Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Archive 1

Statement by KrishnaVindaloo 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is a key issue in the phil of science, and it is becoming an increasingly important area in other areas e.g.as information becomes more widespread and as fringe groups and PS applications multiply. There have been many improvements lately, to the application of the NPOV policy on pseudoscience to Wikipedia articles. There have been quite a few editors who have contributed to these improvements, including FeloniousMonk mentioned above. They have largely centered on clarity, and specific explanations for views on pseudoscience. For example, the pseudoscience category has undergone quite a lot of improvement towards clarity, and its description has been improved in order to help the reader browse articles that pertain to pseudoscience. These more specific explanations have, however, been resisted very strongly by certain proponents of various pseudoscientific followings. The resistence strategies include; wikilawyering by restricting to pubmed articles for example, yet using OR with those articles; repeat badgering for explanations in order to cause conflict (a kind of vexatious litigation); groups of proponents using social pressure on single editors and making unfounded accusations; trying to gain votes from a proponent group in order to remove an editor from an article; and trying to use consensus to trump NPOV policy. In reply to Gleng above, Wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliability does not state that only pubmed articles are allowed. Professionals and other experts are perfectly reliable, as are other professional peer reviewed sources. However, taking pubmed articles and squeezing blatant OR out of them is unacceptable. Some articles are locked, and there are cliques on both "sides". But working with the non-proponents is really very easy. Some reluctance to change is due to the intensely unconstructive behaviour of some proponents. Non-proponents are quite easy to work with, but compromising with proponents has led to proponents making personal attacks and persistent accusations of "pathalogical liar" etc without them even trying to access the peer reviewed literature that I presented. Now that editors have certain facts established (eg, alternave medicines being PS in practice or theory), there is still resistence to explaining exactly why those subjects (or parts of them) are considered pseudoscientific. Pseudoscientific arguments are often placed in articles, and the scientific views concerning those arguments are often removed or altered by proponents. Pseudoscientific explanations and excuses are intrinsically confusing and just grossly misleading. The enormous resistance to explaining why certain subjects are considered PS, and the persistent addition of PS arguments to articles often makes the going tough. Pseudoskepticism hardly gets even a look in. Editors are simply making legitimate explanations for why a subject is considered PS. The complaints about pseudoskepticism specifically are unwarranted in my view. Editors are perfectly constructive when taking a PS view (which they do) and explaining it from the scientific viewpoint. I'm not advocating the removal of PS explanations, but they should be presented from the science view. If a PS view is fringe then it should not be part of the article. One of the worst things that can happen to an article is a PS view being explained from the view of pseudoscience. Fringe is not what WP is about and "Grossly misleading" is not what we want articles to end up with. OK having had a look at the difs presented, I can say that any un-adminish behaviour is the exception rather than the rule. In the heat of discussion some facts can be dismissed and I would be forgiving, especially when the dismisser is being attacked by hardened proponents. Certainly pseudoskeptic is a ridiculous slur, especially when coming from those with an obvious and proven personal agenda. Solution: If there is a reliable and verifiable source that states a specific view is pseudoskeptical, then it can be mentioned in the article. KrishnaVindaloo 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of concerned User:Rednblu
Let us not forget that Wikipedia has made the most progress ever made in history toward giving NPOV access to human knowledge. But within that epic canvas of Wikipedia success and achievement, User:Iantresman brings to our attention two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV.

Many of us careful neutral editors have spent long hours trying to see exactly as much as possible through, for example, Newton's eyes--what was it that Newton saw in alchemy? -- and what is actually in all the superstitions that Newton, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush dream up, take dictation from, and pray to asking for their salvation from--global warming? There are plenty of scholars who have written brilliant and useful analyses of the powerful superstitious forces that govern American politics. But it is a waste of time to report carefully and accurately the WP:V of WP:RS of what actually moves George Bush and the Republican Party--because these two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention rip NPOV from the page with Edit summaries that blast the pseudoscience in the significant WP:V of WP:RS of the significant scholars that these two well-meaning destroyers of NPOV cannot stand.

And this problem is all the fault of the murky and self-contradictory text of, for example, the WP:NPOV page. Both of these well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention follow the irrational part of the policy text of WP:NPOV that wrongly states that NPOV is determined by the consensus of the reasonable editors. Of course, the well-meaning destroyers of NPOV that User:Iantresman brings to our attention are wrong about NPOV--for NPOV is determined by the significant movements in history, whether clear-headed or superstitious. And what needs to be fixed is the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV to actually support the grand mission of "representing significant views fairly and without bias" against the POV in the WP:V of WP:RS of the significant views.

For all of the above reasons, we should close this futile RfAr and reconvene at a Wikipedia ProjectPage to fix the murky and self-contradictory policy text of the WP:NPOV page so that Wikipedia policy is logical and actually supports rather than destroys the grand mission of "representing significant views fairly and without bias." What do you think? --Rednblu 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of semi-involved User:Pjacobi
If this case gets opened, I beg to be included. I'm a member of pseudoscience watchers' cabal. And if any article about a topic of astronomy isn't written from a typical mainstream astronomy point of view I'd be happy to correct this. If didn't revert User:Iantresman often enough to be listed by him, I humply apologize. It wasn't on purpose. Note that I'm all for following WP:BLP and wouldn't tolerate turning a biography into a character assassination, even and especially for notable proponents of pseudoscientific theories -- compare the recent cleanup at Myron Evans. --Pjacobi 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Uncle Ed
I agree with the claim that FeloniousMonk and ScienceApologist have pushed their POV. They have misused the "undue weight" provision to justify this.

They are making a whole series of Wikipedia endorse their point of view on the Theory of Evolution and related topics. Instead of allowing articles to report what mainstream scientists think, they insist that the mainstream is correct and force each article to endorse the mainstream.

The remedy I seek is that articles on Evolution and other scientific controversies not be written from the POV that the mainstream view is true (or correct or right), but rather conform to NPOV policy and report that the mainstream asserts these viewpoints to be true.

This is a slight, but significant change. These articles need to "step back" and stop saying the mainstream view *IS* true; rather the articles should report that mainstream *SAYS THAT* certain theories, ideas, hypotheses, etc. are true.

It's the difference between "saying something is so" and "saying that X says Y is so".

The Intelligent design article is, in effect, locked up by FeloniousMonk and his clique. They allow no changes, however slight, unless the clique agrees to it; they also show prejudice against non-clique members, even on minor formatting changes.

They insist that nearly 90% of the article be dedicated to a proof that ID is pseudoscience. They will not permit the addition of any material that advances an argument or example presented by a pro-ID author (such as Michael Behe's views on blood coagulation).

I agree with the description of FeloniousMonk's behavior as uncivil and in general misusing his admin privileges. He has run a relentless campaign against anyone "new" to "his" articles, running them off with misdirection and specious wikilawyering arguments. He has even claimed that *I* (who am arguably the foremost exponent of Wikipedia after Jimbo himself) have "POV pushed" or made "POV forks" - but without giving a single reason why any edit or spin-off I've made violates NPOV. Then he misuses the bad reputation he has given me as "further proof" of "additional wrongs" - but the terrible irony is that he never gave initial proof, because he and his clique simply voted without giving any reasons or evidence. He is disrupting Wikipedia by this, and tearing down the sanctity of NPOV policy.

There are dozens of contributors who have tried to neutralize articles but have been thwarted and discouraged by the FeloniousMonk clique. It's time for this to stop, and for alternative points of view to be permitted in articles on controversial aspects of science.

Wikipedia should not endorse the scientific mainstream but remain neutral in all controversies. This is (supposed to be) non-negotiable. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Guettarda
Acting in conjunction with Ian Tresman, violation of the blocking policy, User:Shell Kinney blocked ScienceApologist in order to maintain her favoured version of an article. Prior to being de-sysop'd by the arbcomm, Ed Poor also blocked ScienceApologist despite being in conflict with him (as a result SA changed usernames and resigned from the project for several months). In both cases, the block came from an admin acting to maintain a pro-Pseudoscience POV in an article that SA was trying to NPOV. Wikipedia has a real problem with pro-pseudoscience editors like Ian Tresman, Krishna Vindaloo, Ed Poor and Shelly Kinney. Their continued POV-pushing hurts the credibiity of the project. Guettarda 13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I apologized to Joshua (ScienceApologist) for wrongfully blocking him, and he accepted my apology.
 * 2) I do not favor pseudoscience. I just don't like pro-mainstream Wikipedians using the bully pulpit of Wikipedia to champion their POVs against marginal ideas. Let the articles say, in each case, that "the scientific mainstream rejects this idea" or that "all but a few scientists regard this idea as pseudoscience". That's all I ask.
 * 3) Please do not misrepresent my view as asking Wikipedia to elevate pseudoscience to "fact". I want Wikipedia to remain neutral, not to take sides. The article should say X regards Y to be pseudoscience. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jonathanischoice
In his statement above, ScienceApologist contends that he is an expert in this field. He most certainly is not. Having a BA and a job as a community college level physics instructor does not constitute being an expert in anything. Neither Ian Tresman, nor Joshua Schroeder, nor I have published, peer-reviewed work in cosmology, therefore none of us is an expert in it. However Fred Hoyle, Hannes Alfven, Anthony Perrat, Eric Lerner and others are/were experts, though they hold or held non-consensus views. This does not make them pseudoscientists. This should not be in dispute, yet ScienceApologist consistently reduces debate about controversial scientific views (especially views he can't argue against conclusively) into pissing contests about who is the more qualified or who has more published work.

Now don't get me wrong:
 * I have sufficient scientific qualifications to understand the relevant material,
 * one does not need to be an expert in a subject in order to write effectively about it,
 * I do not necessarily disagree with most of ScienceApologist's sentiments.

However, the problem here is one of dogmatism - a myopic, pseudo-religious insistence that the current scientific consensus is the only lens through which to view a subject. There is a difference between on the one hand crackpot theories trying to explain (or worse, dismiss and marginalise) huge bodies of observational evidence by invoking untestable, unobservable or imaginary constructs (eg. God, dark energy), and scientists on the other hand who believe that the current consensus is flawed or flat out wrong, and are working on alternative theories that try different starting assumptions (and by their very nature are incomplete and less well-developed). One is science, one is not. The history of science is littered with the remains of previously unassailable, consensus scientific explanations.

There is/was a similar debate in evolution between Gould's punctuated equilibria and the more traditional gradualists. Nobody except the most rabid and opinionated of adherents would seriously maintain that the other party weren't true scientists, and only Creationists saw the existence of any such debate at all as evidence that evolution itself was therefore fundamentally wrong.

Some of SA's tactics are quite simply outrageous, make frequent recourse to various logical fallacies, and border on desperate. For example (sorry, I don't have time to find sources for these, and some of this is long standing back to early 2004):
 * Blunt refusal to even read some of the important papers in question (WMAP discrepancies),
 * Blatant and obvious misunderstanding of the papers when he finally did get round to reading (or claiming to have read) them,
 * Constant recourse to ad-populum,
 * Complete and categorical dismissal of entire discussions as irrelevant (especially when errors in his logic are pointed out to him),
 * Trying to claim that Creationist ideas qualify in the same category as other non-standard cosmologies (obviously trying to tar non-consensus scientific work with the same brush as Christian fundamentalism),
 * Reverting edits without discussion,
 * Constantly editing and reverting until basically everyone else gives up in frustration and disgust,
 * Ad-hominem attacks on Eric Lerner's person, reputation, qualifications, status as a legitimate scientist, and so on,
 * A protracted futile and silly argument last year about an illustration of plasma filaments in space, sourced from peer-reviewed material. It was at about this point when I realised what a serious pain in the arse wikitrolls are, and pretty much gave up after that.

In other words, this editor is a wikitroll. Jon 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Bubba73, not directly involved
I haven't had a chance to read all of this yet, but I want to point out two passages from NPOV


 * NPOV (Comparison of views in science) A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. That is, if an overwhelming majority of scientists consider something to be a fact, it can be stated as a fact, with no weasel "mainstream scientists believe...".  Bubba73 (talk), 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. Bubba73 (talk), 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this labeled "pseudoscience versus pseudoskepticism"? It is pseudoscience versus science. Bubba73 (talk), 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also want to add that I've seen a lot of edits by ScienceApologist, and I firmly believe that he/she is doing a huge amount of work toward improving Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 19:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Joke137, happily uninvolved
This seems to be a clear content dispute. Frankly, ScienceApologist is a seemingly tireless editor who does more than any other to stymie editors who are systematically trying to insert pseudoscientific and extremely marginal scientific viewpoints in Wikipedia articles. This work is extremely helpful to keep Wikipedia reliable and establish its credibility. He can occasionally seem abrupt or pigheaded in these efforts, but frankly I don't blame him. If anything, I think that he deserves commendation. –Joke 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience vs. Pseudoskepticism:Wikipedia already has a much more information about alternatives to the mainstream scientific views than an encyclopedia such as Britannica. This is as it should be: Wikipedia aspires to greater comprehensiveness and tolerance for minority views. What Eric Lerner, Iantresman, Jon and the others disagree with people like ScienceApologist and myself about are the meaning of the undue weight clause and in the NPOV policy, how sympathetically minority views are treated, and whether it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to correct the perceived bias of the scientific élites. This is a content and policy issue, and much as I would like to see clarification of this, I can't see that it is ArbCom's mandate to decide this. However, if it is, I would like to be involved.
 * Eric Lerner:Eric Lerner has been systematically trying, on Wikipedia and outside, to make his plasma cosmology seem as though it is a serious competitor to the big bang theory. Regardless of its scientific merits, few professional cosmologists have heard of it (beyond, probably, the refutation of Hannes Alfvén's work in Peebles' book and elsewhere) and fewer still have devoted any kind of study to it. He may is correct that his work is not pseudoscience, but it would not be entirely fair to label it a "minority" viewpoint, as we would label adherents to MOND. The ugly edit war on this page is between an effort by Eric Lerner to make himself look like a comfortable, respected member of the scientific community and ScienceApologist to discredit these efforts and make him look more like a kook without credibility. The truth, as with most of these things, is probably somewhere near the middle. Some comments above seek to make this seem like a personal vendetta or worse; to me, it seems part of the normal give and take of Wikipedia, although startlingly brusque.
 * Redshift:Iantresman summarises the dispute much better than I could: "The article on Redshift is written from a typical mainstream astronomy point of view. But like some other mainstream articles, it nearly totally excludes some minority scientific views, to a point I [Iantresman] consider pseudosceptical, and consequently contravene policy." This is another long edit war, which has actually produced quite a good article, but one with which I have largely been happily uninvolved. This goes right back to the Pseudoscience vs. Pseudoskepticism point I considered above.
 * Creationism:Thank God I never edit this page.
 * As a relative newcomer and an uninvolved observer, I have to agree completely with Joke on this. Iantresman is continually on the attack, throwing around accusations that do nothing to help bridge the gap between the two sides, and it is clear that he is a POV-warrior for this sort of thing.  'Psuedoskepticism' is a term used by ideologues to attack those that dare to be steadfast in their devotion to verifiable truths.  Elerner, who is the subject of his own article, is another POV-warrior who is constantly, in conjunction with Ian, making biased edits to many subjects, and has even contributed in a biased fashion to the article about himself - clearly something should be done about that?  Tuviya 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Anville, not directly involved
I have had tangential contacts with this slowly-brewing brouhaha: a few months ago, I made a few relatively minor edits to redshift quantization (diff, diff, diff) and quite a while before that, I participated heavily in the first FAC for redshift itself. User:Iantresman's behavior during that FAC was, in my judgment, disruptive, including that frivolous RfArb filed against ScienceApologist.

At the moment, I do not have the time to prepare my own statement, but I would like to endorse fully the statements made by ScienceApologist, FeloniousMonk, JBKramer, Guettarda and Bubba73. Joke, with whom I just had an edit conflict, also writes a summary with which I can largely agree. Anville 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of Harald88, partly involved
I discovered this dispute by chance; it's not clear why I was not informed. Like Iantresman I have had disputes with ScienceApologist on similar issues and for similar reasons; thus I consider myself partly involved. Probably some other editors such as Art Carlson would also like to comment.

ScienceApologist follows IMO a conscious strategy to promote dogmatic views by all means, such as by degrading, reducing and where possible omitting notable alternative views. I have no other explanation for the continued battles that must be fought with him to include even the most minimalized NPOV references to such views, even when such a reference is required for verification (WP:V). I expect more of this encyclopedia than an image of textbook opinions; instead I expect it to be inclusive of all possibly relevant information about notable theories and alternative views. That is not only in line with the NPOV approach, it happens to be also the backbone of the scientific method. It has become crystal clear that that is at times incompatible with the aim of ScienceApologist, whose editor name I therefore find objectionable - BTW, I thought that such names are not allowed anyway.

This does not mean that I fully agree with Iantresman or always side with him in content disputes: in some instances I actually side with ScienceApologist against giving too much weight and space to minority views. IMO, articles that suffer exhaustive battles between Lantresman and ScienceApologist end up not too badly, but articles that are dominated by either of them do suffer the shortcomings portrayed in comments by other editors here above. It would be a relief for other editors and certainly beneficial for Wikipedia if both of them would be able to steer themselves to more moderate positions.

BTW, exceptionally I have to disagree with Pjacobi on an essential point: In order to achieve a high quality of scientific articles in Wikipedia, such articles should certainly not be written from a "typical mainstream point of view", but instead from a neutral point of view - which happily is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. As Uncle Ed reminds us, this is non-negotiable.

Thus I largely agree with the statements by Iantresman, Ragesoss, Shell_Kinney, Gleng, Uncle Ed, Jonathanischoice; and partly with the statements by JBKramer and Joke137. Harald88 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Art LaPella, sort of involved
A week or two ago you guys considered making ScienceApologist an administrator and now you're considering sanctions against him, and I share some of that ambivalence about ScienceApologist. I've watched these two eternal arch-enemies and their fellow travelers for almost a year, and it's unlikely that the Wikipedia powers that be can say anything new to either of them. They each know more about science and about writing articles than I do, but I nevertheless often catch them trying to ignore something relatively obvious when they know better, especially the non-mainstream advocates. I think I'm learning to talk down the endless parade of cosmological would-be know-it-alls when they are pretending not to understand something. ScienceApologist does that too, but his methods aren't anything like mine, and sometimes both sides seem to be pretending not to understand something. But I'm reluctant to criticize St. George until all the dragons are gone. Art LaPella 07:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Art Carlson, involved on another front

 * I think the terms pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism are usually used for name-calling and are seldom helpful. Category:Pseudoscience is too subjective and should be deleted.
 * I have no problem with the ideal of taking a neutral, as opposed to a scientific, point of view. I think the tension in Wikipedia between mainstream and fringe science is not a fundamental problem. When I read about a topic, I mostly want to hear the mainstream consensus. After that, I like to see where the boundaries are. What's the best case that can be made against the consensus? What makes the people tick, who fight against the mainstream? This does not always require a section in the main article, if the controversy is small, but a "see also" link is appropriate.
 * The devil is in the details of deciding what constitutes a NPOV and appropriate weighting. What I hope for from this arbitration is some guidelines that reduce the frictional losses. The process currently needed to reach a consensus is too wearying and too redundant.
 * I have not worked very closely with most of the editors involved in this dispute. I can say that both ScienceApologist and Iantresman can at times be difficult to work with, but it is possible to work with them, and they are always respectful and show good faith. In contrast, I find Eric Lerner impossible to work with. The other front I mentioned is aneutronic fusion, where Eric Lerner and I have repeatedly fallen into reversion duels. The topic itself is certainly not pseudoscience, but it has a lot of the mainstream/fringe characteristics of pseudoscience. I feel Eric uses invalid arguments to try to make aneutronic fusion look better than it is, possibly out of a conflict of interest. If I could get some outside help to reduce the bickering, I would greatly appreciate it.
 * My advice to the arbitrators: First, separate the issue of biographical articles from that of the content of science articles. Second, be as concrete as possible at every step. For example, you might start by reaching a consensus for or against a guideline like this: In a biographical article, if the subject verifiably states that he has a particular degree from a particular university, this should be stated in the article as a fact, unless there is some specific evidence that it might not be true. Such guidelines should be formulated to apply to all biographies, not just those of suspected pseudoscientists (see my first point).
 * Please hurry on this one. Otherwise intelligent editors are reverting each other and arguing and arguing about whether to write Eric Lerner earned a BA or states that he earned one. I hate to watch the waste of valuable wiki talent! --Art Carlson 15:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

--Art Carlson 21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Adam Cuerden talk
It seems to me that this dispute has a more pressing problem than Pseudoscience - E. Lerner is a living person, and it appears his article may not be in compliance with WP:BIO, if the allegations that unsourced negative comments are being removed is accurate. This rather needs fixed quickly, if possible. Adam Cuerden talk 21:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by mostly uninvolved user Ansell
From my few days of editing Michael Behe and Intelligent design, which came as a result of seeing the articles as being overtly based about the scientific mainstream consensus, as opposed to a neutral description of the subjects, and having been flat reverted every time (i think without fail) by FeloniousMonk or one of the other regulars at the article, I gave up.

It is sad that it has to come down to arbitration, however, this may clear up the scientific point of view controversy. Becoming uncivil with users has no excuse IMO. Accusations that the other side are "POV pushers" or similar insult, is not acceptable. That behaviour is especially worrying when one, a sysop no less, doesn't look at their own contributions with the same level of scrutiny. Ans e ll 11:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Linas, anti-pseudoscientist
Although I am not personally involved in the current dispute, I believe that the leading source of wiki-stress for the mainstream science editors is that WP is an irresistible magnet for pseudo-science believers. These people seem to have a boundless amount of energy, tireless in their one-sided pursuit of bad ideas and false thoeries. Just as their subject matter is irrational, so are all the attempts to reason with them. The disruption takes a serious toll on many good editors. The difficulty of keeping incapable, incompetent editors at bay is one of the most serious issues facing the science projects on WP today. These issues have fomented WikiProject Pseudoscience and WikiProject Rational Skepticism, although the effectiveness of these organizations is unclear. linas 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by "semi-involved" User Asmodeus
I don't quite know the protocol here, but I do know something that "involves" me when I see it. If I've failed to go through any required form of pre-screening, please let me know...and if possible, I'd like to be added as an involved party. This is a good-faith contribution which, in my well-informed opinion, needs to be heard.

It would be hard to overestimate the importance of this issue to Wikipedia. Pseudoscience is extremely difficult to identify properly; it can seldom be done with certainty, and although many people like to believe themselves intellectually qualified to make the distinction, it requires a kind of knowledge that few of them actually possess. [1] Hence, the best they can do is shout, wave their arms, cite their asinine "crank index" of choice, and cry out to their comrades for the deletion of whatever they don't comprehend. I've had some rather unpleasant experiences with this sort of thing at Wikipedia, involving at least two of those listed above ( pjacobi and ScienceApologist, the first of whom is an administrator who misinformedly participated [2] in a misbegotten "pseudoscience" AfD involving me [3] and took it upon himself to warn me for "incivility" after I overreacted to a vicious string of personal attacks about which he persistently did nothing [4], and the second of whom followed a baseless attack on a certain notable theory [5, 6] by going after the author's biography [7]). This led to the raucous deletion of an accurate, well written article on a logically tight, unmistakably notable, explicitly philosophical theory which gets 15,000 specific hits on google and was described or mentioned by heavyweight elements of the mass media, including ABC, the BBC, and Popular Science (which presented it as about science rather than as an example of science). See my response in this bogus RfC, which discusses the affair in greater detail.

In short, both ScienceApologist and Pjacobi deemed the topic of an initially well-written and well-verified Wikipedia article "non-notable" on the basis of its superficial associations, which are not legitimate criteria for inclusion or non-inclusion in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist deemed it non-notable by association with ISCID and the ID  movement, while Pjacobi deemed it non-notable by non-association with academia. Neither of these association judgments was either verified or accurate, and neither has any real bearing on the content or validity of the topic in question. But as the AfD and DR transcripts clearly reveal, many participants evidently imagined that these judgments had bearing on content, and not only dismissed the topic as "pseudoscience" on that basis without further ado, but voted to delete it on that basis as well. Thus, verifiable notability - which the topic certainly enjoys, courtesy of ABC, the BBC, Popular Science, google, and so on - was bumped aside with embarrassing ease by erroneous content and validity judgments based on ignorance, misunderstanding, and superficial associations which are "hot buttons" for two special-interest minorities within Wikipedia, namely, professional or aspiring academics and "ID critics". Thus, the fate of the article was irrationally determined by three overlapping groups: (1) academics, whose professional bias amounts to a conflict of interest with respect to Wikipedia's verifiable notability standard (which treats the mass media as reputable sources); (2) ID critics and others unfriendly to the ID movement, whose philosophical bias functions in kind; and (3) those naive, overly-trusting individuals who are willing to make snap editorial judgments strictly on the say-so of people pseudonymously identifying with these two groups. The question naturally arises: how can people known to function this way, including ScienceApologist and Pjacobi, be trusted to properly identify "pseudoscience", and to neutrally apply legitimate editorial criteria?

This kind of SNAFU has unmistakable relevance to certain larger issues facing Wikipedia. One is philosophical bias; some "experts" are so biased, and so unaware of it, that NPOV is unrecognizable to them. Just as importantly, when Popular Science, ABC, and the BBC are no longer sufficient to establish notability on Wikipedia, but notability instead comes to rest on publication in the relatively obscure, frequently biased journals of professional academic guilds which select their members by willingness and ability to shell out a hundred grand or more on an advanced "formal education", economic and scholastic elitism become serious problems. In effect, Wikipedia becomes a neutered appendage of Academia, Inc.. This has an upside; many academics know a lot about their fields, and have the field-specific technical sophistication to generate worthwhile material and spot no-go ideas. But it also has a downside: many academics are publish-or-perish hacks who are steeped in orthodox viewpoints, behave like good little myrmidons of the higher educational establishment, and are willing to fudge their claims of expertise to encompass matters in which they are not specifically trained, and which they do not in fact understand. In short, we're talking about the profound issue of systemic professional and philosophical bias exacerbated by false claims of expertise underwritten by self-reported academic credentials which are frequently inapplicable to the material under dispute. This is a can of worms which will ultimately and inevitably lead to professional conflicts of interest among academics, a group already known for philosophical and theoretical orthodoxy, coercive ideological conformity, cloak-and-dagger dog-eat-dog competition for credit and advancement, the cross-suppression of incompatible views, financially-loaded political and corporate contamination, and ruthless pursuit of the upper hand in the battle of public opinion. It is a road down which Wikipedia, which permits its "experts" to cloak themselves in anonymity, should think very long, and very hard, about going.

Wikipedia exists to serve the public. If this were what the public wanted and needed, then everybody would already have begged, borrowed or stolen enough money to buy into academia, or at least to wink at each other and exchange the secret handshake known only to genuine academics, and adopted the politically correct, conceptually orthodox academic party line. The fact that vast numbers of intelligent people have not bought into this self-interested cephalopodian guild suggests that if that's the way Wikipedia wants to go, it will leave the public majority behind in the process, and at the expense of a huge quantity of notable, valuable, but more or less unorthodox material. Asmodeus 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by mostly-uninvolved user ObsidianOrder
I have done some light editing on the article pseudoscience and on various controversial science topics (e.g. cold fusion). In doing so, I have always taken the line that Wikipedia does not exist to further the mainstream scientific POV; it exists to represent all significant POVs fairly. This is what I understand NPOV to mean. The mainstream scientific view is important, and it is important to clearly state what that is, if there is a clear consensus within science. Other views should also be fairly presented, with space allocated in proportion to their notability and relevance to the topic of an article. An article about an alternative theory should primarily report on what the supporters of that theory would say (not as facts, naturally), with significant space also allocated to the mainstream view/criticisms (maybe a 50/50 or 60/40 ratio). An article about a mainstream theory should mention alternatives very briefly, and only if they are somewhat significant.

I wholeheartedly endorse the statement by Uncle Ed above. It describes my position exactly, except much more clearly than I could ;) I think Asmodeus raises some valid points, if perhaps slightly overstated.  I disagree with Pjacobi.

I agree with the general concerns of Iantresman, although I am not familiar with the specific examples of articles and edits he cites to have an opinion on those. I strongly disagree with the statement of ScienceApologist, particularly the part where he says "I demand exclusion or marginalization of certain points" (this is not the Wikipedia way).

Disclaimer: I will probably soon be involved in a new content dispute with ScienceApologist over at cold fusion because of his revert to a two-year-old version.

Suggested rename of the case: "Should Wikipedia write science-related articles from the mainstream scientific POV?"


 * Comment: undue weight should be determined primarily based on what the article is about, and secondarily on the apparent prominence of a viewpoint, and the reliability and quality of sources. In an article about Earth, Flat Earth gets just a brief mention, if at all. However in an article about Flat Earth, the division would have to be something like 60/40 or more in favor of what people who actually believe in Flat Earth would say (assuming it can be sourced). ObsidianOrder 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbustoo

 * I also mirror FM's comments on |NPOV-Pseudoscience. Iantresman's aims of changing the article is to modify the wording to push a POV that does not conform to science. Science is not politics where you every has an equal say. Science is based on facts and evidence, which form academic consensus. Wikipedia will not rewrite the history of science so Iantresman can feel more comfortable about Eric Lerner's scientifically rejected claims. Arbusto 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Lambiam
I've found myself on opposite sides of the debate with ScienceApologist on Articles for deletion/Self creation cosmology (but without any animosity) and on the same side in defending Modern geocentrism against persistent pushing of quality-degrading edits. As far as I'm aware I have had no direct involvement with the other parties.

Wikipedia is an open invitation for supporters of fringe theories to try and give them an aura of respectability by overrepresenting their cherished theory and its importance, downplaying criticism and overstating or misstating things that can be interpreted as support from established scientists, by adding dubious wikilinks and external links whereever possible, and so on. If there were no staunch defenders against this form of abuse of the openness of Wikipedia, we would be forced to either give up the idea of an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", or simply give up the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But who needs a second unencyclopedia?

In the time I've been active here – less than a year – I have seen several people give up the good fight. Each was an expert, and the loss is Wikipedia's – ours. Some people would perhaps rather see more of these disappear.

Assume good faith. Yes, assume good faith. I love that principle, and I like to assume good faith. But only so far. This case must be seen in the context of a pattern of unabating attempts to promote, little bit by little bit, far-out minority positions as if they are just off-centre. This is not a paranoid delusion; the pattern is obvious. The posting by Ian Tresman referred to in the evidence presented by ScienceApologist makes this quite explicit: This is a chance to set a precedence, and to bring "intrinsic redshift", the Wolf Effect, and other little-known causes of redshift, into the mainstream. If this is not abuse of the openness of Wikipedia, then what is it?

We need editors like ScienceApologist. We need more of them. Without such editors, we may as well give up. ScienceApologist is right in not assuming good faith for editors who do not deserve it, who try to game the system to bring their beloved fringe stuff "into the mainstream". Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm sure that among all the good work ScienceApologist has done, there have been some mistakes. I'm equally convinced that all of it has been with the aim of enforcing policy in order to protect the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. --Lambiam Talk 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about "objective wording"
In GoodCop's presentation he accuses ScienceApologist of grossly disruptive POV-pushing, giving as an example SA's reverting of GC's "objective wording" into "a POV-biased version". Now for essentially anything accepted as having been confirmed by experiment or other observations by a vast majority of experts, there will be some people who disagree. Following GC, instead of "further experiments proved Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized" (as in the FA Photon), we should write: "further experiments were believed by the majority of physicists to have proved Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized." And why stop there? Let us be truly objective: not "The Earth's shape is very close to an oblate spheroid," but "The Earth's shape is believed to be very close to an oblate spheroid by a majority of geologists." After all, there is the Flat Earth Society who believe otherwise. If GC thinks, as he apparently does, that such hedging is needed for objectivity, then GC's accusations of POV pushing by SA and other editors become understandable. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of what NPOV means, and is in fact entirely unreasonable.

It also opens the road to abuse of the Wikipedia rules. After all, who says that "the majority of physicists" believed the big bang theory to have been confirmed? On whose authority should we accept that? Surely, that needs a fact tag. But then we get "objective wording" edits like this (not accidentally by another involved user) that remove such statements altogether, thereby lending undue prominence to the BLT Research Team, described as "a prominent group".

--Lambiam Talk 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. NPOV policy says"A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. ".  So there is no need to put "believed" on things that have been scientifically established.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Clever try, Lambiam. The interpretations of the red shift and the CMB as supporting the big bang are based upon gross assumptions about the causes of said phenomena, in stark contrast to quantized light and a round earth, which rely upon no such gross assumptions about the evidence. Furthermore, the big bang belief IS refuted by a large minority of people, and many of those people are experts in astrophysics. Proof: http://www.cosmologystatement.org . The petition at that URL even appeared in the popular science magazine New Scientist -far from fringe. Your argument that it must be proven that the big bang belief is the majority belief among physicists is clearly hypocritical, because that is the very criteria upon which the big bang's dominant coverage in the article is based. GoodCop 05:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand most of this ("gross assumptions"?). The petition at http://www.cosmologystatement.org only states that some funding must be allowed for the study of alternative hypotheses; this does not mean that the signatories "refute" the big bang hypothesis. But I don't see how this is possibly relevant for the interpretation of what is POV pushing on Wikipedia and what constitutes a viable interpretation of NPOV. --Lambiam Talk  07:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it that you are hoping that other people do not read the petition for themselves (which I strongly suggest they do), because the petition clearly states that the big bang belief relies upon improvised 'fudge factors' such as inflation and dark energy, and is never doubted despite the evidence against it, clearly demonstrating that the signatories refute the big bang belief. "I don't understand most of this ("gross assumptions"?)." -I'll spell it out for you then. The big bang belief is said to be based upon certain astrophysical phenomena (especially the red shift and the CMB), which are said to be evidence of the big bang. Yet that is based upon the gross assumptions that those astrophysical phenomena are due to particular causes, when there are other causes that are far more likely. Specifically, the red shift is assumed to be due to the doppler effect, and the CMB is assumed to be remnants of a giant past explosion. More rational explanations include interaction with transparent interstellar matter, and dynamical friction (in the case of the red shift), and continuing (as distinguished from one-time) emissions from electrons that are shedding energy from absorbed starlight (in the case of the CMB). There is also the matter of Einstein's clever gross false assumption (what is called a 'strawman tactic', as Einstein had pretended to believe in a static infinite universe at first), the assumption that a static universe is dependent upon a precise balance of forces, when in fact it obviously needs only a regulatory mechanism (particularly, one which works to shrink or destroy black holes), and such mechanisms have been proposed by static universe proponents. "But I don't see how this is possibly relevant for the interpretation of what is POV pushing on Wikipedia and what constitutes a viable interpretation of NPOV." -Clever. You falsely say that the petition does not demonstrate people refuting the big bang belief, and then you act oblivious to the undue weight policy (which is based upon the relative popularity of different beliefs), which is related to the NPOV policy. Right. I don't believe you. GoodCop 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how it is relevant for the interpretation of what constitutes POV pushing. For the purpose of this RfA, there should be no need to review cosmological theories. For the rest, most cosmologists and other physicists who subscribe to the opinion that the big bang hypothesis offers the best explanation for the observations will agree that this depends on the interpretation of red shift, the additional inflationary hypothesis, etcetera. They may perhaps not agree with the pov word choice "fudge factors", but that by itself is not an essential difference of opinion. I don't understand the distinction between "assumptions" and "gross assumptions", or between "explanations" and "rational explanations". If "explanations" fail to explain the actual observations they should not be called that, whether rational or not. Good assumptions are those that make the theory work, whether gross or not. In numerical terms, cosmologists who reject the big bang hypothesis are a small minority, and only a few of the signatories have a credible scientific background. --Lambiam Talk  07:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lambiam, I have to say that much of what you say hardly makes sense, due to self-contradicting statements and apparent non-understanding of the very obvious. This is not meant as an offense, just as a notification of the difficulties that I am having in communicating with you.


 * The anti-big-bang-belief petition has over two-hundred signatures from established scientists, far more than 'a few' (which usually means about 3-10) as you have stated, so I take it that you again do not want anyone to look at the petition for themself. That is not even mentioning the 200+ signatures from other people.


 * "If "explanations" fail to explain the actual observations they should not be called that, whether rational or not." -That is a self-contradicting statement; a rational explanation is one which best explains the observations.


 * " I don't understand the distinction between "assumptions" and "gross assumptions" " -Is english by chance a second language to you? I don't mean this as an insult, but as an honest question. That would explain why you don't understand such basic things. Again, I'll spell it out for you: A gross assumption is a very large assumption, as distinguished from a small or medium assumption.


 * "Good assumptions are those that make the theory work, whether gross or not." -So you therefore believe then, for example, that assuming that the presence of teeth in human mouths indicates that there is a great tooth god somewhere is a 'good assumption', because that gross assumption makes the theory work. Very well. I disagree. The smaller the assumptions upon which a theory is based (if there are any assumptions at all), the stronger the theory is.


 * The NPOV policy is clear and thorough, such that it needs very little interpretation; an article either follows the policy or it doesn't. A gross assumption is something that leaves out facts, which clearly contradicts the NPOV sub-policy of 'let the facts speak for themselves'. A conclusion based upon a gross assumption is by definition a biased statement, and the NPOV policy demands that biased statements be attributed. It's very cut-and-dry.


 * We're not going to keep going back and forth forever, are we? There is no consensus emerging between us, so I think that it is better to agree to disagree.


 * GoodCop 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that you are right we are not getting any closer to an agreement. --Lambiam Talk  08:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by MichaelMaggs
Although I have had no involvement, and would not want to comment on the actions of the individual parties, I do have some observations to make on the basis of this dispute.

When considering the weight to be accorded to non-standard theories, we ought to be careful to distinguish between:

1.	Pseudoscience – theories that are not based on the scientific method and which, for that reason, would have no chance of acceptance in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

2.	Minority scientific viewpoints – theories that are based on the scientific method, but which, for whatever reason, have not been generally accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Such theories may have been published in peer reviewed journals.

I believe that these two categories should be treated differently:

Pseudoscience
No editor seeking to add information about pseudoscience will, of course, ever admit that it is such, nor that the scientific method has been sidestepped or misapplied. Nevertheless, such information cannot and should not be accorded any sort of scientific status, and in particular should never be presented as “just another point of view” on any scientific subject. Rigorous, peer reviewed, scientific research is the bedrock of the scientific method, and should not be treated as just one of a variety of available points of view on the subjects that it addresses.

Pseudoscientific theories, if sufficiently notable, may have a place within Wikipedia as a record of a non-scientific human endeavour. However, pseudoscientific theories should generally not be included or linked to science pages. As with any other material, extreme minority viewpoints and non-notable theories should be excluded entirely as non-encyclopaedic.

Minority Scientific Viewpoints
Minority scientific viewpoints may, if sufficiently notable, find a place on a corresponding science page. However, this is a matter of degree, and the prominence given to a minority viewpoint ought to be commensurate with the level of acceptance the theory has gained within the worldwide scientific community. Only where there is a real and live disagreement within a significant proportion of the scientific community is it appropriate for the minority view to be given space on a main science page.

Where the minority is so small that it is ignored or derided by the majority of scientists that are active in the field, it should not be discussed on the main science page devoted to the topic, although it may, if sufficiently notable, have a page of its own.

Editors who wish to stress a particular minority theory often try to add detail to a main page by calling the mainstream ideas “disputed”. They then seek to add a discussion of the minority view which starts “…Some scientists, however, disagree and argue that …”. They may cite scientists who hold to this view, and may refer to published papers in peer reviewed journals. Neither is (or should be) enough. All sorts of speculative ideas have appeared in published papers, and have been either disapproved or ignored by the majority of scientists. Thus, the existence of a published paper (or even several) is not in itself sufficient evidence of a real and live disagreement within a significant proportion of the scientific community.

Even the fact that a minority viewpoint may have gained publicity through news outlets such as the BBC should not, in itself, entitle the theory to space on a main science page; any more than a BBC news item would entitle the theory to column inches in the main article of a printed encyclopaedia. News is a branch of journalism and has an entirely different agenda from an encyclopaedia. A minority theory may have a high news value for a large number of reasons, including the weirdness of the ideas being put forward or the vociferousness of its proponents, entirely independently of the scientific validity of the theory itself. Indeed, theories that are widely accepted by everyone are typically not newsworthy, simply because the news media considers them to be boring.

Now it should be perfectly acceptable for a minority scientific theory to be included on a page of its own within Wikipedia on the basis of the notoriety or notability it has achieved through any type of publication, news reports included. Wikipedia is not paper. However, news-type publicity is of close to zero reliability when it comes to establishing that the theory has any realistic support whatsoever within the scientific community. Thus, news reports cannot sensibly be used as reliable sources for the purpose of establishing the verifiability of purported scientific facts.

It is of great importance that extreme minority viewpoints are not permitted to find their way onto main science pages, since most readers will not be experts and a page that labels a field “disputed” will often give the reader a wholly inaccurate perception of the accepted state of scientific knowledge. That is particularly so if (as often happens) the minority theory is heavily referenced, but the majority theory is not. The reader cannot be expected to realise that there are (say) 10 scientists worldwide who support the minority view, but 100,000 who consider it so wrong as not to be worth addressing.

This is not a case of “mainstream scientists” being “pseudosceptical” or seeking to suppress minority viewpoints. Rather, it follows from the absolute need to give readers a fair and unbiased view of the currently accepted state of scientific knowledge.

Any minority scientific theory (provided that it is sufficiently notable to be encyclopaedic at all) ought to be entitled to a page of its own where, of course, it may be subject to challenge by the majority who disagree with it. However, unless the minority theory is of sufficient importance to have generated a real and live disagreement within a significant proportion of the scientific community, it should not expect to be granted space on one of the main science pages.

If that sounds unfair, it is for a reason: extreme minority viewpoints are simply not as encyclopaedically important as the general consensus of the scientific community, and they should not be treated as if they are. There is no true parity here.

Several editors have suggested that by excluding extreme minority theories from the main science pages, we run the risk of excluding research which, while derided or ignored today, will one day be accepted and itself become mainstream. That is almost certainly so, but we should be attempting to reflect the state of scientific knowledge as it stands today, not trying to second guess which neglected theories will “make it”. For every unjustly neglected theory, there are many thousands of justly neglected ones, and apart from relying on scientific consensus, we have no way of judging which are which. An encyclopaedia cannot and should not substitute its judgement for the consensus of the scientists working in the field.

Wikipedia is not at present a very congenial place for those scientific editors who are striving hard to present a fair and balanced view of the current state of scientific knowledge. Typically, editors having an interest in minority viewpoints tend to be more persistent than editors who follow mainstream thinking, and are certainly more numerous (probably because there are so many minority viewpoints).

It is largely, I believe, because of these issues that there are so few good, knowledgeable, scientific editors working on Wikipedia. Such editors are sorely needed: without their continuous and unstinting efforts to keep the main science pages focused and balanced, we will continue to see articles such as Physics destroyed by a never-ending stream of single-issue editors. The policies we work to should be devised to encourage experienced and knowledgeable scientists to create top-quality scientific articles. But I am afraid that many drop by, but are driven away pretty quickly when they realise that they have to spend all of their time preventing even articles on well-understood topics from fragmenting into to a collection of minority viewpoint theories, each eager to characterize everything else as “disputed”.

ArbCom should bear in mind the danger of the entire project collapsing if serious scientific editors continue to be driven away. It would be only too easy for the public to lose confidence in Wikipedia if they are unable to find within it reliable and unbiased articles which explain clearly the current state of scientific knowledge on a topic that interests them. I believe this to be a real and present danger.

I have posted a version of this at User:MichaelMaggs/Minority_science_and_pseudoscience. Comments are welcome there.

--MichaelMaggs 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Metamagician3000
As a neutral administrator I attempted to broker what agreement I could from the involved parties when the Eric Lerner article was protected - to see whether the article could be put in a form that met Elerner's most serious concerns. How far I was successful is for others to judge. I have had some other peripheral dealings with the involved parties. I am not in a position to comment in detail on the dispute as a whole, since it has ranged across areas of Wikipedia that I am not familiar with. From my limited knowledge, I have formed the impression that all parties are attempting to act in good faith for the benefit of the encyclopedia. This particularly applies to other administrators who have made attempts to deal with the ongoing problems.

As I see it, we must distinguish between articles on (1) mainstream, paradigmatic scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory of cosmological origins, and those on (2) fringe theories, such as Plasma Cosmology, that are critical of the mainstream view. However well intentioned they may be, efforts to undermine the credibility of theories of type (1), with insistence on disproportionate inclusion of critical material, are inherently disruptive of Wikipedia's aims. Such articles should report the mainstream scientific consensus, such as it is. They should make very little reference to type (2) theories, though some brief indication of what type (2) theories exist and their main bases for criticism of the mainstream theory might be appropriate. Articles on type (2) theories should always make reference to the relevant article on the type (1) theory and should always make clear that the type (2) theory is not the generally accepted one. Thus, one-way referencing should be a possibility, though not a strict requirement. Ideally, some brief indication should be given in an article about a type (2) theory as to why it is not the prevalent view among relevant scientists (even if it is just that the "main" theory continues to be successful in solving scientific problems and is not in crisis). Articles on type (2) theories and their proponents should not, however, turn into attempts to destroy credibility, e.g. with a litany of quotes in opposition. It should be sufficient that the facts are stated, that the "fringe" status of the relevant theory be made quite clear, and that reference be made to the main theory and its mainstream acceptance. With that said, the main purpose of an article on, say, Plasma Cosmology, is simply to inform the reader what the theory is. The main purpose of an article on, aay, Eric Lerner, is simply to give a concise, clear, accurate account of his career, not to try to discredit him.

There are, of course, also type (3) theories - genuinely bad or cranky science that could never be published in reputable journals at all, or outright pseudoscience, such as Creation Science. That is a separate issue.

With some kind of guidance like the above, or whatever the arbcon thinks in its wisdom is better, I hope all concerned can in future edit in ways that are less likely to cause ill-temper and disruption (which is what makes this a matter for arbcom rather than being an ordinary content dispute). I see no need for draconian penalties to be imposed on any individual, but some articles may need to be singled out for article probation status. If the latter is done, any guidance (of the sort in my second para, for example) that the arbcom can give to admins dealing in future with conduct re those articles will be very helpful.

Metamagician3000 04:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Postscript: I've made another attempt to express my thoughts here. Metamagician3000 10:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Joke137
On the article page, User:GoodCop has alleged that I have "demonstrated POV-pushing and incivility specifically on the big bang issue". I regard this as a substantial allegation and I would like to see diffs or some substantiation. If the consensus is that it is necessary, I will become an involved party. –Joke 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You know full well of your guilt, but for the sake of the other users, I will describe your actions. My attention was first drawn to your POV-pushing a while ago, when I saw a statement in the cosmology article edit history that described you as a POV-pusher, or something like that. I then investigated your edits around that time, and saw them to be highly POV-pushing and uncivil. GoodCop 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to provide diffs, not a sneer. The editor that described me as a "POV-pusher" had in his head the rather bizarre idea that I was trying to push a creationist bias. See the rejected RFAr and Talk:Cosmology. If, as you claim, you have done an "extensive investigation" then it should be no trouble to find relevant diffs. –Joke 04:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"I asked you to provide diffs, not a sneer." -That right there is a fine example of your incivility; falsely accusing me of 'sneering' at you when I answered your question just as you asked, and did nothing else. You said 'or some substantiation', and I gave you that. "If, as you claim, you have done an "extensive investigation" then it should be no trouble to find relevant diffs." -With a statement like that, it is ironic that you accuse ME of sneering. And you are an ADMIN?! I saw the creationist accusation, which was unwarranted, but understandable, but that is of no relevance; your edits were what they were, and you can not justify any wrongful actions of your own by pointing the finger at others. A request for diffs is reasonable, but the accompanying insults that you have given clearly are not. You should also keep in mind that those were old edits, which take time to dig up, but my guess is that you are well aware of that. GoodCop 06:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As one of the "other users", for whose sake you offered to provide "substantiation", I must admit I can't find the substance. Rather than repeat and amplify your accusations, perhaps a simple "diffs are coming in 2-3 days" would have sufficed. --Art Carlson 08:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Art, do not uncivilly falsely portray my informative and relevant statements as completely insubstantial and as "repeating and amplifying accusations".


 * You have cut me to the quick! I didn't mean to suggest that your comment was not informative. I only wanted to humbly confess that I lack the acumen to perceive the information. Now that you have spelled it out below for my little brain, the evidence, as Joke says, speaks for itself. --Art Carlson 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The following are Joke137's article edits in question, consisting entirely of revert warring. They show Joke137 changing more-objective wording to POV wording, and removing important explanatory information which consequently casts doubt on the big bang belief, even information that serves to explain the big bang belief itself(!):      

I should mention though that there was one small mitigating factor in Joke's favor, which is that he did eventually decide to include the fact that Georges LeMaitre was a priest. Actually, Joke's opponent summed up Joke's POV-pushing edits fairly well in the RfAr that Joke137 linked to, as is confirmed in the diffs that I provided. (The RfAr was rejected due to being considered by the arbitrators as being a content dispute rather than a user issue.)

Here is a diff by Joke137, on the talk page, which I found particularly notable, in which he tries to emphasize his opponent's accusation that he is a creationist: 

Other than that diff, the talk page itself is most informative. Since statements are usually not deleted form talk pages (as opposed to articles), it is much more appropriate, for talk pages, to simply point out the section of the talk page, rather than presenting a mess of diffs that people are supposed to put together.

In the talk page, in section 4, you can see Joke's incivility, where he repeatedly belittles his opponent:
 * "This would be annoying, if it weren't so amusing."
 * "I think the point was there was no logic in your original statement to refute."
 * "Every kindergartener knows that. If you refuse to accept these things that have been known for almost ninety years, and checked by generations of physics students, that is fine."

To Joke's credit though, he did also make many relevant statements, albeit many of them false.

I also found evidence of wikistalking by Joke137: 

GoodCop 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I do particularly like re-living my childish edit. You might enjoy another childish edit. Good times, folks. –Joke 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cedars
Hi all,

I have some very strong feelings on this matter. I believe:


 * That articles that are mostly pseudoscience should be clearly labelled as such in the opening paragraph.
 * That articles on science that is not widely accepted in the scientific community should be labelled as such in the opening paragraph.
 * That articles on science that is widely accepted in the scientific community should be mostly devoted to that science and alternative theories only be mentioned in proportion to the amount of coverage they receive in modern scientific journals.

If this is not allowed, Wikipedia does a disservice to the community by failing to properly inform them of how widely accepted certain scientific theories are.

Alternative theories are an important of the scientific process, but usually they are based on empirical evidence or reasonable mathematical formulations. Wikipedia is not the place to allow largely unaccepted scientific theories to gain support by linking to them from the articles of competing theories.

While it seems fair for the Arbitration Committee to warn members when their tactics are becoming too heavy-handed, it would send the wrong message and be detrimental to Wikipedia if those involved in guarding Wikipedia against fringe science and pseudoscience were banned or prevented from editing various articles.

Wikipedia has much more to gain by informing the world on currently accepted scientific thought. Though alternative theories are an important part of science, most of the alternative theories that actually changed the world were discovered by those who spent much more time studying the traditional theories and discovered strong empirical evidence that they were wrong. Not being a scientific journal, Wikipedia is well within its right to place an emphasis on theories that are widely accepted by the scientific community &mdash; as an encyclopedia the public would expect nothing less. Cedars 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, arbitrators
This turned out better than I expected it would. Art LaPella 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Verification
I am confused. Does this ruling over-ride the duty of editors to avoid POV and personal research? I do not find any mention of the need for verifiable notable secondary sources to back any "pseudoscience" label. Is it just that I have not read closely enough? Currently some of the things tagged in this way do not seem to have any (pseudo-)scientific content at all and many others have no sound back-up for the allegation - at the most they often refer to skepdic and so forth, which is not exactly rigorous and balanced. Redheylin (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved from "Statement by Orangemarlin"
Initial post at Requests for arbitration:


 * Fairly inaccurate, OM.
 * I can't speak for others but my understanding of "vendetta" usually implies a lot more than "posted one matter for others, on one occasion".
 * Far from "known antipathy" I was in fact recused in the formal arbcom process and also have not treated you with notable hostility that I am aware of, whether past or present. Feel free to correct me if this is mistaken.
 * It is questionable whether your view ("well known") is representative in any way. It is a view that ultimately stems from two POV warriors, both now banned, and both of whom have deep long-term personal hostility. I am unaware of any other independent credible concern. If you feel there is, please consider mediation (as I openly offered one earlier), which I'd be glad to accept either on-wiki or by email as you wish.
 * FT2 (Talk 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your hostility towards me was evident in the secret vendetta that you started that had no basis--your whole action was uncivil, mean-spirited and cruel. You have never once apologized to me for your horrible behavior towards me.  In fact, this is the first time you've ever responded to me, and it is nothing more than a list of excuses and inaccuracies.  Your biased attitude towards me, your pushing of NLP, a well-known pseudoscience, and other editing behavior obligates you to step aside.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to re-read what "vendetta" means. It means a long standing campaign of hostility ("an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts"). Also consider the person who posted the decision may not actually have made the decision, notice that good faith applies here as elsewhere (don't merely assume hostility without good cause), and notice the use of the word "recused". As always if any statement I have made is evidenced as significantly inaccurate, please feel free to identify the statement, and the evidence, and ask for an explanation. And always, if you want to sort out anything on this, public or private mediation as you prefer. Let me know which. FT2 (Talk 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your attacks on me were obvious. And whether you think you did or not is irrelevant.  My point is that you're a well-known supporter of obvious pseudoscientific concepts AND have a longstanding feud (vendetta is fine with me) with this editor.  Given that, you should recuse yourself.  If you ever want to apologize to me, please do so publicly--no mediation required.  Otherwise, my point is made and is valid, and you have to make no further excuses for your behavior.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to a selection of some of them, perhaps? (Other than one known post that was made on behalf of a committee, that is.) You have said "your attacks", and "obvious", so you make it seem that asking for examples will be easy. My impression though is that you will not do so, for no credible examples of "personal attack" or indeed any kind of "longstanding feud" in fact exist. FT2 (Talk 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FT2, whether or not vendetta is semantically correct is irrelevant: you blocked OM out of process, and not on behalf of the committee ("no one opposed" is an utterly invalid argument). That you were not sanctioned is galling, but given the history of your actions re OM a recusal would be warranted and in the best interests of Wikipedia.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I could be missing something, but according to, FT2 has never blocked Orangemarlin.  MBisanz  talk 12:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you must have missed something. I'm sure OM knows where the diffs are and can provide them.  Had my computer not crashed, I would provide them.  As for now I'm too tired and to wrapped up in an RL emergency to dig.  Thanks.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 12:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he didn't miss anything. It's possible you may not have checked his block log before that comment. Did you just take other peoples' word for it? Please re-read the comment by the rest of the committee. Ask about any part of it you don't understand. This may be difficult for you to handle, but it's the truth of it.


 * Orangemarlin stated that there was an "obvious" long standing vendetta (or feud) of "attack". I'm asking here for some selection of links, which should be easy since it is said to be "obvious". In fact, it did not exist, no more than any "block" existed. FT2 (Talk 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FT2, this sort petty of hair-splitting over the definition of "long-term" and "vendetta" are entirely beside the point here. The facts of the matter are that OM was the victim of your actions, actions with seriously undercut the credibility of the arbcomm.  Your refusal to apologise for your actions and own up to the hurt you did to the community continues to undermine the credibility of the arbcomm.  But this?  Dear God.  It's one thing to lack the decency to apologise.  It's another to display this lack of self control.  Please, for the good of the project, if you are going to let your personal dislike for editors get in the way of functioning as an arb, then you really need to do the right thing and resign so that the community can move on and the arbcomm can begin to rebuild its credibility.  Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A user who repeatedly says there is a "long term" matter, and states that this is "obvious", may be asked to show (not just claim) the obvious. I don't notice him doing so, yet. If you can help him, please provide links or diffs yourself - and not just a link to a decision I posted for others. That's the question I'm asking. If he feels that a vendetta (by any mname) is ongoing, then I would like to see the "obvious" evidence that concerns him, so I can put that right. However my own personal impression is - bluntly - that it doesn't exist. FT2 (Talk 04:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a block, but an attempt at railroading with an out-of-process arbitration complete with remedies without even giving OM a chance of defense. And FT2 never apologised, which would be the least that should have happened as a result. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did not the rest of the Arbitration Committee ratify FT2's findings based on the evidence presented? Cla68 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This was never made clear, but tortuously evaded: "It was always an unlikely explanation that FT2, who is known for his careful and thorough work on and for Wikipedia, had wittingly gone outside and deliberately flouted our standard procedures. Part of the blame lies on email discussion as a way to get work done. The Committee takes collective responsibility for what occurred. Inferences that have been made, adverse to FT2's reputation for care, are simply not well founded."Proabivouac (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll come back to this once Orangemarlin has responded to the issue he raises above. Clearly a concern over a longstanding feud or vendetta would be a priority to sort out. I'm not aware of any, and I'm fairly sure none exists, but Orangemarlin has said three times, that one existed and was "obvious". I would like to wait for him to post actual links or diffs so we can sort that out first -- the other points raised by yourself and Jim62 are a bit secondary if OM himself feels he has evidence of non-neutrality going on. If that proves mistaken (which will be rather easy to test since OM says it was "obvious" and obvious things tend to have evidence on-wiki) then we may find other things are also easy to reconcile too. The sole difficulty is that Orangemarlin may have to do a 180° on his understanding what went on, and accept his current belief is mistaken, but if the facts support it and the evidence he feels he has doesn't exist, then I am sure he will be able to do so. FT2 (Talk 04:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you're so far off base that I'm watching the Red Sox and you're playing Lacrosse. Your continued personal attacks are very amusing in quality, so I actually appreciate them--take that as a compliment.  I do admit that I waited to see exactly how you were going to opine on this conversation, because I know you find new levels to push my buttons, though they are so well written and subtly humorous that even I laugh so hard that I believe I teared up.  On to the point at hand.  Everyone else has made perfectly appropriate, and less emotional, comments about FT2's behavior.  My two points were simply that FT2's interaction with me, one of the solid defenders of removing pseudoscience from this project, and FT2 's promotion of some of the most solidly pseudoscientific articles on Wikipedia, neurolinguistic programming, are sufficient to conclude that FT2 recuse himself.  BTW, FT2, I spend more time writing articles than digging up all the slights you made against me.  Just recuse yourself, and we'll be done.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also the matter of your "obvious" and "longterm" vendetta/feud (whichever term you prefer). We need to resolve this, if indeed it has any substance at all. While I notice you're replying to Cla68, you seem to be trying hard to now minimize the matter you yourself alleged as a major concern, and which you said was "obvious", "longterm" and "cruel". Obvious longterm things tend to be evidenced on-wiki. As soon as you link to this - and not just to one page I posted for the committee - I'll be able to help put any concern right. FT2 (Talk 06:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No minimization, I just gave up because you're not listening, using various legalisms to deflect my more serious points about your involvement in this case. For example, Jim said "blocked OM out of the process", not "blocked OM."  Of course, you did block me out of the process by a method that did not require you to actually block me (emphasis added so that FT2 cannot possible complain that I accused him of actually blocking me).  So you feigned innocence by obviously misinterpreting Jim's statement, a move that a cheap lawyer would use.  You know precisely what Jim meant, and Jim's language was very precise and clear.    Anyways, time to move on, because you're intentionally or unintentionally ignoring my points, you're wrapped up in defending your actions against me, and ignoring the whole point that you should not be involved.  Cla68 is a much more amusing to me than you are, which is why I responded to him.  Besides, Cla68 actually writes articles that I'd read.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bland observation: OM inadvertently inserted the definite article "the" into his quote of Jim62sch. It should be: "blocked OM out of process " (emphasis mine).  As a neutral observer I take this to mean "blocked OM, without following the established process".  According to several editors on this page, such a statement is counterfactual, so it doesn't seem right to say that FT2 is "feigning innocence" by interpreting Jim's statement in this reasonable way and seeking to rebut it. alanyst /talk/ 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. That does change the interpretation of that statement.  I just assumed that Jim would know that I was not blocked by FT2, and that I was blocked out of the process.  But we're all attempting to read Jim's mind, and I know that's a pseudoscience.  :D   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

 * , filing party


 * Party notifications
 * MediaMangler
 * Jim62sch
 * Trilobitealive
 * Johnfos
 * Martinphi
 * Jim_Butler
 * Orangemarlin
 * Scientizzle

Statement by Self-ref
Specific Request for Clarification

In Category_talk:Pseudoscience we are setting about refining the applicable pages and subcategories for this pejorative categorical tag, as represented by these two threads. It would, for the purpose of this refinement, be helpful to have a clarification of the Arbcom ruling mentioned above as regards the following:

A) The Specific Treatment of the Astrology Page Within This Ruling

A1) Was it the intention of the Arbcom to explicitly specify the astrology page as an example of a "theory which has a following" AND "which is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"?

OR

A2) Is the characterization of "something generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" something which must ALSO be demonstrated with citation by those with an interest in applying that category tag to the astrology page?

B) The Specific Treatment of the Astrology Category and Its Contents Within This Ruling

B1) Whatever the intention of the above, does this ruling and clarification also apply to the entire astrology category, and also to all the subcategories and pages to which this category is linked?

OR

B2) Should each category and page be separately considered unless their topical areas are identical (i.e. astrology page and category but nothing else until supported by cites)?

C) Restricted, or Unrestricted-but-Challengeable, Pseudoscience Category Tagging?

C1) Should it be a preliminary requirement, before the Pseudoscience category tag is applied, that a theory be demonstrated, through convincing citation to both: 1) have a following and 2) to be generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community?

OR

C2) Should the Pseudoscience category tag be applied to and retained on pages and categories by those who have an interest, regardless of citation or the lack thereof, until and unless challenged and removed due to a lack of substantiation?

Recommendation in General

Having read the Arbcom and become interested in lending a hand to refining the implementation of the Pseudoscience category, I have been apprised as to the force and character of its content, but without clarification on its implementation, it seems difficult to fully act on it. The problem of the changing significance and usage of the term 'science' through time is not adequately addressed by this Arbitration, nor is the differentiation being made between pseudosciencES on the one hand and pseudoscience on the other. Also, no mention is made of the fundamental differences in application of the tag to a page (such as astrology) on the one hand or to other categories (such as Category:Reincarnation research) on the other.

My preference is that this pejorative category be conservatively employed, and only after demonstrating, by citation to reliable, NPOV scientific evaluations, that it is actually warranted. It is also my impression that greater specificity is needed for direction as to how best to add it to pages as well as to categories. Further, i think that it is generally unworkable as stipulated in numbers 15, 16, 17, and 18, and that an amendment may be needed so as to strictly contain its usage to what can be convincingly supported as pseudosciencES (nouns, enterprises representing themselves falsely as sciences) rather than what may be ambiguously characterized as 'pseudoscience' (noun or adjective, confusingly and ambiguously presented).

Statement by Martinphi
Astrology is well sourced as pseudoscience, I believe.

It is my general experience with the pseudoscience category that it is often used without sourcing. The ArbCom seems to have put in place a strict standard, which is that an article with this category should be sourced as "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." This seems to be a recognition that this category is pejorative, and needs more sourcing than usual. The pseudoscience category is not usually so sourced when used, I believe. I think it is seldom sourced to the level of generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. I don't know about all the other stuff in this request, but making it clear how much sourcing is needed, if any, would help: that has caused a bunch of contention, and generally the opinions of editors, rather than sourcing, has determined when it is used. That is generally how categories seem to be assigned, so the contention in this case comes from confusion about what the Pseudoscience ArbCom means. Do we need a source which speaks for the scientific community before we use this category? If not, what quality of sourcing, if any, is necessary?

Related: can you give us more guidance as to what is "obvious pseudoscience?" This is an appeal to the discretion of editors, and there is an extremely wide range of opinion here. I have generally said "the threshold is Time cube, and anything more credible than that needs sourcing." But I do not know if this is correct.

Personally, I don't think categories do much, so I don't care, but this does cause a lot of strife. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, can you confirm this:

The pseudoscience category is applicable anywhere that a reliable source has asserted or questioned whether the subject contains pseudoscientific elements.

What you're saying seems to be that what we need to look for is significant debate. However, in this case we would use the cat on Psychoanalysis, which is against the Pseudoscience ruling. There are very significant questions about psychoanalysis, as well as many other fields which nevertheless have a following and might be scientific to a large degree. So, I'm still a little confused. What you say seems to indicate a very significant expansion of the current use of the category. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orangemarlin
This is a content dispute. ArbCom involvement isn't necessary, since the original decisions regarding Pseudoscience is awfully clear. Can we not waste ArbCom's time, and let them actually help the project along? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 03:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that FT2 recuse himself from this discussion. His known antipathy towards me in his well-known one-man vendetta to besmirch my reputation, and his well-known support of pseudoscientific concepts such as NLP indicates he cannot provide any valid discussion to this request. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Threaded discussion, including responses from FT2 and further comments by Orangemarlin and Jim62sch, moved to the talk page of the case. Daniel (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by jim62sch
I'm not sure what the hub-bub is all about here. There are accurate definitions of PS in dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, et cetera. Seems to be a case of someone wanting to project certain beliefs that are clearly PS as being scientrific by changng the definition of science. Not likely to happen as WP needs to reflect the reality of the nonce. Ta. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by NE2
Are we seriously arguing about whether astrology is pseudoscience? The answer is clearly no, since it doesn't even pretend to be science --NE2 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nealparr
@NE2 - Yes, astrology is a pseudoscience. It's a system that appears to have a scientific basis -- the water-based body is said to be effected by gravitational pulls like the Moon creates tides (discounted, but that's the idea) -- and it's vastly complex with diagrams and classifications and so on. At first glance, it wouldn't be surprising if one thought it was science. Also, way back when, it actually was the "science" of the day. The learned men, doctors and philosophers, in ancient times practiced astrology. If you read our own pseudoscience article, it mentions that Karl Popper (one of the guys who popularized the notion that some things only pose as science) used astrology as a sort of poster-example of pseudoscience. As such, it's well-sourced; partly because of Popper, it is often used as an example of pseudoscience. It is a really good example. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2
The correct approach to any article that contains questionable science is to include a properly sourced description of why the science used is questionable, so that no casual reader will be confused or mislead into thinking that it is proper and accepted. The pseudoscience label is a shortcut; it is not objectionable in and of itself, but it should never be used in place of or in the absence of an explanation of the failings of the science. My concern here (which is borne out by the way the category is used in practice by some editors) is that the label can slapped on the article without any justification, sourcing, or attempts to explain its presence, and held there through vague references to the ArbCom ruling. this practice amounts to the legitimization of prejudicial opinion, which is against wikipedia's core policies. Would we allow editors to place buddhism, or judaism, or scientology (or etc.) in a category called 'antichristian religions' without a great deal of discussion and reference to sources? even granting that there are certain religions (like satanism) that are overtly and explicitly antichristian, we would still require proper verification and consensus. so why would we allow this pejorative 'pseudoscience' category to be applied to whatever random article some random editor feels like?

Please let's bring this back in focus. the purpose of categories on wikipedia is to help readers find related information; they are not supposed to be used as a tool to denigrate article topics. Contentious categories like pseudoscience should only be used carefully, with attention to sourcing, and only as an adjunct to proper discussion in the article. Even with something as clearly pseudoscientific as Astrology, the category should be used only after it is made clear in the article that this is an appropriate label, and if that discussion is not there, the category should be immediately and unceremoniously removed. -- Ludwigs 2 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Scientizzle
As I indicated at Category talk:Pseudoscience, should be encouraged to start relevant discusssions at the talk pages of individual articles on the value and accuracy of a pseudoscience categorization. Self-ref has outlined personal categorization criteria that does not jive with current ArbCom-established foundations or general consensus. As such, I would dispute any wholesale de-categorization based upon said personal criteria as I'm certain it would result in editwarring and other nonsense.

Self-ref has recently been making irresponsible large-scale changes to the categorization of pseudoscience. For example, removing Category:Phrenology from Category:Pseudoscience is manifestly ridiculous: phrenology is a classic example of pseudoscience (with important proto-science hallmarks). There has been no discussion attempted by Self-ref regarding phrenology at Talk:Phrenology or Category talk:Phrenology, which would be the appropriate places to bring this up. Even Self-ref's long-winded politicking at Category talk:Pseudoscience barely deals with phrenology...this is a wildly out-of-view location to discuss that proper categorization of phrenology.

I think it's clear that Self-ref can and should initiate discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a pseudoscience category on the talk page of a subject in question. The current activity of making large-scale demands for sourcing in an under-the-radar category talk page is inefficient and unwise at best, and deliberate obfuscation at worst. I agree with the early ArbCom returns that this is a genuine content dispute that should be settled in the typical manner...so I strongly encourage Self-ref to discuss proper categorization of Subject X at Talk:Subject X. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
I think the problem is not so much that Self-ref has questioned the categorization, but that they had neither checkd the articles in question for referencing.

For instance:


 * SECOND CALL also on the defense of Category:Patent medicines and Category:Reiki as pseudoscience. These are not the same as homeopathy. Without such a defense these will be removed from the category Pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a break with your "second notices." Read the Arbcom ruling linked to at the top of this page. As long as RS source exists establishing that a V viewpoint exists that a topic is pseudoscience, it can and should be categorized as such. That's the ruling. You need to stop trying to enforce your own rules and start following the Arbcom's. Odd nature (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Does a reliable source exist supporting that view? If so, where? For all three of these categories??-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out a source from the National Academy of Science saying that homeopathy was pseudoscience. self-ref's response?


 * Astrology and homeopathy are obviously perceived as pseudosciences. Are they really such things? I haven't yet seen good clear evidence of it..

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They were told about the Arbcom ruling, that didn't allow them to keep bossing around every editor of pseudoscientific topics, so they ignored it. They didn't bother to look at the articles, they wanted every single person involved to get the evidence for them, and to act on their schedules, or they would make controvbersial, disruptive actions.

The ruling is clear:


 * Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

Self-ref was aware of this, she doesn't care, so long as it lets her continue to bully people around. I would ask for Self-ref to be chastised under the sanctions in question.

Clerk notes

 * I've improved the formatting throughout this thread. Although the adjustments to individuals' comments was minimal, if I have (inadvertently) altered the meaning of any editor's statement, please feel free to revert or tweak my tidying as necessary. Anthøny   ✉  16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The issue is that a certain kind of dispute seems to exist around pseudoscience. How one draws its boundaries, and where it shades into "general dispute behavior", is a grey area, but the remedy was intended to tackle the kinds of disputes, issues, and (often the same types of) parties as are seen repeatedly in pseudoscience related disputes. The test whether a given article can have those remedies applies is basically, "are the disputes on this article of a kind that is similar in those ways to other pseudoscience-type disputes". Examples of "how one might tell":"Are there scientific views that the topic is at best unproven and at worst without plausible foundation, and also other significant views who believe in what might be folklore, traditional/alternative/naturalistic/intuitive views, who argue that despite lack of scientific plausibility or proof, it is 'proven by experience over the ages' or by some other means which is broadly discounted as evidence by science, or the like?Are there concerns that a scientific fringe theory is being presented as proven or plausible based on 'dressing up' -- taking what scientists view as scant, non-existent, or misrepresented (or undue weight) in a scientific sense and trying to make it seem more than it is?Are there similar or same parties, and similar or same themes, in the dispute, as in other pseudoscience disputes?"  I would look to those, primarily. Wording such as "category of pseudoscience" are not intended to be rigid criteria but only suggestive/indicative, not least because category membership itself is changeable.  It was not the intention to force a decision "is this pseudoscience" on any topic, but much more "do the issues and the lines in the dispute reflect those of other Wikipedia pseudoscience disputes, such that remedies for pseudoscience may be useful to apply".  So turning to specific questions - (A) yes astrology may well have very similar issues and lines of dispute (commonsense says). If in fact the problems it is having, mirror those that pseudoscience has had elsewhere, and this ruling may help, then it may be usefully applicable. (B) See A. (C) Don't bother tagging (or detagging) articles to get or avoid anything under any ruling. It doesn't help and it won't really affect whether the nature of the topic and its disputes share a lot in common with disputes in "pseudoscience". Category is a useful aid, not a prescriptive rule.  FT2 (Talk 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As FT2, I see two separate questions here. The first is about categorization as pseudoscience; I feel that we have explained our view sufficiently in the prior case and editors and admins should be able to follow that ruling.  The second is about how far the sanctions in that case extend.  As FT2, I see this as a dispute between people holding two different viewpoints; these groups appear to be able to get into conflict on any page which might be linked, however tangentially, to pseudoscience or anything that might be called such by anyone.  Thus, the scope of the ruling is wider than just those pages that can accurately be categorized "pseudoscience" and they apply to any such article upon which such a dispute between those sides takes place, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are problems with moving forward at chiropractic
There was a closing of a recent RFC and a consensus that spinal manipulation is relevant to chiropractic. A few editors are not abiding by consensus. See Talk:Chiropractic for the details on this. This requires administrative attention. Q ua ck Gu ru  17:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversial edit
{{subst:Pseudoscience enforcement}} made a controversial edit by reverting to a disputed version without consensus. TheDoctorIsIn should be notified about the sanctions. Q ua ck Gu ru  21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
Note: the specific article involved is List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

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

(Note: since this case involves an article and not any specific editor(s), neither I nor the parties below are directly affected. However, I've notified all active editors as a courtesy, and have left a note on the article's talk page.)



Statement by Backin72
We are at an impasse regarding use of the "pseudoscience" label at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Certain of the findings of principle in the Pseudoscience Arb case were incorporated into NPOV (see: WP:PSCI), and are now being disregarded. Basically, some editors want to characterize as pseudoscience any topic that has received criticism as such, even from self-published sources like Quackwatch and CSICOP. We've had a bunch of RfC's (I stopped counting before 2008: 19 Jan. 2008, 15 Aug. 2008, 18 Nov. 2008, 28 Dec. 2008), all of which have failed to generate consensus, and lately a lot of edit-warring (see edit history). We're deadlocked, other attempts at WP:DR have not worked, and each side is convinced they are right, so I believe the time is ripe for ArbCom to clarify.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. WP:PSCI is quite clear on what to explictly characterize (or label, or categorize) as pseudoscience, and what not to. For convenience (at the expense of the 500-word limit; sorry), here is a cut-and-paste of WP:PSCI:

It's pretty clear what NPOV is telling us: don't categorize or otherwise characterize a topic as pseudoscience unless it's trivially "obvious pseudoscience" (and requires no reference), or it's "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Classifying a topic as the latter obviously requires a suitable source, cf. WP:RS, and also WP:MEDRS. Such sources usually are scientific academies or other mainstream, official groups (e.g., many of the sources listed in List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design). Skeptical advocacy organizations like Quackwatch and CSICOP, while notable (and perhaps suitable for establishing that a topic is what we call "questionable science"), cannot be taken as representing general agreement in the scientific community. Such sources suffer from self-selection bias, and don't even meet WP:MEDRS at all.

However, some editors don't believe that inclusion of "questionable sciences" on the list violates WP:PSCI. One editor says "a list is not a category", irrespective of the list's title.  Some want to populate the list as robustly as possible, and have tended to brush off the objection that we must find the proper sources, i.e., those indicative of what the scientific community generally holds. This is especially problematic given that the list's title is unambiguous: "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" leaves no wiggle room, any more than category:pseudoscience does. When we put a topic on that list, we are saying that the topic is pseudoscience, no ifs, ands or buts.

My view is that if we keep the list's present title, we should strip out all topics that are not verifiably "generally considered pseudoscience" or "obvious pseudoscience". If we changed the list's title to something like "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience", then I think it would be OK to include "questionable sciences". However, I'm still concerned that we'd have to clearly demarcate the clear-cut pseudosciences from the "questionable" ones. Otherwise, it's like having an alphabetical "List of burglars, and people who might have been burglars according to speculation". It's a violation of WP:WEIGHT to have clear-cut pseudosciences alongside grey-area topics.

So, I request that ArbCom clarify that findings 15-18 in Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience accordingly:


 * Proper sources are required to show that a topic is "generally considered pseudoscience". (I believe it would also be appropriate to clarify that statements from individual scientists or skeptical bodies do not suffice as sources here.)


 * These findings apply not only to "category:pseudoscience", but also to lists with unambiguous titles such as List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, as well as to navigational templates, and any unqualified assertion such as "X topic is pseudoscience". "Questionable sciences" and "alternative theoretical formulations" should not be depicted as pseudoscience, e.g. via inclusion on the list in question, as titled.


 * Don't hide distinctions in the fine print. Obvious or generally-considered pseudosciences should not be conflated with questionable sciences by listing them alongside each other without explanation.  WP:WEIGHT and other principles require that questionable sciences be clearly demarcated from the former two, either by having their own list,  or otherwise by annotation or segregation into a separate section of a broader list (e.g., a "List of topics referred to as pseudosciences").

Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment for Coren and others: Yes, this is a content problem; so were aspects of the original ruling and finding (see WP:PSCI).  In practice, ArbCom does comment on content from time to time, and WP is better for it.  Please have a look at those RfC's I linked to before blowing this off to "community resolution".  Said community is deadlocked, with some believing that everything on the list, grey-areas included, are obviously pseudoscience.  But the sourcing situation is a little bit different than Eldereft's humorous renaming example below.  There are pseudosciences according to the scientific community, and "pseudosciences" according to lesser sources like advocacy groups or individual critics.  There are editors who, like skeptical groups, want to apply this label to as many things as possible, in an WP:IAR spirit, because they believe they're right.  Others believe WP:PSCI was correct and should be followed strictly.  This has created the present impasse.  If the community never resolves it, and there are real NPOV problems, shouldn't ArbCom intervene?  --Backin72 (n.b.) 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment for Rlevse and Vassyana: I don't think the Fringe Science case will help much; nothing in the proposed principles addresses WP:PSCI (probably because it's not all that germaine).  Please don't be too hasty in blowing this off.  If the community could fix it, it would have done so in the past couple years.  We have an impasse between editors who take WP:PSCI seriously and editors who want to IAR because they feel the pseudoscience label is best used liberally.  We've tried virtually every part of WP:DR, which is why we're at the end of it .... here.  So, have another look?  Pretty please?  It's a fairly narrow issue.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts is currenty a crapola because of so much arguing over that WP:PSCI ruling, but the modifications proposed by Backin would just make it worse. It just deepens the "content ruling" problem by a) expanding its scope and b) enforcing stricter limitations on content.

While that ruling needs modification, this doesn't look the correct way to go.

Statement by Elonka
This is really more of a content dispute than anything that ArbCom needs to deal with. As background, I have been acting as an administrator for the last few days at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, trying to help stabilize the article via the discretionary sanctions authorized from the Pseudoscience case. There currently appear to be three main points of dispute, though all three appear (to me) to be the topics of constructive discussion on the talkpage. The main three issues are: (1) What should the page be titled; (2) Should Chiropractic be included on the list; and (3) Should Traditional Chinese medicine (such as acupuncture) be included on the list. Up until about a week ago, there were pretty systematic back and forth revert wars going on, but since there has been more administrator attention on the article, the revert wars have stopped, and the discussion environment seems to be improving on the talkpage. No direct sanctions have been implemented (at least by me), though I did post a few nudges to the talkpages of a few users: QuackGuru, Dematt, Backin72, Levine2112, along with some off-wiki communication with. All editors have been cooperative and have voluntarily complied with the requests, which is appreciated, and the article appears much more stable as a result, though of course vigorous discussion is continuing on the talkpage. As far as ArbCom is concerned, the existing ArbCom motions and discretionary sanctions seem sufficient for the current situation, so it would probably be best to allow the discussions at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts to continue, with administrators continuing to monitor the page. --Elonka 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Eldereft
Possibly influenced by the daunting volume of often polite discussion and rapid watchlist-destroying reverts, all listed editors are long-term good faith contributors. There is general consensus that unquestionable science should be excluded from the list - anti-vaccination advocacy groups and others clearly outside the scientific conversation are not sufficient sources.

I prefer to view this as a genuine dispute concerning where the bar of WEIGHT falls - if a practice, for instance homeopathy, is published in peer-reviewed journals or practiced in some hospitals, can reliably-sourced analysis support an entry in this list? This often boils down to the issue of efficacy vs. rationale - many papers studying the efficacy of chiropractic are published in quality sources, but the original and a continuing rationale asserts the existence and healing powers of a putative energy. MEDRS applies only to the efficacy side of this question, though assertions made in the absence of evidence may come into play. To further complicate matters, there are three answers to this question: write an entry mentioning nuances and caveats; write an entry discussing solely the pseudoscientific aspects; or write no entry. I favor the first position (adequately sourced) - state that hypnosis exists but Mesmerism and past-life regression are pseudoscience. This issue is treated in the inclusion criteria described in the introduction to the list.

This brings us to the question of sourcing - a few pseudoscientific practices are widespread enough to have attracted the notice of organizations and departments who ordinarily devote themselves to science. Everyone has heard about the 'power lines cause cancer' scare, and the American Physical Society felt it worth their time to state that "[n o plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these power line fields have been identified.]" They have issued no corresponding statement on the misapplication of quantum mechanics in service of mysticism. The test of whether such a body has issued a statement is a much better indicator of how widespread a practice is or how much it impinges on their mission than it is an indicator of "how pseudoscientific" it is. Skeptical bodies are interested in pseudoscience, and may make reliable statements regarding it.

There is also a perennial proposal to rename the list to include alleged, purported, or some similar qualifier in the title. Fyslee gives what I see as the best-articulated formulation of this position here. My own position is that we should rely on in-line attribution and nuanced explanations to show rather than tell. A ridiculous analogy would be a proposed rename to Hertzsprung–Russell diagram according to mainstream astrophysicists.

Requested clarifications
 * How do we treat topics some of whose aspects are reliably described as pseudoscientific?
 * How does ASF bear on source segregation, attribution, and pseudoscience?

Requested non-clarifications
 * Sufficiency of sourcing is a content matter.
 * How do we deal with advocacy, both in editors and in sources?
 * A saintly uninvolved administrator may wish to consider Discretionary sanctions.

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is a content dispute, and I see no evidence that this could not be solved within the community. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Content dispute, plus this could be affected by the current RFAR case on Fringe sciences, which is in voting phase.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. Normal content disagreement, not requiring the intervention of ArbCom. If discussion isn't getting anywhere, there's plenty of options. If something truly is an endemic problem regarding "psuedoscience", and classification as such, there's an ongoing case about the fringe science topic area. Vassyana (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment. The page has the eyes of one or more experienced editors that seem willing to assist with helping to settle the dispute and resolve the behavioral issues. I would recommend trying to work with them to resolve the situation. If that option fails, there are still other options to explore. Informal and formal mediation are options I would recommend exploring. The incidents, edit warring, and wikiquette noticeboards can be used as needed to request administrator assistance with behavioral issues. Regarding references towards the fringe science case, if this situation is relevant, please add evidence to the case. If WP:PSCI is an important and relevant principle, please add appropriate workshop proposals to the case. Vassyana (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline Wizardman  02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline  Risker (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline Rlevse sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards declining also as this is a content issue and the proposed decisions of the current fringe science case does have elements that will help. Also, there is still plenty of time to workshop if more are needed.  In regards to the requested changes to the pseudoscience case, the principles already indicate to what extent they apply to content as well as "category:pseudoscience", using the terms labeled and categorized.  It appears as if the ambiguity is in the word "categorized", which may refer to the MediaWiki functionality described in the guideline Categorization, or it may refer to the characterisation of a topic within content of articles.  If it is the latter, "labeled" is a term of strong and unambiguous characterisation, while "categorized" is a term of loose characterisation.  My reading of principle 15 is that only obviously bogus science can be "labeled" as such in the content of an article without good sources to support that label.  With that in mind, principle 16 indicates that "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" would need still need proper sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per Vassyana's comment. -FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline - content dispute. My advice, if it will help, would be for those expending time and effort on the very difficult task of finding a stable version of such a list, to work instead on improving Pseudoscience (and related articles) and all the articles of the potential candidates for this list. Once that is done, then it may be more obvious whether the list in question is possible or even needed. To clarify further, good articles are generally more helpful and informative than controversial lists, and those lists are best done after the groundwork has been done at the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Invalid application of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions in regard to Deeceevoice
I've moved the log of Deeccevoice from the case page to here, because it fairy obviously isn't a valid use of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions.


 * , banned from the article and talk pages of all articles related to the race of ancient people/peoples until 5 May 2009. Tom Harrison Talk 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC) See also Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann. Tom Harrison Talk 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for some simple explanation for what appears to be arbitrary, capricious and totally unwarranted. He's declined an explanation -- and doesn't provide one here either. deeceevoice (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the absence of justification -- and a refusal, when asked, to provide justification -- this action is invalid. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when is history science? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not really even the point. As near as I can tell, Harrison took exception to me challenging his, IMO (and an opinion shared by others), precipitous lockdown of the article and this. Absent any real, supportable attempt at explanation, my guess is he's trying to throw his weight around and prove that, since he's an admin, he can do anything he pleases. His latest charge -- what looks like a convenient, throwaway attempt at justifying his ban -- that I've engaged in POV pushing is unfounded and utterly unsupported. In fact, I've spent the last two days trying to build consensus on a completely value-neutral lead (as opposed to the current, awful, inaccurate one), which looks like it's NPOV enough to obtain broad approval.  How does that square with his charge of POV pushing?  Answer:  It doesn't.  deeceevoice (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may -- the article in question is under specific probation, so that topic ban under "pseudoscience" is not valid, but a ban under the article probation would be. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring over this, I urge anyone who disagrees to gain clarification from the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need for rapid action here, and I think it was a bit hasty to remove (and archive) the above thread. Let's bring it up at WP:AE and sort things out in a calm manner. --Elonka 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka, I agree with your recommendation here on how to proceed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Xasodfuih
It has been recently pointed out to me that "ArbCom does not rule on content". Is this a newer policy that invalidates/vacates the pseudoscience decision which allows for the categorization (and presumably sub-categorization) of pseudoscientific claims and theories?

Diets making pseudoscientific claims are often described as fad diets by scientific associations; for instance, the American Dietetic Association has a list here. In a recent discussion however, the fad diets category has been deleted with the main argument that it's "not NPOV because what is fad is inherently POV" (not an exact quote). Surely, the same argument can and most likely was made about the more general pseudoscience category before the ArbCom previously. So, does the pseudoscience decision still stand? Is it WP:NPOV to have Category:Pseudoscience? Is it WP:NPOV to have sub-categories for pseudoscience, such as Category:Fad diet if major scientific organizations use them? Thank you for your time. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I've read Arbitration policy carefully, and I don't see a limitation on the scope of ArbCom rulings to content, but only a caveat that you usually don't rule on it: "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." Since a prior content-related decision has been made in this area, I think that clarifying it will not violate the current policy. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Risker: User:Good Olfactory was the closing admin for the original Category:Diet and food fads discussion, and the admin who speedily deleted (G4) my (inadvertant re-)creation of Category:Fad diet. User:Jmh649, who like me has not taken part in the (unadvertised to relevant WikiProjects) original discussion, asked Good Olfactory to reopen the discussion, but the admin declined without further commentary. I don't see how the unexpressed thoughts of the closing admin override the rationale(s) given in the original deletion discussion. As for redundancy, surely we have Category:Science, but that does not make more specific categories such as Category:Fringe science or even Category:Pseudoscience redundant; I think the reasoning same applies to diet topics. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An example (possibly clarifying the difference between this issue and the other related request on this page): Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that the potentially derogatory term "fad diet" is attributed (to ADA) in the wiki article's text, not given as a bare fact. I don't see however a practical way to do that for Wikipedia categories. I assume the 2006 decision struggled with this matter too, hence the wording "generally considered pseudoscience". I'm all for discussing whether a certain diet meets the "generally considered" standard for categorization, but the deletion of the category preempts any such discussion from taking place. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Update 2: The finding I'm citing from the famous 2006 ArbCom has been incorporated into NPOV. (I'm surprised that nobody pointed this out to me.) So, there's probably not much else that the Committee can do in this matter. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was added to NPOV on Feb 12, 2009, that's why many don't know about it. Thanks, John! Xasodfuih (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry
Other current discussion related to that CFD exists at Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23. GRBerry 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre
To be honest, this has puzzled me as well. ArbCom traditionally don't rule on content or validate policy and guideline apart from the main summary of the non-negotiables (e.g. the main gist of NPOV, BLP, and NFC). A little bit of clarification would be nice. Sceptre (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Archiving in approximately 12 hours--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment to Xasodfuih: Have you discussed the closure of this CfD with the administrator who closed it? The closure of that CfD may have nothing to do with the term "fad" and may be related to the fact that the articles within the now-deleted category were all present in Category:Diets, as noted by one of the other participants. Risker (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment below in the context of the previous request for clarification of this same decision, is also generally applicable here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two clarification requests at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience that may be helpful to read. 1 2 Following the most recent of those clarification requests, the Pseudoscience section of NPOV was lifted from the FAQ.  Note that a similar section was moved from the NPOV page to the new FAQ subpage in mid-2006, and the Arbcom ruling was included there in March 2007. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Controversial category names are tricky. The specific example of "fad diets" should be left for deletion review to take care of (though is it not possible to use another name for such things, or subcategorise diets another way?). The general approach to controversial categories should be to improve the articles first so that it is clearer (with source) as to whether the articles should be in such categories. And if the category is deemed appropriate, to come up with a category definition to keep things under control. Not quite sure what diets have to do with pseudoscience, though. They may claim to have a scientific basis, but that doesn't make them a science or pseudoscience. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I feel this is no longer a matter for the Committee to clarify or handle. The "pseudoscience" section of policy predates the arbitration case. The reference to the principle formulated during the case was added to official policy almost two years ago by normal policy editing. It appears the community has taken ownership of the principle, or rather that it has been incorporated into policy by normal means. Thus, it should be handled like any other point of policy. (Additionally, I am concerned that remaining open to ArbCom clarification on the principle turns the Committee into a content adjudicator for disputes surrounding it.) Discussions about its appearance and application in policy should be discussed at the neutral point of view talk page and/or policy village pump. Requests for input and clarification regarding its application to specific cases should be discussed at the NPOV noticeboard and the appropriate article talk pages. Dispute resolution should be used to help resolve any impasse. Vassyana (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * Not really applicable: see below. Post made at WT:NPOV.

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
This case is quoted within WP:NPOV, which makes this slightly awkward wording unfortunate:


 * 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I'd suggest that this be changed to something such as:


 * 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a significant following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Obviously, clear pseudoscience exists where one or two supporters could be considered (broadly) part of the scientific community. For instance, Michael Behe is a university professor in biology, and a supporter of intelligent design, which huge numbers of sources confirm to be pseudoscience. His colleagues have even put up a webpage on the university server stating that intelligent design "should not be considered scientific". A little clarification here would prevent wikilawyering. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon
It is ARBCOM's responsibility to ensure that thier statements cannot be misinterpreted so in this aspect, ARBCOM does have a duty to correct a proposed principle in thier case. It is the professional thing to do. Especially as the community relies on the commitee to assist in such difficult areas of the project. I do however caution the community on using arbitration principles as case law.

Vassyana is however correct that the wording of policies like WP:NPOV, remains in the hands of the community and therefore the duty lies with the community to ensure that policy does not allow such wikilawyering. Changes in the policy should be taken then.

In short, both ARBCOM and the community have duties here that they must fulfill.

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment - I've always been uneasy about the practice of quoting ArbCom principles in policies, especially very old principles. Either quote the arbitration case accurately, or don't quote it at all. If the wording from the arbitration case is insufficient, then remove it and use a wording agreed upon by consensus on the policy talk page. But please don't ask ArbCom to participate (from RFAR) in the editing of policy, especially not one as key as neutral point of view. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The community has long ago taken ownership of that language by integrating it into policy. Any modifications thereof should be handled through the community in the form of normal policy discussion and editing. --Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several paragraphs of the Pseudoscience decision that venture more closely to content or policy rulings than would normally be found in one of our decisions. The case was decided in 2006, and not a single arbitrator who participated in the case is still serving on the committee, so it would be more than a little artificial for us to purport to "clarify" the principle in question. Therefore, on the substance of the matter, I agree with Vassyana and Carcharoth. But I also suggest that the former arbitrator who wrote the decision should be contacted, if he hasn't been already, and asked for his view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)