Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop

Gah, this page is filling up fast and I don't have the time to read it all. For the record, if I miss something or don't respond to something right away, that doesn't imply that I support or oppose it. -- Nealparr  (yell at me 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics
I was wondering if the paranormal enthusiasts participating in this RfArb might consider ceasing to identify the targets of their critiques as a single group called the "skeptics." There really is no coherent body here standing in defiant opposition to paranormal truths. I hadn't even heard of Wikiproject Rational Skepticism until someone mentioned it during Martinphi's RfC. More importantly, I do not believe anyone disagreeing with "pro-paranormal" users self-identifies as a skeptic when discussing articles. It thus smacks of a pejorative usage in this context.

Needless to say, Davkal's choice to call users with whom he disagrees the "pseudosceptical side" is even worse. Please don't do that, either.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the way the Workshop page is intended to work?
More than 170k of text before any ArbCom has even commented. --Pjacobi 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion, but it seems heavy on discussion and light on evidence. Even on the evidence page, in some sections there are long paragraphs making accusations with few diffs showing examples of the alleged behaviour.  --Minderbinder 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Long, passionate diatribes and speculative semantic excursions are unhelpful to the Arbcom members. If there are diffs that show examples of nonconsensus POV-pushing and refusal to acknowledge WP:V, they should be posted. - LuckyLouie 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that refactoring may be in order and I'm particularly unimpressed with certain uninvolved editors involving themselves here. However, I'd like to see an arbitrator or a clerk do this. --ScienceApologist 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see some input from an Arbcom member on whether this is just about user conduct or if it is also about other issues. If it's just about user conduct, much of what I've added can be removed, though some of it involves what is and isn't POV, and that might be related to user conduct issues.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence is huge and isn't just about user conduct. Any insight Arbcom guys?
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues overall seem to be an overlapping mix of conduct, content, and interpretation of WP policy. Considering that article stability is a goal, we might consider requesting that some articles be put on article probation. - LuckyLouie 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote
On a sidenote (as in not part of the arbitration to my knowledge), I was wondering what editors thought of the paranormal article? POV, NPOV, good coverage, needs more coverage, etc? -- Nealparr  (yell at me 04:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, all head articles for entire fields are rather bad on Wikipedia (compared to their importance and to good encyclopedias), in my not so humble opinione this applies to Paranormal as well as e.g. to Physics.
 * My favorite complaint: We have a lot of dedicated navigation mechanisms (lists, categories, navboxes, portals) -- why haunt the main article with tons of textless wikilinks. Physics has two blue monster tables of and Paranormal has a subjects lists, a TV guide and a see also.
 * Sorry for the nitpicking ;-)
 * Further, The Paranormal, and the article Paranormal, both suffer from a demarcation problem, which is unsolved in the article.
 * No sources from anthropology, religious studies, and psychiatry have been used.
 * Pjacobi 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty fair assessment. I don't know how it can demarcate what is and isn't paranormal any better. It's mostly just an adjective. How would you demarcate the adjective "extraordinary" to any narrow extent? Most dictionaries agree that paranormal means something unexplainable by science, like an anomaly, but in practice it's also meant to describe something spooky. That's still a pretty broad area.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If correlating the word "paranormal" to a specific subjects looks quixotic, Paranormal should become a disambig directing the reader to more specific articles or a pseudo-disambig (briefly discussing the word usage and linking to more specific articles), like the (not that great) de:Paranormal. --Pjacobi 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really care for those types of pages because they seem lazy. Might as well be a category page, and if a category why not just a redirect to the category? I think that would be a disservice to the article, though, because I think there are some notable ideas that are generally applied to the paranormal without getting specific (like what's there now). I'd love to see the paranormal article expanded to have brief summaries of other general ideas, like of how science sees the paranormal, some statistics on paranormal commerce (book industry, conventions, etc), and so on. These are all general things about paranormal pop culture that wouldn't look right as a list of links. There should at least be basic summaries before a link to a main article. If I'm understanding quixotic correctly, like vaporous, I don't think it is.
 * -- Nealparr  (yell at me 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream philosophy of science
Presently, mainstream philosophy of science is lockstep with the general mentality of mainstream science. There are some notable critics of metaphysical naturalism and certain details of various demarcation solutions, but talking to the average philosopher of science today is like talking to the average scientist (except the philosopher probably can't calculate Fourier series ;) ). The philosophical controversy that exists is why things like astrology, the paranormal, freudian psychoanalysis, etc. are pseudoscientific, not whether they are.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigmund Freud is a pseudoscience? As far as I know psychoanalysis is pretty solid. For philosophy of science, depend on whether you are talking about scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas (some of it came from Aristotelian methods), or Auguste Comte's positivism (which I think that's what you think it's "mainstream philosophy of science", but there is no way to see if it is) or Karl Popper's analytic philosophy. Each philosophy of science has different ideas. Off topic, I haven't learned Fourier series yet, but I guess all those individuals I mentioned above can calculate Taylor series. :-) WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, most scientists regard Freudian theory to be pseudoscientific. Psychoanalysis is now mainly of historical interest (but it does have a few devotees still breathing). And as someone who is destined to be permanently embedded in academia, I can tell you that in the Anglophonic philosophical world&mdash;which is currently the philosophical world outside of a few trendy Parisian cafés&mdash;professional philosophers are overwhelmingly analytic. Some programs are more accommodating to Continental stuff, but most have only one or two token faculty positions open to it (for "diversity"). My own program has a single, underpaid adjunct teaching non-analytic material (I'm not sure if he does any research). He doesn't even get his own office.
 * From UT's Brian Leiter:
 * "All the Ivy League universities, all the leading state research universities, all the University of California campuses, most of the top liberal arts colleges, most of the flagship campuses of the second-tier state research universities boast philosophy departments that overwhelmingly self-identify as 'analytic': it is hard to imagine a 'movement' that is more academically and professionally entrenched than analytic philosophy. [ italics his ]"
 * And in these universities, talking to the average philosopher of science is like talking to a scientist (who can't add). It really is that straightforward. Maybe some day philosophers will try to move things with their minds and consult the stars on what to have for dinner, but the ones who do today are sent next door to the psychology department for evaluation.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that in English-speaking world, Anglo-American analytic philosophy is the mainstream philosophy of science. However, as an encyclopedia we need to have a global view. The Continental rationalistic philosophy may prevail in European continent (although I don't know). The realm of philosophy is extremely diverse, this kind of philosophy even outrightly rejects both scientific and non-scientific concepts. WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the Anglophonic philosophical world is the philosophical world. All international conferences&mdash;including the World Congress of Philosophy&mdash;are held in English (though some papers are read in languages other than English). A non-Anglophone philosopher "goes international" when he or she gets published in a prominent English-language journal. It's simply the lingua franca of philosophy, and the present movement in philosophy of science is as I've described it above.
 * Oh, and "nihilism" is something teenagers write in red on their black backpacks (right below the anarchy sign).  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So positivism and analytic philosophy is the dominant? Where is Hegelianism? In my knowledge Hegel was pretty influential in philosophy as well. Anyways, the nihilism one was off-topic, and no, those "anarchist" kid don't even know what nihil is. WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can go through 12 years of formal philosophical training (my own continued fate) without reading a word of Hegel. The same can't be said for Dennett, Kripke, Lewis, Moore, Nozick, Popper, Putnam, Quine, Rawls, Russell, or Wittgenstein.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Simoes thanks for the information. For years I thought Hegel was a crucial figure in philosophical history, I thought that when I see it took a great guy I respect to refute Hegel. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kierkegaard's works are only slightly more read than Hegel's in contemporary philosophy departments. ;)  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

voting
can a clerk please refactor out the rampant voting? it's a mockery of the arbitration process, in my opinion as an uninvolved (as far as i know) user. --Random832 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Off to see the wizard
I know I'm a party in this ArbCom, but I need to take a few days/weeks off for real-world projects. Sorry for any inconvenience. Please consider anything after this timestamp to neither be endorsed nor rejected by me personally. If anyone needs me to respond to anything, please drop a note on my talk page or send me an email as I probably won't be reading through everything posted here. Thanks and sorry I couldn't stick it out. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg
Can someone please clarify the copyright status of Image:(c)2006aaevp-concerns with wikipedia small.jpg? It is claimed to be copyrighted and fair use, but I'm unclear on how this applies. --Strangerer (Talk) 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology rewrite
The parapsychology article has been drastically revised, partly to make it more stable and reduce edit conflicts, and partly to address some of the concerns and points made in this arbitration. It accurately reflects the scientific consensus against parapsychology, and presents criticism from such mainstream periodicals as Nature (without rebuttal). It does present notable parapsychological research, but is completely framed as a fringe science and points out that these results have not been accepted by mainstream science. This is mentioned clearly in several places. The bulk of the article approaches parapsychology from a historical perspective. While the revision was mostly made to cleanup the horrible state it was in, it was written taking into account this arbitration and its progress thus far. I'm hoping the arbitration will consider the updated version in its findings, especially in the principles dealing with parapsychology. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments, anyone?
Just wonderin'. SheffieldSteel 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consistently trollish edits (nonconsensus removal of material). Looks like another straw man sockpuppet. - LuckyLouie 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a typo or is it really P - suede - o instead of pseudo? LOL
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, This person can't even spell pseudo correctly. Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)