychology would be suspected. That includes a lot of people and I only used you or Davkal as an example. That's different from an accusation. If you took it as an accusation then I apologize for that. Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay since you made your good intentions clear you don't have to apologize. I should have assumed good faith. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * O rly? Chemist3456 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be a type of "Straw man sock puppet" used to make the other side look bad with parody type edits. See []. Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, have it traced if you think it is a puppet.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Simoes latest addition
Wow, looks like Simoes is actually a completely disinterested party. Because if he were a skeptic, he'd have a COI on editing that list. Somehow, I thought Simoes was skeptical. Personally, however, I have little personal involvement in the items other than parapsychology specifically, and am therefore a fairly disinterested party. I think Simoes should recuse himself.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Length of evidence stage?
How long is an evidence stage supposed to last? It's looking like everyone has said what they intend to say.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Simoes, I think arbitrators can take a look at it and convene to discuss their decision now. WooyiTalk to me? 02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the arbitrators work on cases in the order they are received. According to the pink box on Requests_for_arbitration, Paranormal is next after Tobias Conrad and Transnistria. - LuckyLouie 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is too much irrelevant information in this arbitration.
This arbitration was supposed to be limited to the conduct of various users and not the content of Wikipedia. The arbitrators accepted on the terms of the conduct issues not the content issues. Paul August, and Kirill Lokshin both made it clear that they were accepting to consider the conduct issues of the users in question. I believe that most of the information in this arbitration in the workshop and evidence areas are irrelevant to the conduct issues and are doing nothing but preventing the arbitrators from reviewing this arbitration case. This case was introduced over a month ago and each day more irrelevant information keeps coming in from various users. Information that has little or nothing to do with the conduct issues of the arbitration. I would suggest that everyone who has posted information on the content of Wikipedia or suggestions on rules changes regarding paranormal articles should erase their edits and leave only edits directly related to the conduct issues. Otherwise I fear this case will never be reviewed by the arbitrators or if it does, they will be so overwhelmed by the amount of information that they might overlook very important conduct issues which are at the heart of this arbitration. I have removed some irrelevant evidence that I posted in the evidence section here [] concerning whether or not being affiliate with the AAAS means a field is an 'area of science'. I figured it was irrelevant to the conduct issues at hand. Ideally one wants to present clear and concise evidence which is short and to the point. Minderbinder's evidence is a good example of how evidence should be presented in this arbitration. Please consider what I have said and remove anything that you think might fit into this category, for the sake of this arbitration. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion
I just wanted to say, I have never edited an article related to this dispute, but the first time I read the Parapsychology article, I was confused as to whether it was a real, accepted field of academic scientific study or just a paranormal hobbyist's pastime. If a well-informed and aware Wikipedian and reader such as myself got the impression that the article advocated for the legitimacy of Parapsychology, you definitely have an NPOV problem going on. VanTucky 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. If anyone had a doubt that these SPA parapsychology folks have a POV to push, read this. They begin with the assertion that EVP is real, then work from there. VanTucky 16:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's User:Tom Butler's website. He's a party in this arbitration. It's not parapsychology.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * EVP is part of parapsychology as I understand it... VanTucky 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a common misunderstanding. It's actually just pop-paranormal ghost-hunting, not a subject that falls under actual Parapsychology. We really need to put something in the article that explains the difference between academic parapsychology and pop-paranormal.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's odd then that the Parapsychological Association lists it in a "Glossary of words frequently used in Parapsychology" - LuckyLouie 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * and that the site I linked itself refers to EVP as parapsychology. VanTucky 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't say I've ever seen anything on the aa-evp site regarding a connection to parapsychology, apart from the interests of some of their members. - LuckyLouie 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, I could be wrong then : ) I am pretty confident that most EVP stuff does come from the "hang out at the graveyard on the weekends" crowd of pseudo-parapsychologists. But one thing is certain, the link at the AA-EVP is Butler's editorial, and may not represent actual parapsychology.-- Nealparr  (talk to me) 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal, Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing
The arbitration committee has closed the above case. It includes many principles, including Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing. This principle states, in part, that "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Psychic is a particularly troublesome word in that its meaning is not well agreed upon. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of psychic is that "having a psychical rather than a physical or physiological origin". The OED definition does not equivocate; in its definition, someone termed a psychic must actually possess such abilities. It is straightforward in saying that a psychic's abilities do not have a physical or physiological origin. In contrast, Wikipedia's definition of "psychic" equivocates, suggesting that a psychic is simply "thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena" (emphasis mine).

I believe that this principle, as it regards the term 'psychic', is very sensitive to the meaning of "psychic" that one is familiar with. For example, if the phrase "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" is read with the Wikipedia definition ("thought to have these abilities"), then it seems reasonable that no further framing may be needed. However, given that there are other definitions, including those from authoritative sources like the OED, this phrasing could prove problematic. Read with the OED definition in mind, "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" implies that Jeane Dixon actually, as opposed to "is thought to", possesses abilities that are, in fact, not of a "physical or physiological origin". In this case, it strikes me that additional framing would be acceptable - otherwise, we are claiming that she actually has such powers, and that such powers do not come from the physical world - a tall statement for an introductory paragraph.

With the tension between alternate definitions from reputable sources in mind, is there any clarification that can be offered, either for the principle in general, or for the principle as it pertains specifically to the ter"m "psychic"?

Thanks, Ante  lan  talk  20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Merriam-Webster 3rd New International Dictionary (1993), which I consider to be highly authoritative and perhaps more attuned to current usage than the OED, offers this relevant definition: "2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." I believe that this concurs with the Wikipedia usage.  The OED definition you cite appears to correspond to the "1 psychic" definition in M-W, which is a usage more philosophical than paranormal.  I do not have an OED at hand to review any other definitions it may offer, though I am confident that the OED has many others beyond the one you identify.  I would conclude that the Wikipedia usage is not unique or unsupported.  Finally, since the Wikipedia article clarifies our intended usage, I believe that readers both casual and astute will understand that the use of the term does not imply the presence of actual psychic abilities confirmed by the scientific method.  In conclusion, the decision is sound as it stands. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that your finding in M-W is germane to, and indeed buttresses, my point, which is that reputable (even authoritative) sources offer different interpretations of psychic. In some instances, "psychic" is held to mean someone who has said powers; in others, it is held to mean someone who is said to have said powers. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to believe that an educated, intelligent reader of Wikipedia could come in with either prior definition in mind. Such a literate, conversant person would not think that they would have to click on "psychic" to learn which definition Wikipedia is using, since they would, reasonably, already believe that "psychic" denotes (depending on previous exposure to the word) either people who (1) do have, or (2) are simply said to have, powers.


 * I'm not simply offering hypotheticals; other important publications such as the New York Times and the United States Department of Justice qualify the term "psychic":
 * "Jeane Dixon, the astrologer and self-described psychic who gained fame by apparently predicting President John F. Kennedy's death, died on Saturday in Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington."
 * " According to previous in-court statements, Marks, a self-proclaimed psychic and fortune teller, agreed that she was responsible for bilking over two (2) million dollars from numerous elderly and otherwise vulnerable victims from 1994 through 2002."
 * Nevertheless, as you and I have both noted, the term is not always used in this way; it is also used in the "is said to have" way. So, in contrast to your conclusion, it strikes me that both casual and astute readers will interpret all articles invoking the term "psychic" differently, based on their prior experience with this term. Ante  lan  talk  08:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the ambiguity of the term "Psychic" and the conflicting definitions of the word, we are left with only a few solutions to the problem. 1. We require articles about people who claim to have psychic powers state that the individuals are "purported psychics". 2. We change the Psychic article to reflect Wikipedia's accepted definition of the term "Psychic". 3. We avoid using the term "psychic" in such articles and only state that the individuals "claim paranormal abilities" and then elaborate on which abilities they claim to have. If we stick with the definition of "psychic" as someone who claims paranormal powers opposed to someone who indeed has the powers then the Psychic article must reflect that.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your logic that we are limited to the three choices you outline. I believe that the decision is clear as it stands regarding the use of the term.  I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter.  I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision.  I hope they will respect it nonetheless.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all we needed to know. All that remains is to update Wikipedia's psychic article to ensure compliance with your operative definition. Thanks for the clarification. Ante  lan  talk  07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a review. I hope it's not too late to comment. One of the most notable debunkers out there, James Randi, defines psychic as "an adjective, describ[ing] a variety of supernatural forces, events, or powers." Psychics (noun), he defines as "designat[ing] a person said to be able to call upon any of many psychic forces." Randi is about as skeptical as it gets, so there's really no reason to add unnecessary qualifiers at Wikipedia either. Notice there's no "alleged", "purported", "claimed" or other WP:WTA in these definitions, only "said to" in relation to psychics (n), which is of course compatible with WP:WTA. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. We could define "psychic" as "having powers," and as long as we make very clear in the article that there is significant controversy about whether these powers are real, then we're OK. That is because a definition "a psychic has powers" coupled with "these powers may not exist," gives the reader this definition:

"a psychic is someone with powers, but those powers may not exist."

In other words, real psychics may not exist. So as long as we include skepticism in the articles, the issue of the first definition of psychic is not relevant. In the end what the reader comes out with is the necessary nuance, an understanding of the controversy.

We aren't a dictionary here. We don't have to have everything in one sentence. That need seems to be why dictionaries sometimes stoop to either 1) no controversy or 2) definitions which are technically inaccurate, something like "a psychic is someone with supposed paranormal powers," which would rule out psychics who didn't know they were psychic, and begs the question of what a "supposed paranormal power" is.

Anyway, Wikipedia can support a full understanding of such terms which includes skepticism without resorting to one-sentence definitions, or things like "purported," "supposed," and "self-described." This isn't an argument for defining "psychic" in a particular way, but rather for explaining the controversy rather than focusing on a single sentence like a dictionary- and giving the reader some credit for being able to fully understand the usage of a controversial term.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These terms clearly exist, from where I stand this simple fact overrides any and all questions about whether or not the phenomona/ability/whatever actually exists in reality. The arbcom ruling correctly reflects this and therefore should be kept. For example, a psychic is a cultural label applied to somebody, it is not a judgment of science or law on their possession of actual psychic powers, or a judgment on the existence of said powers in the real world. - perfectblue 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

These edits  read as an appeal to authority as one says "Per Arbitrator UninvitedCompany" and the other says "This is literally per the ArbCom". Are these edits actually per UninvitedCompany and meant to be "the" definition we are supposed to use? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was asked for another opinion--a psychic is someone who has paranormal powers, and this would extend to somebody who think he has such powers. A person who knows perfectly well that he does not have such powers but pretends to have them is a pretended psychic--most stage magicians would come under such a heading. As the actual existence of such powers is hard to demonstrate, I would accept anyone who claims to actually have them as a psychic. I do not think this the least confusing. To those who do not believe in the existence of such powers, it would be follow that such a person is either self-deluded or being deliberately deceptive--since is it almost impossible to tell the difference, most skeptics would I think regard the two classes as essentially equivalent--especially given that someone who honestly believes himself to to have such powers--or who might even have them  in reality-- might  nonetheless deceive to make them appear more impressive. To a skeptic, calling someone a psychic is a negative criticism. To a believer, it's a compliment. Thus I would think it a neutral term, and it is satisfying to have at least one neutral term in this subject. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * His version: ""2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces."" My version: "A psychic is a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." The ArbCom made content-related findings; it is reasonable that our viewers should be exposed to their operative definition of psychic upon visiting the article. To me, it was unclear what definition of "psychic" Wikipedia was operating under. TheUninvitedCo clarified. Given this introduction to the article, I concur that "psychic" is a sufficiently descriptive term, not requiring any framing such as "alleged", "purported", "self-described", etc. Ante  lan  talk  22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We follow the ArbCom decision (not necessarily what an arbitrator says), but the ArbCom did not rule on the definition of "psychic." What Antelan has edit warred to insert in the Psychic article is not accurate, and merely uses other weasely words. In place of things like "supposed" and "self-described," he has put in "Apparently."  He asked DGG for another opinion, and DGG did not agree with him.  All Antelan is doing is POV pushing and going against consensus.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I find myself asking you to refrain from personal attacks with an alarming frequency, and I will do so again now. TheUninvitedCo used the term "apparently". DGG's opinion is well-reasoned and invaluable. In the request for clarification, I presented two reasonable interpretations of "psychic", and now I know which one is to be used on Wikipedia. Given the clarification and the updated "psychic" definition, it is perfectly reasonable that qualifiers are unnecessary before "psychic", but before this clarification it was unclear. Ante  lan  talk  22:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In reading the above, it appears that TheUninvitedCo said that using "apparently" is fine, but that using no qualifier is fine as well, and that there wasn't anything necessarily wrong with the wording before-hand. I'm only posting this here so that TheUninvitedCo can clarify for him/herself, but shouldn't this be a consensus thing reached on the talk page? If both are fine, then editors can choose which they prefer, and it's not really "per TheUninvitedCo". Let's leave the arbitrators out of it and work it out on the talk page. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nealparr, this was one of the major content-related decisions of the ArbCom, which is why I asked for clarification here. If I correctly understood TheUninvitedCo, the conclusion was that "apparently" is fine in fleshing out the meaning of psychic in the psychic article, and then we don't need to qualify the term "psychic" with apparently/purportedly/etc. elsewhere since the full meaning will then already be contained within Wikipedia's understanding of the term. (If this is not correct, I would very much appreciate correction and clarification from an Arbitrator.) Ante  lan  talk  00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to Antelan: gather the diffs all my "personal attacks" and take them to an admin.

The Uninvited Co said specifically he saw nothing wrong with the current article.

However, an Arbitrator's power is in his writing of and votes on decisions, not a dictatorial power. So however right or wrong UnivitedCo is, we can't just say "thus saith The Uninvited Co" and have that be that.

The ArbCom decision ruled against the need for qualifiers, as long as an article is framed- and framing includes that skepticism is included in articles used to frame. That was already the case with Psychic.

Antelan's edits were POV pushing of the kind which occurred on a regular basis before the ArbCom decision. They were also non consensual controversial edits, and he edit warred to keep them in- again, behavior just like what we had to deal with before the ArbCom. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me state it a bit simpler. If we're going to remove words such as "Purported" or "alleged" then we need to replace them with "claims to have" or "says he/she has" etc. If we don't use words such as "claims to have" then if we refer to any individual as "psychic" we need to make the Psychic article reflect the definition being used, I.E. "A person who claims powers" opposed to "A person who has powers". Very simple. The latter might be a bit confusing for most people who recgonize the term "psychic" as someone who HAS powers, but if that's how it must be..  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Stop with the "personal attacks". Just don't use that word anymore. If someone attacks you, ignore it. Discussing "purported" (no pun intended) personal attacks only distracts us from this current discussion about clarification on the RFA.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, in one case. If we say "So-and-so has psychic powers" then that's POV. So we say, "So-and-so claims to/is purported to have psychic powers."

But if we say "So-and-so is a psychic" then that is NPOV, because in the psychic article it makes quite clear that there is controversy. Thus, the word "psychic" already contains the controversy. That is to say, "psychic" has the same meaning as "purported psychic-" it contains skepticism within it.

However, the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers. That is the definition, and added to that is the controversy. It is subtle, but it is important. A psychic has powers, AND those powers may not truly exist in the real world. This is what "psychic" means.

BUT, a "psychic" is NOT someone who merely "claims to have powers."

The current Psychic article does contain controversy, in the body and in the lead. Thus, it is NPOV and we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to go with the definition of Psychic as someone who "purportedly has psychic powers" and refer to people like Sylvia Browne as "Psychics" opposed to "Purported psychics" then we need to make VERY clear in the Psychic article that not only is there controversy about the existence of psychic powers, but that the very definition of "psychic" itself is someone who purports to have such powers and not someone who does indeed have such powers.


 * Defining psychic as someone who has powers would mean that anyone who is described as psychic has those powers, logically. If "Psychic" is defined as an individual who HAS powers and if we describe Sylvia Browne as a psychic then she must have powers. The fact that controversy exists disputing the existence of such powers doesn't negate the fact that we're claiming a "Psychic" is someone with those paranormal powers and Sylvia Browne is a Psychic, thus Sylvia Browne has those paranormal powers. Let me put it this way; If Psychic=Someone with said powers" then describing someone as a psychic would logically mean affirming they have said powers. Regardless of any criticism or controversy about the existence of such powers.


 * We can't define "Psychic" as "someone who HAS said powers" if we're going to refer to various individuals as psychics because whether they are psychic or not is disputed. If we're going to refer to them as actual psychics then we need to define the word "Psychic" as someone who claims to have such powers but doesn't necessarily have them. Which of course must be made very clear in the Psychic article.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The words "said to" and "say" are greenlighted by WP:WTA, purported is redlighted. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I admit it's a subtle point. But here's an example. A little green man from Mars is............... a little green man from Mars. As it happens, there is controversy over whether such exist.

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

It's subtle, but it is the ArbCom decision. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you claimed to be a "Green Martian" and gained substantial notoriety and a Wikipedia article developed about you then it would be an article whos name was your name. Let's say "Martin Phi", for an example. The article would be called "Martin Phi" and would say that "Martin Phi CLAIMS to be a green Martian" not "Martian Phi IS a green Martian". There's nothing subtle about it, it's simply stating something as a fact which isn't necessarily a fact. If "Psychic" is defined as someone who HAS said powers and we call someone a "Psychic" then we are affirming they have said powers. That's basic logic. A=Psychic powers, B =Psychic. If B is defined as having A then someone who is referred to as B is affirmed to have A by the one doing the referring. Your logic seems to be "B=A, If B then not necessarily A".  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't understand what I wrote, but I don't think I can make it much clearer.


 * A = B and B = (C + D).

A = name B = psychic C = powers D = controversy


 * Get it? ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that's very unclear. What you wrote would say, if translated, "Psychic equals Psychic and Psychic equals powers plus controversy". That doesn't really make any sense at all. "A" is defined as "name", but name of what? The term? The term is "Psychic" so "A=B" is redundant. "B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers. Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A = B

B = (C + D).

A = Sylvia Browne (example) B = psychic C = powers D = controversy

"B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers." Correct.

Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Incorrect.

We qualify if we say someone has psychic powers. We don't qualify if we say someone is a psychic, because we're linking to the "psychic" article, and that includes the controversy over whether there are any real psychics.

Thus as I said before,

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green Martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

Whether my interpretation is correct or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that we don't have to use qualifiers as long as the articles which define our terms include the controversy. That's what the ArbCom said.

Here's what the Arbs said, and there really isn't any getting around it:

"It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

and

""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."

Which I interpret to mean that a cultural artifact such as "psychic" contains within it the controversy and thus does not need to be qualified. This works so long as the Psychic article contains a description of the controversy. It does not require, however, that we define the meaning of the word "psychic" equivocally- it only means we should inform the reader about the controversy. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You say A = Sylvia Browne and B = psychic and then say "A = B" and then you say we're not affirming that the individual in question has psychic powers, when you clearly state that "A=B" and "B=psychic" and Psychic=someone with powers? You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that both "Psychic" is someone with powers and isn't someone with powers. The Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." This would mean that the Psychic article should NOT say that a psychic is someone who has definite psychic abilities but someone who claims to have such abilities. If that's the definition we're going with. We wouldn't call a crazy guy who claimed he was from mars a "Green Martian" anymore than we would claim some crazy guy who thinks he is Jesus "God" or "Messiah". We would refer to them as their names, whatever they may be.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Psychic article is framed with words like paranormal and ESP, such that people know that the existence of psychic powers is controversial. If you don't accept anything else I've said, then that should be enough. No one is going to get the impression that everyone believes that the powers really exist. Calling a person a "psychic" will never tell anyone that the powers indicated by the word are necessarily real. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't making it clear that controversy exists, it's obvious that controversy exists. The point is that wikipedia should make it clear that Psychic powers themselves might not exist. The only way to do this was outlined by me above. Stating that "Psychic=Psychic powers" and simply stating that controversy exists and people doubt psychics doesn't take away the problem of calling someone a psychic when we're using that definition. You seem to be saying that defining a Psychic as someone who definitely has psychic powers and labeling various people psychic is acceptable as long as we state that controversy exists about psychics. This doesn't solve the problem. Simply stating that a controversy exists doesn't take away from the problem that you're claiming so and so is a psychic and that a psychic is someone with powers.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A unicorn is a "legendary creature" (i.e. mythological). Bigfoot is a figure in "North American folklore". A ufo is "any real of apparently flying object which cannot be identified by the observer". These have straightforward introductions which frame their articles. Martinphi, you have said, both, "a psychic is someone with powers" but that this is controversial, and "we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist". How do you expect us to understand what you are thinking when you don't even offer us a coherent view of the topic in question? I and others have offered opinions, which you have struck down without offering a straightforward alternative. In your view, and in simple, encyclopedic, affirmative terms (i.e., "a psychic is X" instead of "a psychic is not Y") what is a psychic? Ante lan  talk  02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All I ask is that someone please inform me if a request for review is granted so I can comment. I think the Randi reference says it all, but I can provide other references as well. Otherwise this is talk page stuff to be worked out sans- arbitration. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdings
Five arbitrators voted to take on the Paranormal case; the two who stated their reason for taking the case indicated it was for "conduct issues". Of the 29 principles, findings of fact, and remedies that passed, most did deal with conduct issues; however, an important minority dealt with some of the content that has been at the core of the protracted disputes about paranormal-related articles. I apologize for the length of the following explanation of what I see as the core content paradox within the ArbCom holdings, but I have used examples in order to, I hope, make the situation as clear as possible:

The Wikipedia article on psychic raises issues with the recently closed Paranormal ArbCom. Finding of Fact #5, "Cultural artifacts", states: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." Principle #6.2 states, in part, "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include ... "paranormal", "psychic" ... or "parapsychological researcher". ... "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Lemma 1 the Arbitration Committee sees the label "psychic" as a cultural artifact. Saying that Jeane Dixon is a psychic does not imply that she has psychic abilities or powers, or even that such abilities or powers exist. This is true to such an extent that clarification, such as "Jeane Dixon is a self-described psychic", is disallowed.

In reading the article on psychic, however, I became confused and concerned. The psychic article's lede itself states that psychic denotes paranormal extra-sensory abilities that are inexplicable by "known natural laws". This doesn't seem like a typical cultural artifact, in that this statement implies that there may exist some unknown natural law to explain it (i.e., the description invokes science, not culture). However, several sentences later we learn that the existence of this ability is highly contested. Does this resolve the situation?

No. While this skepticism helps a reader understand that psychic abilities may or may not be real, it still leaves the reader with the impression that "psychic" means "someone with scientifically inexplicable powers" - it's just that now we recognize that such people may not exist. That is, thus far, the word "psychic" has always been used to mean "someone with paranormal powers". The infobox on the right side of the page is even more explicit: "Definition: An ability or phenomona said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi" (see the box on the righthand side of the article).

Lemma 2: So what is a psychic? The article repeatedly indicates that a defining feature of a psychic is "an ability". There is no ambiguity. It does not say that psychics have an apparent ability. It does not say that psychics may or may not have abilities. It says that a psychic has these abilities.

Imagine that instead of psychic we were talking about a rare device, the PerpetualMotionMachine (psychic). An article states that the PerpetualMotionMachine is an infinite (paranormal) power-output device (ability). The article also has an infobox that defines PerpetualMotionMachine as "A device or product that originates from the Midwest and is capable of infinite power-output." At this point, it's pretty clear that a crucial quality of any PerpetualMotionMachine is that it is an infinite power-output device. Then, I get to the sentence, "the possibility of infinite power-output is highly contested." Now, I still believe that PerpetualMotionMachines are infinite power-output devices, but now I recognize that the term "PerpetualMotionMachine" may have no real-world referent. I now understand that there may not be even one single PerpetualMotionMachine, but if there were one, a defining quality of it would be that it could output infinite power.

Likewise with the paranormal article. It asserts that psychic powers are paranormal abilities, inexplicable by known natural laws. It also tells me that there may not actually be any psychic abilities in the real world. However, from the definitions, I still gather that if there are psychic abilities in the real world, then they cannot be explained by known natural laws. The phrasing here does not strike me as a simple cultural artifact. Just reading the sentence, I am inclined to think that scientists of various disciplines must have looked into this and decided that known natural laws cannot explain the results.

This is in contrast to the holdings of the Arbitration Committee, which found that the term psychic is just a cultural artifact. The Committee held that "psychic" may not imply that the "a psychic" actually has scientifically inexplicable abilities. Therefore, even if a psychic does exist in the real world, they may not have psychic powers. ArbCom: "Psychic means someone who has, or claims to have, these powers. These powers may not exist, but the term still refers to real people." Article: "Psychic means someone who has these powers. These powers may not exist, and in that case the term has no real-world referent."

Lemma 3: The ArbCom's operative understanding of psychic differs in a subtle but crucial way from the psychic article. Actual paranormal powers are an intrinsic quality of a psychic according to the psychic article (although the existence these powers is contested), whereas paranormal powers are not intrinsic to the ArbCom's understanding of psychic (so even if these powers don't actually exist, there still may exist psychics).

A comment was made on the psychic talk page that I think exemplifies the potential for confusion: "When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate." Such a multifarious term could reasonably, from time to time, be misunderstood.

'For consideration: Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word psychic'' which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject.''' This is especially true given the content of the psychic article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12.

Thank you, Ante  lan  talk  08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Heaven, Soul, and a whole host of other terms that refer to something that may or may not exist do not bother saying that it is "claimed" to exist. Only terms that show up on a skeptical watchlists do. It's an issue on Energy (spirituality) but not on obscure terms that don't make it to the list like Prana. Psychic is a cultural artifact because everyone in the world already has an opinion on whether or not psychics are real, or totally bogus. Wikipedia does not have to inform them that psychics may not exist. They are quite aware of it already. No one will realistically read a technical definition at Wikipedia of psychic that says it refers to "supernatural forces, events, or powers" and walk away thinking "Holy cow, Wikipedia says psychics are real!" It's not even plausible. They have already formed their own opinion. All the other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. that don't bother saying that it may not exist don't waste the reader's time, or insults their intelligence, by pointing it out. If nothing else, it fails to meet the notability standard. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc.  The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article.  One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers.  Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud.  Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic.  It is largely  up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.


 * So to state it the way I have at other times that the meaning of the word "psychic" is "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings.  The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated- powers and doubt about thier reality.  Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving it your consideration. Ante  lan  talk  00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??

The psychic article says "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". " Thus, if we call someone a psychic, is is saying just what Antelan says it should say: "psychic" = "thought to have these abilities," and of course the full understanding would be that the person might or might not. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Antelan's was the nicest. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, that's true -it was very well done- and UninvitedCompany said "still," which must have been referring to his having not bought it before either. ––– Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone is a psychic is the equivalent of labeling them a faker. It is not necessary to say they are a faker so long as they are labeled as a "psychic". Fred Bauder 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

 * Involved users
 * , filing party


 * Party notifications
 * Martinphi
 * ScienceApologist

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
Basically, I saw (on WP:FTN) that Finding of Fact 11 of this case, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way...", a content decision, is being used to state that parapsychology must always be treated as a science. That is an explicit, disputed content ruling, and one not supported by most non-parapsychological sources. I think that the first sentence should be vacated.

Basically, this is a milder equivalent of the Arbcom saying that Creationism or Intelligent design must be considered science, because a few professors, such as Michael Behe, support them, as far as I can tell. Yes, a few researches have been done, but they do not have the respect of the scientific community. Here, for instance, is the journal Nature's report on the closing of a parapsychological lab (you can only read the opening, but it'll give you the idea of the tone.  Parapsychological "research" is almost entirely published in dedicated journals. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad: Can that be made explicit, then? Because as it stands, that is not clear. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify for FT2: I'd rather the Arbcom not get involved with content, but this Finding of Fact was being treated as a ruling on content by Martinphi: For instance, here, in defending his insistence that Parapsychology should be treated as a major part of the scientific community he writes: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&diff=242836390&oldid=242825599 "I assume the mantle of the ArbCom because the ArbCom was very clear in its decision. I know a lot of people don't like that decision, but till they can get the ArbCom to modify it, I think it should be followed ... As to the status of Parapsychology: We talked long with the ArbCom about that very issue, explained it thoroughly, and that is what they put in their decision. Did they make a mistake? Some think so. Did they do it by accident? No way."]

Hence, as Martinphi insists you did make a content ruling, a clear statement - as has been made here - that that finding of fact was not a content ruling, and cannot be used by Martinphi to insist on his preferred phrasings is all that's necessary. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) By the way, one P.S. to FT2 - I'm not actually convinced that research within the field of parapsychology is considered at all rigourous by most scientists. Certainly, I've heard some horrible things about the statistical analysis used by the Princeton lab. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi
It was not that content should be a certain way, but that content should not be a certain way: that the wording should not imply that if X is a scientist then ipso facto X thinks psychic experiments are no good. Further, the implication was that if a person is a parapsychologist, then ipso facto that person is not part of the scientific community. That's what the wording said, and that's what I used the ArbCom for in that case. I shouldn't have even needed the ArbCom, really, but I think the ArbCom was very clear on this. I don't think it was a content decision. Rather it was a decision that parapsychology cannot be dismissed as pseudoscience a priori, nor scientists within the field as outside the halls of science merely because they are in that field. Nor can sources within the field be dismissed as unreliable merely because they are in that field. If you call that content, yeah, but no more so than other decisions of the ArbCom.

Any clarification, were any needed, should involve Bauder and the other Arbs on that case. We went into great detail about the status of parapsychology at the time. Please note that the major skeptics such as James Randi say parapsychology is a science.

I think the purpose of the decision was to say that one should not edit out of an a priori dismissal. That is where editors were coming from in editing the articles before the ArbCom, and that is what the ArbCom meant to damp down. FYI, the Parapsychology article itself is largely based on an article in Nature. We also discussed with the ArbCom the difference between the scientific core of parapsychology and the outlying pseudoscientists who claim the name.

Nature also once published an article on a parapsychologist's book called "A book for burning?", and the author later stated "Sheldrake's is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy." —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Finding 3:

Yes, NYB I interpret that to be the ArbCom saying (overall in the decision): don't dismiss it, but don't eliminate criticism either. Is that a fair interpretation? I don't see the tension in the Cake finding, though. Can you make that clearer? I think the title says it- there are different aspects:

1. mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation

2. there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way

3. [there are] popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology.

4. [frosting] A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

This is, in fact, a direct outcome of our discussions with the ArbCom.

If you add in finding 3, I interpret it to mean:

Parapsychology engages in scientific research (is a science) but is also very controversial. I interpret this to be broader than stated, it's controversial in many ways, and criticized on many points. So don't eliminate criticism just because the scientific field which covers the subject has a consensus that psi phenomena exist.

And come on, NYB: a mere summary of the parties positions? No, it can't be that, as it is a finding of fact. That is a really novel way of interpreting a finding of fact, and indicates there is something of which I'm unaware. Are findings of fact often summaries of what one side of the dispute thinks, without including the other side, and not qualified to make it clear that this is a finding of fact about what the parties believe? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I take it from Fred Bauder's statement below that my deductions are correct: the Three layer cake with frosting finding is not merely a statement of what the parties believe. It is a statement of the "objective situation."

and

Three layer cake with frosting is not intended to determine what content to put in an article, that is, to resolve content disputes. It is merely a statement of the objective situation which undergirds the process by which the actual content of articles are written.

The reason for such a finding would be to lay the basis for the rest of the ArbCom. It is also meant to be used by editors as a groundwork of fact for building articles, but it is not meant to be interpreted to any great degree beyond what it specifically says.

To the extent that it forms a framework, it does have some bearing on the content of articles, since the objective situation always has a bearing on content.

I interpret it this way because if findings of fact and principle have no bearing on the way in which we edit articles, then the entire ArbCom on the Paranormal said nothing, as it is all Principles and Findings of Fact, nothing else. If the ArbCom on the paranormal is relevant at all, it seems to me that it is relevant in the way I have laid out here. Findings 3 and 11  were relevant in the instance where I used  11  (either would have sufficed).

As a general rule, there are many permutations of content which could be in an article, but they should not conflict with the ArbCom's principles and findings of fact. This is how ArbComs, in my experience, are always interpreted.

Please correct me if I am wrong. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You stated "the Three layer cake with frosting finding is not merely a statement of what the parties believe. It is a statement of the 'objective situation' [...] Three layer cake with frosting is not intended to determine what content to put in an article [...] It is merely a statement of the objective situation which undergirds the process by which the actual content of articles are written."


 * If I understand you right, you're saying that you interpret it to be a description of the objective situation (that such views exist), and some detail how they inter-relate, what significance each has, and their foundations, and as an arbcom-stated description, that it should thus underpin how the article is written. If so (which I may have misunderstood) then you might have misinterpreted. It was intended to outline broad features of the background for those reviewing the dispute and interpreting the basis of the decision. It does not mean in any way that arbitrators exhaustively reviewed the topic and concluded as editors what due weight each view should be given, and should not be used for that purpose. I've explained more below. FT2 (Talk 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I interpret the Paranormal ArbCom to mean that, for example, an article should not say "Scientists discount the existence of any type of Extra-sensory perception" (indicating all scientists discount it). That indicates that if X is a scientist, X is not a parapsychologist (who believes the general consensus of the field).  In other words, parapsychologists are not scientists.  That is the kind of thing I use the ArbCom ruling for.


 * Thus, yes, it has relevance for content. All ArbCom decisions have some connection to content, for instance the discussion below about the pseudoscience category.  The category is content.


 * No, due weight is not covered directly by the Paranormal ArbCom. But it does cover whether parapsychology can be summarily dismissed as pseudoscience.  It does have great relevance to content in terms of whether we use the word "purported" when referring to psychics, instead of treating a psychic as a "cultural artifact."  It does have relevance to content when we use "framing" links such as Paranormal in the leads of articles.


 * It indicates very clearly that parapsychology does do some serious scientific study (leaving aside any discussion of results). Thus, I think it is not too much of a stretch to think that it indicates that we should not throw out all peer-reviewed sources within the field as unreliable merely because they are within the field. They might be unreliable or they might be reliable, but the fact that they are written/reviewed by parapsychologists does not make them unreliable ipso facto.


 * The decision does not determine weight, or the general content of articles. But it does have some bearing on them.


 * The paranormal ArbCom obviously made decisions which have real implications for content, as noted above with the word "purported." I think we need to be very careful not to take it as prescriptive as to which POVs are allowed in articles, or the WEIGHT given those POVs.


 * Yet, at the same time, if we do not summarily dismiss parapsychological sources as unreliable, that will have a bearing on WEIGHT. I do not think that the decision can be entirely separated from content.


 * You say "Without determining how the content issue should read, some fairly obvious facts might help to show by way of example how multiple views on the "cake" can be fitted together"


 * Well, that's content. Your "obvious facts" are actually in great dispute when you say "A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis."  I think this ArbCom needs to be conservatively interpreted and not abused, but it does have relevance to content, and weight, as with any set of principles or facts.

I think we either need to throw out this ArbCom, or admit that its principles and findings of fact will have real implications for writing articles, that is to say, content. It does not determine content strictly speaking, but it sets parameters and gives general guidance. As in the case of Adequate framing, it was obviously originally intended to: "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more." —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Current understanding:

The Paranormal ArbCom is meant to give guidance as to when editors are being disruptive or POV pushing. It sets some basic parameters which are not restrictive in terms of article intellectual content. But they do show when an editor is POV pushing or being disruptive.

Example:


 * "3) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor."

Thus, if an editor denies there is controversy surrounding parapsychology, or attempts to say that the issue of its status or results is decided, that editor is POV pushing. Similarly, if an editor tries to assert that a parapsychologist cannot be a scientist, or that parapsychology as a whole is nothing but pseudoscience, that editor is POV pushing.

Example:


 * "6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling", or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

If an editor of an article which adequately frames and presents differing prominent views in its text is nevertheless insisting that doubt needs to be cast on the subject through means similar to those described by the ArbCom, that editor is POV pushing. Just as, in the opposite case an editor is POV pushing who inserts "Jeane Dixon is known for her amazing psychic powers." —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nealparr
Regarding the article that Shoemaker referenced in Nature reporting on the closing of a parapsychological lab, it's interesting that he used it because that article actually covers three different views on parapsychology in much the same way that Fred mentioned below when he said "Our articles can legitimately contain all four points of view with appropriate sourcing and handling of each." The author of the article mentions three different views: 1) The view of Chris French, a skeptic and anomalistic psychologist, that such work is worth pursuing, 2) The view of Robert Park, a physicist at Princeton, that such work is "unscientific", and 3) The view of William Happer, another physicist at Princeton, (described as the "middle ground"), that it's within science but a waste of time. The full-text I posted here (though technically I probably wasn't supposed to). This is directly a "viewpoint" question, and no better article demonstrates this than the one Shoemaker referenced because that article, in the respected Nature, treats it as a question rather than an answer, and again presents three different views on the matter. The question, quoted from the article, is: "But the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?" The question both legitimizes the methods as scientific, even as it's questioning the research, but note it posed as a question rather than answer.

On a side-note, I never saw the ArbCom ruling as a definitive directive on content either. It always read as principles to consider. If you read the actual parapsychology article (at least last I checked), it does a good job of presenting all the various views on the topic. Probably not perfect, but definitely not a result of a definitive directive from the ArbCom to write the article a certain way. Several of us bumped heads in writing that article and taking it to FA status, and I don't think the ArbCom ruling had much to do with the final result. Rather it was following the sources. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Pursuant to this case, the authority of ArbCom has been used as a bludgeon in content disputes (other examples exist, but I'm too lazy to dig them up at present). It would be great if that could stop. A simple reaffirmation that ArbCom does not settle content disputes, and an injunction to sort out these issues through the usual process without recourse to name-dropping, would be enough. MastCell Talk 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2 (uninvolved; commentary)
The root of this problem - and related problems in other fringe-type articles - is that it effectively boils down to efforts by wikipedia editors (on all sides) to legislate who can and cannot be considered a scientist. This is not something the 'scientific community' (to the extent that such a thing even exists; that's really a mindless abstraction of a much more complex social structure) ever does on its own, and I'm not sure why it has become such an issue on Wikipedia. Individual scientists may indulge in disparaging criticism of others, yes, and there are practical barriers to membership (academic degrees, access to research funding and equipment, membership in academic associations, etc.) but as a whole scientists accept and reject other scientists and their work mainly on the work's functional and pragmatic merits. if some group of parapsychologists meet basic membership requirements and follows reasonable and rigorous methodological practices, no academic scientist could meaningfully say that these parapsychologists were not scientists or that they were not engaged in scientific research. they might call them idiots, and might suggest that they are wasting time, money, and careers on vapid pusuits, but the fact is that one can do good research on stupid topics, so long as one is willing to admit when it fails; standing as a scientist is based on the quality of the research. Believe me, if these parapsychologists somehow managed to produce some methodologically sound, unambiguous, reproducible result, there isn't a scientist in the world who wouldn't hail them as geniuses; their marginal state is due to the fact that they can't produce such results, and has little if nothing to do with the topic they study.

frankly, it's not our place to try to determine what is and isn't (or who is and isn't) scientific. if there's a group of people who want to say they form "a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way", then that's ok. We should report that, along with reporting their successes, failures, and any criticisms they've generated. -- Ludwigs 2 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator Comments

 * I read the "three layer cake with frosting" finding as a statement or summary of background information or the parties' positions rather than anything more. There is also some tension between the sentences of the quoted "three layer cake with frosting" finding, as well as between this finding and finding 3 in the same case, which states that "parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor." I do not believe that any of these observations were intended to control the outcome of any content disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Addendum and response to Martinphi By "the parties" I should have been more clear that I mean parties to the overall (on-wiki and real-world) debate surrounding these issues, not just the parties to the arbitration case. I see that Fred Bauder has commented immediately below; he wrote the decision, as I'm sure you recall, so his comments are probably the most reliable guide to what it was intended to mean. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not determine content disputes. Three layer cake with frosting is simply a restatement of the objective situation: the attitude of the mainstream scientific community; the small faction of the scientific community that attempts to study parapsychology using scientific methods; parapsychology as popular culture; and skeptics. Our articles can legitimately contain all four points of view with appropriate sourcing and handling of each. Fred Talk 01:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The intent of most ArbCom cases is to assist in settling content disputes that are not being resolved because user conduct issues make Wikipedia's usual dispute resolution processes not work. Frequently, ArbCom has to examine the underlying content dispute to understand why articles on a particular topic have ongoing content disputes. In some of these cases, the Committee makes broad observations in our finding of fact that explain the nature of the dispute, and recognize that more content disputes are likely to occur due to underlying issues that are beyond the control of Wikipedia to solve. Articles related ethnic conflicts and articles on pseudoscience (or fringe science) are examples of two topics with ongoing disputes that are not going to solved in short order by following the usual Wikipedia dispute resolution process.


 * In these instances, our ruling does not intend to set in stone any particular set of content facts, but instead the Committee offers a reasonable interpretation of how the issue can be framed based on core Wikipedia polices, in particular Neutral point of view. In these cases, our rulings should be seen as a starting place for sorting out ongoing content issues. It is not our intension for our ruling to mandate a particular point of view be included, or establish the weight that should be given to a point of view. Rather, it is a good faith attempt by Wikipedian's that are knowledgeable about content policy to frame the issues in a way that works with the particular articles in question in the particular dispute that we are addressing. Frequently, but not always, the decision can be reasonable way to settle similar content disputes. In future disputes, uninvolved experienced users might be aided in resolving the dispute by reviewing previous case rulings since they may explain the underlaying dispute. But, our past rulings should not replace new good faith attempts by uninvolved users to sort out a new disputes in different ways. And new or ongoing problematic user conduct that were not resolved in a previous case can addressed through the normal dispute processes or through case sanctions (if appropriate).


 * Specific to this case: The ruling frames the underlying issue (the vastly different views of different groups of people on the topic.) in a manner that is compatible with writing an article on the topic using Wikipedia's core policies as a guide. It remains up to editors to apply the policies to the particular content of a particular article. In this instance, since the involved users have given their input on the topic many times before, it might be helpful for them to step back and let other users give their views. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a lot to add to my colleagues words. This case seems to be asking for a content finding, which I would rather not go into. The original decision should not be sought to be used as a finding of content. It was clearly intended far more, as a part of describing the Wikipedia dispute being addressed, and identifying the significant views and in the field that underpinned the dispute. Either way it is not prescriptive in any way of "how we should see the topic" (although it might be a fair description of the views which were being argued over). Sometimes the quickest way to resolve an NPOV dispute is to show how different views might be better accomodated with reasonable due weight. Without determining how the content issue should read, some fairly obvious facts might help to show by way of example how multiple views on the "cake" can be fitted together:  "'Psychic' matters are studied both with scientific rigor, and without it, as well as being the subject of beliefs that do not have scientific backing. Mainstream science tends to neither study, nor express interest in psychic matters. This is for various reasons based on professional culture, reputation, publication, falsifiability, conservatism, and past history of the field. A minor branch of science, known as 'parapsychology', attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis, however the topic is generally treated as controversial and marginal by scientists outside its own field. Research outside the scientific world is usually not considered to meet the basis of formality needed to scientifically prove any given result, although some matters have been studied now and then, and skeptics ('debunkers') are often given credence in demonstrating the need for rigorous evidence-based testing."  I don't say that is perfect, and it could surely be improved, but it may (if cited) give an indication of how the subject might give a balanced view of the main aspects and each layer of the "cake". It seems my colleagues have covered the dispute issues and principles; I feel it may just help to give an example "how the intro might be done", even though this can in no way be considered part of a "decision" on the dispute. FT2 (Talk 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Fringe theories/Arbitration cases
Request archived here. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018)
Original discussion

Initiated by Guy Macon at 03:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Statement by Guy Macon
This involves the Parapsychology page. quoted an arbcom case from 2007 that says

"there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way"

This conflicts with the lead of Parapsychology, which says

"It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists".

The discussion at Talk:Parapsychology seems relevant.

Please clarify: is there an arbcom ruling that mandates calling parapsychology a scientific discipline as opposed to pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Discretionary sanctions alert: --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Related:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Fringe theories/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In the arbitrator views and discussion section, Rob13 correctly pointed out that "the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content". Apparently, Morgan Leigh did not get the message, because he wrote "Wikipedia has already ruled that...", quoting the Findings of Fact section of a 2007 arbcom request for arbitration.

In more recent arbcom cases, the findings of facts always focus on user behavior, but it seems that things were a bit different in 2007, and the case (request, really -- that's something else that was done differently back then) has multiple findings of facts that really do look a lot like the Arbitration Committee ruling on content. In my considered opinion, a simple clarification saying that ancient arbcom requests that appear to rule on content should not be used the way Morgan Leigh used this one would clarify the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that in this RfC Morgan Leigh has repeated his "Despite an existing arbitration ruling" language, claiming that arbcom has ruled in his favor in a content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To Morgan Leigh's credit, he has closed the above RfC and replaced it with
 * Talk:Parapsychology.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * WTT, It is unclear whether Morgan Leigh now agrees that arbcom does not issue rulings on content disputes or whether he is simply following the guidance found at
 * Requests for comment
 * and at
 * Writing requests for comment.


 * If Morgan Leigh now agrees that arbcom does not issue rulings on content disputes, then the point is indeed moot, but I would like to see him explicitly state that rather than assuming it and then watching him continue to claim that arbcom has ruled in favor of his preferred content and having to re-file this clarification request.


 * Another aspect is that this should be closed in such a way that a reader in 2029 can clearly understand what the arbcom policy about content disputes was in 2018. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Morgan Leigh
There is a Request for comment underway on the talk page regarding this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#RfC:_Should_reliable_sources_that_defend_parapsychology_be_excluded_altogether? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Users left feedback they they didn't think the the RfC was neutral or specific enough. I have closed it and opened a new one [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#RfC_Are_the_sources_specified_in_this_RfC_reliable? here] Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The focus of this dispute is about reliable sources. I have added reliable sources that defend parapsychology. Some of these sources are from the very same journals and academic publishers, and in once case from the exact same book, as sources that are in the article at present being used to criticise. Other editors are arguing that reliable sources cannot be used if they are written by parapsychologist because parapsychology is "plainly false", "we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources", and that my sources contained "stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like".

The article presently says that "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". I am trying to add cited sources that defend parapsychology to add balance. There are presently nineteen sources in the lede alone that criticize parapsychology and none that defend it. I tried to add one and it was reverted with the edit summary "reverted fringe pov". So I provided more and they were all reverted with a claim that it was "massive undue weight on a minority view".

Some examples of things I cited:

Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses."

Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves."

However other editors are constantly removing them contenting that these sources cannot be cited at all on account of them being written by parapsychologists. So I added this source, which is by a critic of parapsychology:

Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical."

But it was removed with a comment that said I was "cherry picking" quotes.

For a full list of other sources cited and removed please see the RfC. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I took this issue to the NPOV noticeboard and notified all editors involved. I have only just learned, from Guy Macron's statement here, that this issue was taken to the fringe theories noticeboard by Simonm223, who did not notify me. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User: Guy Macon has arbitrarily used closed discussion and archived my original statement in listing RfC - i.e. "Despite an existing arbitration ruling here where it was found that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream." If he was not happy with the wording he could have asked me to change it. In order to address his concerns I have replaced the text with, "Despite this finding that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream." Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I have removed the paragraph from the beginning to the discussion section and put a simple, more neutral sentence in its place. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded to feedback and closed the RfC and opened a new more specific one. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to address the issue that the quote was taken out of context. While Guy has excerpted from the quote in presenting his request here, I quoted the entire finding as can be seen here No powerful confirming data all all.


 * I understand that arbcom does not rule on content. However this finding is from the last time that the issue of parapsychology was arbitrated on which is why I relied on it. There are serious problems, mostly with content, but also with user conduct at the parapsychology article that I feel need to be addressed. e.g. I have been threatened with admin action a number of times by these editors. I feel that a group of editors with a particular agenda are POV pushing. How can it otherwise be explained that the exact same sources that are deemed good enough to criticise a position are not deemed good enough to defend it? When I try to add balance with citations from within the exact same journals, books from the same university presses or even from the exact same books as criticism I am accused of cherry picking quotes. This is not how academic writing works. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by LuckyLouie
Some of the language in this 11 year-old case has apparently been misinterpreted to suggest Arbcom has ruled on a content issue. Suggest a clarification if needed, then close. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

 * Honestly, I think this request should be thrown out. No offense to Guy Macon, but scrolling up the page would have contextualized the quote Morgan is harping on about and shown their use of that quote to be just cherry picking. In my opinion, an enforcement request against Morgan would be more productive, as they are clearly engaged in pro-fringe advocacy at that article and other locations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tgeorgescu
At this moment I have nothing to add to this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JJE
Um, actually that arbitration case does exist: Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223
As far as I know I did not bring up anything to do with Paranormal at the Fringe noticeboard. I brought up issues related to Parapsychology at the Fringe noticeboard. And while I'm rather exasperated by 's conduct there, and did eventually suggest this as a venue for their tendentious editing at Parapsychology I didn't have the time or energy to post to Arb/E and as such didn't notify them as I didn't take an action on it. I don't believe you are required to notify a user to a discussion involving their edits on a wikiproject page which is not used for the issuing of any sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Update OK, I see this is in fact about Parapsychology and yes, I did make that statement at WP:FRINGE/N but, again, I didn't open an Arb/E case, nor AN/I nor 3RR/N nor any other complaint at a board with any sort of enforcement capability, so I don't see how my failure to notify Morgan Leigh is at all relevant to this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
ArbCom does not make binding content decisions. It is also quite possible for both statements - that there is a discipline of studying it, and that psi itself is pseudoscience - to be simultaneously true. As the historical proponents of psi (Puthoff, for example) have retired, so study has focused more on the cognitive biases that cause people to believe in it, and the people working on the basis that it's real have become increasingly isolated. We're now in a situation where much of the argumentation for psi in the literature is motivated reasoning by people whose ideas have also been rejected. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {Other Editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Paranormal: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Paranormal: Arbitrator views and discussion
11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking. The firm concept of "Arbcom does not rule on content" is more recent than that ruling so lines have been blurred in the past. There are a number of factors which need to be taken into account - 1) The quote is taken out of context, which starts by saying that mainstream science does not include the paranormal. 2) Saying that there scientific methods are being used does not stop an area from being a pseudo-science. 3) Consensus (and the real world) can change over such a long period and Wikipedia does not have to remain fixed based on one finding 11 years ago. 4) Most importantly, content decisions are made by the community and by consensus for a reason - Arbcom does not decide on content issues. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this request. The linked ArbCom case doesn't exist. I assume you meant Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? If so, discretionary sanctions are still active from that case, and that's it for remedies that affect more than just individual editors. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, the reason it was red-linked was because there was "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration" twice in the wikilink for some reason. In any event, the answer is still the same, basically. Content issues are decided by the community, and ArbCom can't step in here to decide the content dispute other than to say that relevant policies and guidelines apply (such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE). ~ Rob 13 Talk 11:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the scientific method to study something doesn't automatically make it a legitimate branch of science. I could make any number of studies using the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, analysis of results) about my cat's ability to predict my week by meowing. They can be as technically correct as anything, but that doesn't make meowology a real science. The statement in the ArbCom case wasn't wrong; there are people who do attempt actual studies of parapsychological phenomena. The fact that those people do that, and that ArbCom remarked on it in 2007, doesn't invalidate the consensus of the overall scientific community that parapsychology is pseudoscience. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There definitely is a case, it's just 11 years old and therefore stored in the old style cases. This is the finding in question, which is quoted in full
 * Having looked further, it seems Morgan Leigh has now started a new RfC, rendering this moot. Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * as much as it would be nice for Morgan Leigh to acknowledge our points of view, you asked the question, we clarified, he changed his RfC. As far as I'm concerned, that should be the end of it with regards to the ARCA. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number elements to consider here, the first is PMC's point, the second is Worm's point that the quote has been taken out of context, the third that some common sense needs to applied to a decision made more than 11 years ago, the third is that ArbCom doesn't, and can't, make rule on what content should be in articles, the fourth is that, as Worm notes, the comment has been taken out of context, and the fifth is that this is a finding of fact (in the case) not a remedy so is not binding on anything anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)