Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Archive 4

Request for clarification (June 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  ~Adjwilley (talk) at 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience
 * Link to relevant decision Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

Statement by Adjwilley
I recently stumbled across a dispute centered around Chiropractic, and became aware that the article and subject area are under discretionary sanctions under the Pseudoscience case. My question is: how does the pseudoscience case apply to alternative medicine generally? Where do alt-med (and chiropractic specifically) fall on the spectrum of "obvious pseudoscience", "generally considered pseduoscience", "questionable science", and "alternative theoretical formulations" that is outlined in the case? The case file doesn't seem to mention alternative medicine specifically, but apparently discretionary sanctions are being issued in the area, which is why I am asking for clarification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Kww, Enric Naval: I understand the reasons for Chiropractic specifically being covered; I want to understand the details, and how the pseudoscience case applies to other alt-med articles like Acupuncture which afaict is not sanctioned. For instance, can an administrator impose a topic ban or edit restriction under the discretionary sanctions clause of this case for all alternative medicine articles, or would such a topic ban only apply to articles that have the pseudoscience DS template on the talk page? And what is the criteria for adding the DS template to an article? I don't see a clear-cut answer to this, which is why I filed the request for clarification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Chiropractic is covered because it has has pseudoscientific elements. And it's doubly covered because the sanctions were expanded to cover fringe science, and chiropractic is fringe medicine (fringe medicine being a subset of fringe science). The arbitration case doesn't need to mention alternative medicine.

Sourced proof: --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (this source is already in the article!)
 * In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (pages 226-227), the Florida State University tried to start a chiropractic course, and it was denounced as pseudoscience by many professors.... but not by all of them. Then it discusses several aspects of fringe medical practices that are labelled as pseudoscience, including chiropractic as one of those practices.

@Neuraxis. These two sources talk about the current state of chiropractic. They are not "used in a historical context". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If a topic is reliably-sourced as being a Pseudoscience / fringe science, then it should be under discretionary sanctions. The Arbcom only needs to clarify that.

The rest are content disputes, using reliable sources to establish / deny the pseudoscience in each separate article. Arbcom shouldn't decide content disputes in a given article, unless the community has shown that it can't solve the matter. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neuraxis

 * User:BullRangifer has twice deleted, my comment for a clarifiation request  and is now alleging I am edit warring over it!  .  This is hardly civil or any good faith.  It is again another smear tactic which mischaracterizes my comment which was not a straw man argument. Neuraxis (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Enric has decided to cherry pick a sentence, used in a historical context. This is a common tactic. However, it ignores the fundamental question: Are manual and manipulative therapy for MSK conditions pseudoscientific and fringe? This impacts chiropractic since it is the largest purveyor of manipulative services, but also impacts on osteopathic medicine, physical therapy who also use manipulation as a means of relieving MSK pain. So, the findings here apply equally to all health professions who use manipulative therapy as a clinical intervention for dealing with MSK pain. While I do agree that the non-musculoskeletal use of manipulative therapies isn't mainstream, given that its only 10% of practice this should not be disproportionately weighed against the fact that 90% of manipulative treatment is directly towards spinal/MSK issues. Given that the mainstream of the chiropractic profession has evolved with a common identity focusing on conservative spine care, the notion that chiropractic practice (and spinal manipulation by extension) is 100% pseudoscientific does not reflect the current reality. This ongoing discussion specifically discusses this very topic and is relevant here. Lastly, we need use a global focus and not just a US-centric POV.


 * Residency program for chiropractors in Veterans Affairs, and integration in VA in general.
 * National Institute of Health, viewpoint states "Most research on chiropractic has focused on spinal manipulation. Spinal manipulation appears to benefit some people with low-back pain and may also be helpful for headaches, neck pain, upper- and lower-extremity joint conditions, and whiplash-associated disorders." . This is a mainstream respected organization.  The WHO was clear too in this regard.
 * '''Whereas most chiropractic schools in the USA are in private colleges, most of the newer schools internationally are within the national university system (e.g. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK). In some of these programs, for example, at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense and the University of Zurich in Switzerland, chiropractic and medical students take the same basic science courses together for three  years before entering separate programs for clinical training. .  Video proof
 * Surveys demonstrate that the primary reasons patients consult chiropractors are back pain (approximately 60%), other musculoskeletal pain such as pain in the neck, shoulder, extremities, and arthritic pain (20%) and headaches including migraine (10%). About 1 in 10 (10%) present with a wide variety of conditions caused or aggravated by neuromusculoskeletal disorders (e.g. pseudo angina, dysmennorhea, respiratory and digestive  dysfunctions, infant colic/irritable baby syndrome.).Practice demographics state that the majority (9/10) patients see chiropractors for spine/MSK conditions.
 * "These data support the theory that patients seek chiropractic care almost exclusively for musculoskeletal symptoms and that chiropractors and their patients share a similar belief system."
 * '''Back and neck pain are the specialties of chiropractic but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues . The source is Ernst, and the % of non-MSK issues being treated, as the 2013 status report shows is 10%.  This was also stated in an earlier study where the percentage was 10.3% [Nonmusculoskeletal complaints accounted for 10.3% of the chief complaints.]
 * This source, (also being used at the mainpage but this section isn't allowed to be inserted by skeptical editors  states "Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in manual therapy and especially spinal manipulation.  The same article also states that "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream.
 * Although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers, they are more similar to a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry
 * Spinal manipulative therapy gained recognition during the 1980’s by mainstream medicine, "As a result of this increased communication between the medical and chiropractic communities, chiropractors were offered and credentialed medical staff hospital privileges and began to co-manage patients with medical physicians" (Ibid.)
 * The current advent of the evidence-based medicine era, chiropractic scholars have generated evidence-based systematic reviews and practice guidelines with respect to the management of acute/chronic low back pain, thoracic pain, neck pain, headache,  radiography,    and upper/lower extremity conditions.    tendinopathy myofascial pain/trigger points, and non-musculoskeletal conditions. .  Collectively, these can be found here  which is an evience-based resource for chiropractic management.
 * Evidence-based chiropractic generates 234 hits on PubMed . This suggest that, in modern times, evidence-based chiropractic is not a myth, like critics suggest, but a reality.
 * There are several evidence-based textbooks of the topic of chiropractic published by mainstream medical publishers, , , , and several more by other professions who use MM. | MSK MM | Science and Practice of Manual Therapy | Chiropractic technique and principles | An Osteopathic Approach to Dx and Tx | Manipulative Therapy: Musculoskeletal Medicine


 * Beijing Declaration (2008) "“This congress represented a major milestone for chiropractic” says WFC president Dr. Papadopoulos. “Chiropractic was seen by WHO, government officials from many countries and delegates from other professions as the most developed profession internationally in the field of manual healthcare, and the Beijing Declaration called upon all countries to recognize and regulate CAM professionals such as doctors of chiropractic.”
 * Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. 
 * Pioneering of World Spine Care  which is brings together a multidisciplinary group of doctors and therapists to help treat spinal disorders in 3rd world countries and has such notable sponsors as Elon Musk of Tesla and endorsements from the WHO, North American Spine Society, and other leading spine care organizations. "SC is a multinational not-for-profit organization, bringing together the full spectrum of health care professionals involved in spinal health – medical physicians and specialists, surgeons, chiropractors, and physiotherapists. WSC is focused on providing evidence-based, culturally integrated prevention, assessment, and treatment of spinal disorders in the developing world. The flagship project involves developing and initial deployment of a universal model of care for spinal disorders, designed for practical application by front-line health care workers in developing nations worldwide.
 * 2013 WHO introduces World Spine Day, was directly related to the efforts of the chiropractic profession to draw awareness for spinal health disorders
 * Collectively this small collection of diffs shows that the primary focus of chiropractic care as it currently stands is primarily dedicated to management of spinal/MSK disorders. The outdated one cause one cure has been rejected by the profession 'the monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession preferring a holistic view of joint dysfunction/subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in web of causation along with other determinants of health.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but rather a starting point to show evidence that scientific practice and research is not uncommon, but reflects the mainstream of the profession currently. Regards, Neuraxis (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to Enric Naval. No, it's not representing the current status.  It's describing the Hx, as the title implies.  Also, the issues at chiropractic at chiropractic are in are in dispute with no resolution.  The evidence suggests the currently, the majority (80%) are practicing under biomedical, scientific norms.  BR, QG and DJ are suggesting the opposite is true.  Hence, the need for clarification.   Do you have any rebuttals for the evidence I posted?  Neuraxis (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kww, you simply seem not to understand. You're making a claim that chiropractic is nonsense but no one here, asides from Enric, with 2, has brought any sources. You're claiming it's pseudoscience through and through and even though I provide you with scientific research that currently shows an 80%/20% in favour of chiropractors practicing according to biomedical science orthodoxy, you're still claiming the opposite.  There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism and you're much more of the latter than the former.  Skeptics review their position in face of new evidence.  Cynics are just as dogmatic as those who are offer unconditional praise.  As this thread illustrates,  you're not listening when we ask you to stop ducking questions and stop distorting what the sources are actually saying.  Neuraxis (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullrangifer, NYbrad, Kww, etc.  We do have a RS, that I linked above, that states clearly that Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms.  .   Neuraxis (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullrangifer, you're not bringing anything new to the table. This is 2014 article, it is a RS and MEDRS compliant.   I am not trying to white-wash anything, despite your specious and repeated allegations (which hardly assumes good faith on your part).  So, I'm going to stick to what the sources say about the preponderance of scientific vs. unscientific beliefs and practices as is 'currently' known.  You should also read up on this too .  Also, it's not just the Canadians, the same findings were found in America and across the globe . Both concerns seem unlikely, however, given the consistency of the number of dissidents calculated in other investigations of chiropractic [3,22,36]..  So it's a global issue.  Neuraxis (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, the conclusions aren't specific to Canada, as the article clearly stated in the conclusions. I've mentioned it here to you but it seems you may have missed my comment earlier today here.  Also, the comparison with psychoanalysis isn't really applicable, for there is no real research that demonstrates how PA works nor that it is clinically effective.  Remember, WP distinguishes b/w pseudoscience, junk science, questionable science and alternative theoretical formulations.  We need to be careful with which words we choose.  Neuraxis (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the question I posed John Reading and reviewing research is part of my real-life job. The qualifying terms 'seems' is what all good researchers do.  That being said, it does not negate the generalizability.  You asserted that it's 'only' from Canada and the authors specifically cited other studies that this was not an outlier, but a common finding.  That was the purpose of my clarification.  Regarding the word perspective, it must be used in the the context of the paper.  Also, the word isn't ambiguous, it's definition is precise:  a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.'.  So, it's a synonym for POV.  What am I noticing at ArbCom is the majority of comments seem to be from users who have no expertise in research or methods and thus appraising the literature.  If ArbCom commentary does not require one to bring sources and facts and relies on opinions on the topic then the process is flawed. Even in this case, where the statement in the conclusions are so clear, the 'personal interpretation' of the editors are completely irrelevant.  If I am factually wrong about the process, then please tell me how I am misinformed.  I do not want to waste your time or mine.  If my tone is curt, I apologize in advance.  What I am noticing that true skepticism will revise opinions based on new facts and data.  Despite the multitude evidence of new facts that suggest that the majority of practice internationally is within scientific norms, there seems to be cynicism on the topic.   I really don't know what evidence you or anyone would require.   I am all ears (eyes!).
 * Reply to John: The source does not say 'respectability'. The studies that were quoted (which discusses the 'dissidents') were as earlier as 2003.  You can state that this study in fact 'reviewed' them.  So, the recentism argument doesn't really apply.   We agree that earlier areas and 'historically' that was the case.  And these, of course should be noted.  There is no distinction, between new or old, but it is clear that in 1895 medical physicians were using leeching therapy and in 1895 chiropractors were treating systemic conditions.  In 2014, the medical profession has evolved where leeching isn't a primary or common therapy and in 2014 the chiropractic profession has evovled where it has focused on neuromusculoskeletal disorders.   I don't see a distinction between old and new medicine, just 'eras' and   I think we were are disagreeing  on one key point: but neither does it make sense to call someting that apparently clearly was pseudoscience as science because it has subsequently become perhaps more scientific..  This is a false dichotomy analogy.  It is either 100% scientific or it is not.  That's not the case.  Do you realize that 'mainstream' or conventional medicine is not in fact completely scientific or evidence-based?  This may be a bit hard to grasp, but there is an excellent discussion here  where we discuss this topic precisely.  It, IMHO, is fundamental reading about understanding 'mainstream' vs. 'fringe' with respect to health care.  I would suggest this: scientific chiropractic is confined to NMSK diagnosis and treatment.  Outside those boundaries, all bets are off. Nonetheless, I  don't see this as 'all or none' but differentiating between the shades of grey.  I hope I've explained myself well.  I will post my own comment at ArbCom, you can post your reply, for transparency purposes.  Thanks for the collegial discussion thus far.  Neuraxis (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Brangifer is not talking about anything other than his personal opinion .  Despite what the source specifically says, that 80% of practicing chiropractors are practicing within scientific norms, a landslide majority, Brangifer insists through his own original research, that the reverse is true.  No amount of special pleading can change the results of the paper.   The mainstream of chiropractic is aligned with the mainstream of medicine.  The sources states that the unorthodox (aka fringe, pseudoscientific) is against mainstream medicine.  The criticism against the profession is aimed directly at the the specific faction, i.e. "straights".  We agree this faction is pseudoscientific.  The only disagreement we have are about the numbers.  The source stated 80% of chiropractors internationally are science-based.   Brangifer, put up a source that backs your claim that the straights are the majority or let it go. Neuraxis (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter I would appreciate it if you please do not misrepresent my intentions.  Your suggestions of attempting to overwhelm readers and attempting to restore a primary source aren't really assuming any good faith and my conduct is not in question here.  Rather than trying to find a middle ground I see your comment as reinforcing the polarization on the topic which doesn't move anything forward.  The accusation of attempting to rephrase things in a prejudicial manner is also not showing any good faith.  You are clearly wrong if you think I am going to be facing sanctions for my editing at chiropractic because there has been no substantial edits and the majority of work, so far, is spent on talk pages understanding the various POVs and coming to a compromise.  The fact that you're relying on a skeptical encyclopedia as the authoritative source is completely biased, it would be the same if there was a 'true believer' encyclopedia that I would be use to determining how 'scientific' a CAM practice was.   What you personally find relevant isn't the issue, it's what the sources say.  It seems no matter how many sources that are presented that demonstrates an evidence-based practice, this committee has really no intentions on reviewing any of the evidence instead relying on personal opinions and personal anecdotes.  So, to sum it up, this has nothing to with sanctions against me whatsoever, which is a red-herring.  I'm also disappointed in your lack of good faith; it's hard to have a true blue discussion when an editor thinks another one is trying to game them.   This has been rather illustrating how this process needs some serious modernization for casting the broad pseudoscience brush against all CAM is not only wrong in terms of the evidence and ethics, but outside of wikipedia, the situation is nowhere as being as dramatic and polarized.  When we starting ignoring the WHO, NIH, medical publishing houses, etc which do not state that chiropractic is pseudoscientific, then it appears that a schism has taken place.  So long as WP enables the cynical viewpoint to continuously dominate the on how things are defined and practiced, despite strong evidence to the contrary, you can expect the same problems to arise again and again as the root of the problem is not being addressed.  Regards Neuraxis (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion occurring during these discussions. Second, as I stated in our discussion, I am all for transparency . You made some statement here that weren't factual regarding your interpretation, and I tried to clarify them with you.  I you are offended that I challenged your opinion, I do apologize.  You've told us of your interpretation, that I'm trying to sway you, try to use perjorative terms to get undue influence, etc.  I respectfully disagree, I never had any such intention.   I have no experience with this process and all of the technical formalities.  You are experienced in these matters, and I am a little confused as to what is actually happening here anymore.    In all honesty, I wonder why this committee isn't  a panel of health care professionals overseeing this matter.  I am presenting medical research and discussing medically related issues related to health care.  While I do respect that everyone is entitled to comment, I do note the lack of multi-disciplinary health professions that would help us discern the research and also counter with their own to make this more factually based.  One last point: The only documented misconduct regarding editing at chiropractic has been QuackGuru.  Despite after promising to improve his behaviour  and stop editing chiropractic  he continued to do so, he has 50% of the edits alone in 2014 to chiropractic, and even stated that he shaped the article from top to bottom [.  He has misled editors continuously about reforming his behaviour [ and continued to be disruptive   Despite asking him several times to engage in talk, there were repeated attempts of not listening, ,, , , ,  His chiropractic article [ has become unreadable , while he continues self-congratulates himself claiming the article is just peachy .   His absence here has been rather conspicuous.  [[User:Neuraxis|Neuraxis]] (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In responding to John Carter's recent allegation that I am a SPA, the rules are rather clear on this Editing only within a single broad topic: When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA.. Also, it's a red-herring to the topic, as it is not at all what the purpose of this ArbCom is about.  Lastly, I provided several diffs above regarding the evidence of who has been a repeated, documented disruptive editor and not a single peep.  Rather odd.   What exactly about my conduct,  are you concerned about and how does it compare with QuackGuru's?   Neuraxis (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad: How about we used alternative theoretical formulations? Neuraxis (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
I don't even see why this is a question. Chiropractic practices are firmly rooted in pseudoscience. That some small subset of their treatments have beneficial effects doesn't mean that the foundation is solid, it's simply an an example of the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" principle. The same reasoning applies to the various alternative medicines.

In a very real sense, these are more important topics than the more esoteric pseudosciences. No one is going to hurt themselves because they believe in cold fusion. They can hurt themselves by forgoing legitimate medical treatment in favour of quackery.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neuraxis's argument is no different than "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" supported with citations. Certainly manual manipulation of misaligned and inflamed joints can be helpful. That chiropractors promote nonsense like vertebral subluxation doesn't break their fingers and their manual manipulations remain effective despite the pseudoscience underlying the treatment method.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NYB:Absolutely. The area is rife with sockpuppeting, and beset by a few editors that remind me of Martinphi: ostensibly polite and reasonable, but unfailingly attempting to shift articles towards having a favorable view of nonsense. Acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and chiropracty are the hot spots I'm aware of, but I'm sure that's a woefully incomplete list.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thryduulf: I take it your point is that sanctions apply both to areas that clearly are pseudoscience and to areas that, while they may or may not be pseudoscience, have a lot of people saying they are pseudoscience. I understand that in theory. In practice, can you point at an area where you think the distinction actually matters? I can't think of one where a legitimate field is called pseudoscience in reliable sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
This is a not unreasonable question regarding the definition of pseudoscience for our purposes, and it might help to have some clear lines of demarkation on this point. One possibility is to go by what people involved in the field of pseudoscience consider pseudoscience. WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is a list I generated some time ago based on articles included in one Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and I find that one of its longer articles specifically is about chiropractic, which would I think be a reasonable indicator of how that particular topic might qualify. I also would believe that, in all likelihood, anything with a separate article or section in that source or other reference-type overview works on pseudoscience would probably qualify under the sanctions. But there is a very big gray area of where pseudoscience, parapsychology, paranormal and occult do and do not overlap, and it might be beneficial if we could have some sort of specific indicator of where the topics do and do not overlap here. So, for instance, some "occult"-ish topics make some sort of claims to being "scientific" in some way, like maybe Taoism's registers, which are effectively theological equivalents of the Tennessee Blue Book and the Official Manual State of Missouri, among others, might qualify as "pseudoscientific" or might not. Other potential gray areas of possible overlap exist between these topics as well. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is simply commening on the obvious, of course, but so far as I can see nothing in the extremely long section by Neuraxis above seems to deal with the specific point of contention here, specifically, whether chiropractic is a pseudoscience or not. That is an entirely separate point from whether or not it has significant support in any number of areas. For chiropractic to be demonstrated to be something other than pseudoscience, what would be more or less required as per policy and guidelines would be a reliable source which either explicitly says chiropractic is not a pseudoscience, or, possibly, an independent reliable source which clearly states that chiropractic is a science. Pseudoscience has a rather specific definition, specifically, that the topic claims to be scientific but is not accepted as such by the scientific community. That is a completely separate matter from whether it can be or is useful or beneficial. I regret to say that the lengthy postings by Neuraxis above could themselves not unreasonably be counted as refusing to get to the point as per WP:IDHT. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I received a comment from Neuraxis on my talk page here, asking me to review a source for whether it can be seen to establish chiropractic as a science. I have looked at the source in question, and regret to say that I saw nothing which indicates it is not pseudoscience. The most directly relevant quote so far as I can see is "Chiropractic in particular made significant gains toward legitimacy throughout the last few decades," which at least implicitly indicates that chiropractic has yet to achieve legitimacy, as it is still making gains toward legitimacy. I also note that psychoanalytic theory, and by extension psychoanalysis, is counted as a pseudoscientific topic in the encyclopedia I linked to above, and is described as such in our article. It, however, still plays a significant role in the field of psychiatry, and there are at least a few hospitals which have psychiatrists using psychoanalytic methods in their staff. I also note that the article is limited to one particular country, Canada, and as such cannot be seen to be relevant to the profession outside of Canada and that, so far as I saw, it does not say that chiropractic is a science, just that some chiropractors are included in some medical teams, much like some psychoanalytic psychiatrists. Like I said above, pseudosciences are not necessarily useless, and can at least sometimes in some cases be effective. That however does not necessarily mean that they qualify as sciences or as scientific. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, ed. Michael Shermer, ABC-Clio, 2002, ISBN 1-57607-653-9, has an article of over two pages in length on "prayer and healing," which seems to be substantially similar to "faith healing." I am preparing a list of articles and subarticles from the encyclopedic section of that book for inclusion in the page listed above as we speak. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another question on my user talk page from Neuraxis here with my response here, and also another comment and another response. However bizarre it might seem to some to characterize an entire profession as pseudoscience, that too is a conclusion drawn by a single editor, and I don't think we are allowed to use such personal interpretation of the facts to determine our content. Nor can or should we attempt to say that because perhaps a modern version of a discipline might be scientific, that earlier nonscientific versions were also scientific because the current version is. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree one reference book in the field of pseudoscience is not necessarily conclusive, and I also note that the comparatively few articles in The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience does not include one on chiropractic, and that I haven't yet checked others, some of which might not even be easily available to me. But I do notice that google books here seems to provide numerous print sources, older and at least comparatively recent, indicating that the authors of those books believed chiropractic fell within the bounds of pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ arbs: It may also be worth noting that this request may have been started based on what an editor named QuackGuru said here in the thread on my talk page that has already been linked to, which indicated that Neuraxis may have attempted to restore a statement sourced to a primary source to the Chiropractic article without having first received consensus, and that, potentially, may have been actionable under the previous ruling if it specifically included chiropractic. Regarding Neuraxis' own scree against me above, I would appreciate it if instead of posting your interminable links and trying to misuse my user talk page, and perhaps engaged in any number of rather predictable attempts at obfuscation, if you did what might seem to be required and provide evidence which indicates, directly and without OR, that your contention is accurate. I say this based on your further comments in the thread I have already linked to on my talk page repeatedly, and I believe attempts to misuse my user talk page to seemingly attempt to perhaps persuade me there. If this request was perhaps prompted by Neuraxis seeking to avoid sanctions for misconduct on the chiropractic page, and it seemingly might be, that is something that perhaps the arbitrators should perhaps be taken into account. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the history of Neuraxis's 2000-2500 contributions since November 2011 here, I see a total of less than 10 total to article or talk space pages which do not relate specifically to alternative medicine, including prominently acupuncture and chiropractic. I believe it not unreasonable to ask whether this account meets the standards of WP:SPA, and would like to perhaps suggest to that there might be reasonable basis to take any concerns regarding this individual account's conduct to one of the appropriate noticeboards, or perhaps arbitration enforcement. Having said that, I believe the essence of the discussion has Adjwilley started it was to determine the scope of the existing sanctions. Sandstein has commented below that effectively the sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science has primarily been imposed at AE on only a limited range of articles. Attempting to return to that original subject, I think it would be reasonable to apply the sanctions in the way Sandstein indicated below, while also specifically noting that it can apply to articles on individuals other than Rupert Sheldrake who are also most notable or significantly notable for being proponents of fringe science/pseudoscience, articles on their relevant books or articles or TV appearances or similar, and any other areas that might reasonably be covered under the phrase "broadly construed". This probably wouldn't generally include articles relating to Thomas Dolby or similar individuals notable, if not primarily notable, for being proponents of fringe science/pseudoscience, although I suppose that if the article or talk page was used for comments of the "he's a nut" type, or other defamatory content apparently related to that individual's stance on fringe science/pseudoscience, defining that term by either broad agreement in the academic community of a topic being of that status as per independent academic sources or in some probably smaller number of cases based on clear disregard or dismissal of the specific principles involved.  and other arbs, would that be a reasonable attempt at a hopefully sufficiently detailed and sufficiently broad attempt at definition? John Carter (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer/Brangifer
Reply to Adjwilley's Reply to Kww, Enric Naval:


 * The application of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and the use of "pseudoscience" terms and categorizations to the topics of chiropractic and acupuncture have much more to do with their underlying philosophies than with actual practice by their members, which can vary widely, all the way from scientific to wildly pseudoscientific, quackery, and operating scams. As long as the professions don't publicly distance themselves from those foundational philosophies, and practices which spring from them, these problems will continue.


 * Here is a very short list:


 * Chiropractic is criticized for its fundamental foundation - vertebral subluxation (VS) and Innate Intelligence (II) - and resultant misuse and overuse of joint manipulation and spinal manipulation


 * Acupuncture is criticized for its fundamental foundation - acupuncture points and meridians


 * Without these foundations, the professions really have no justification for existence, because spinal adjustment without belief in VS and II is merely spinal manipulation, which is performed for very different reasons, and not nearly as frequently, by other professions. Likewise, using acupuncture needles without belief in acupoints and meridians is merely dry needling.


 * Since what I've just said is irrelevant if RS don't back it up, we must go by what RS say, not what I say. They definitely criticize these two professions and their basic practices for pseudoscientific aspects. It is the reliable sources which dictate what we should write. As long as we cite experts on the topics of pseudoscience and quackery, and use proper attribution where necessary, we are on solid ground. That doesn't mean we should violate undue and weight by letting these aspects totally dominate an article, but they should be given adequate space and mention in the articles.


 * Topic banning is usually reserved for editors, like User:Neuraxis, who seek to whitewash these aspects from articles and make them seem more scientific than they are. His latest attempt is to eliminate Chiropractic controversy and criticism.


 * His latest attack on me (above) seems to ignore my edit summaries, which encouraged him to restore his comment in the right spot, after he has edited it properly. I didn't seek to keep it from the discussion at all. Per BRD he should use the talk page to discuss my description of his content as a straw man which would totally redirect this whole discussion toward an agenda of his own, not the subject chosen by Adjwilley. This page is not the place to carry on his battlefield behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Neuraxis:


 * Although it is off-topic for this discussion, Neuraxis insists on inserting his hobby horse into Adjwilley's Clarification request, so let's just slay that lost animal and get on with the original topic. He asks above:


 * "...the fundamental question: Are manual and manipulative therapy for MSK conditions pseudoscientific and fringe?


 * No, it is their manner of use, and the reasons for using them, which are potentially pseudoscientific. They cannot, in and of themselves, be pseudoscientific and/or fringe, any more than an acupuncture needle can be pseudoscientific and/or fringe. Your question is simply worded improperly, IOW it's a straw man. Stop asking it and rethink the matter, and while you're at it, take it somewhere other than this board. It doesn't belong here. This is not the place to push your agenda, which has been reaffirmed. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad


 * We need to be careful not to go down a dead end alley of misdirection, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Our job is not to determine whether or not chiropractic is or is not pseudoscience, but to determine what RS say about that matter. Sources are what it always comes back to, not our opinions. The judgment of "pseudoscience" is a value judgment, an opinion, and we simply quote what RS say about the matter, and often attribute the statements accordingly.


 * So, to reiterate, any discussion of whether chiropractic is or is not pseudoscience, although interesting, tends to lead us away from following our sourcing policies, IOW it encourages policy violations. Why? Because if we have that discussion and come to a conclusion, then we naturally tend to use that judgment to decide whether or not to use some RS. That's wrong. We must start with the RS and figure out how to use them. The RS should form our opinions, not the other way around.


 * So let's just stick to the sources. It will always be a matter of opinion whether they are right or not anyway, and we are not allowed to use our own opinions to determine whether to use them or not. That would be censorship and/or whitewashing. If they exist (and they do in abundance), we must determine how to use them in an appropriately framed manner, giving them the weight they deserve. NPOV requires that.


 * Chiropractic has always been considered the flagship of quackery in the alternative medicine world, and it still has enough controversy attached to it that many RS exist which consider significant aspects to be quackery and pseudoscience. That's not just historical, but now. Our main chiropractic article mentions this, and attempts to tone down or remove such mentions are not proper. Such attempts violate NPOV. Editors who attempt such things should be reminded of the discretionary sanctions, and if they persist, they should be topic banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Thryduulf


 * Wow! That's very well put: "The suggestion of "if a reliable source about pseudoscience considers it pseudoscientific then it is within the scope" seems like a good starting point for that discussion." -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Neuraxis


 * "Less than 20% of [Canadian] chiropractors (18.8%) were aligned with a predefined unorthodox perspective of the conditions they treat." How reassuring (not)! And Canadian chiropractors are among the more sensible ones. I'd hate to see such a survey taken among American chiros, where the largest part of the profession practices.


 * This quote from your citation needs to be factored into your equation, since it represents mainstream opinions about chiropractic:


 * "In order to explore the attitudes that may have import to policy making and foster potential barriers to interprofessional relations, additional questions were included regarding conditions deemed amenable to chiropractic care, chiropractic practitioner use of X-rays, and views on vaccinations. These questions were based on a previous survey of orthopaedic surgeons’ attitudes towards chiropractic, suggesting them as areas of concern for interprofessional relations [25]. For example, of the 487 surgeons who participated in that survey, approximately 81% were either undecided or agreed that “Chiropractors make excessive use of radiographic imaging”, 91% were either undecided or agreed that “Chiropractors provide patients with misinformation regarding vaccination” and 93% were undecided or disagreed that “Chiropractors treat in accordance with evidence-based practices” (p. 2821)." (my emphasis)


 * It's especially ironic that your source actually demonstrates how factions within chiropractic with unorthodox practice behaviors may have compromised interprofessional relations. It doesn't take much to poison the well for the whole profession, but the profession has always tolerated a significant portion of what they call "bad apples". They need to stop tolerating any of them.


 * It is these opinions which you try to ignore, but NPOV says we must document them too. This is a RS demonstrating mainstream opinion.


 * Throwing lots of references at us doesn't magically remove numerous other RS which say that the profession still has issues with pseudoscientific beliefs and practices. Also, chiropractic researchers have documented that fraud, abuse and quackery are more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions. Unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of chiropractic have continued to be made by individual chiropractors and chiropractic associations. One of the more recent and dramatic examples of the profession being caught with its pants down is from England when a well-organized skeptical backlash to the BCA libel lawsuit against Simon Singh caused the McTimoney Chiropractic Association to frantically and privately order its members to shutdown their websites and remove any unscientific literature from their clinics. That order was leaked, much to their embarrassment. The skeptics had already downloaded the websites, so the removals were documented and hundreds of complaints filed against them with the authorities. The BCA's response, using a typical "wall of references approach" (something we see on this page. Homeopaths do that too....), was ripped apart. BTW, Singh won the lawsuit. You can read about it here.


 * Your campaign to whitewash the profession really isn't helping your case at all, and although it's certainly caused this clarification request to get sidetracked, maybe it does serve a purpose after all. Now you know why trial lawyers often don't allow their clients to testify, because once the client mentions a subject, it's fair game. Your actions have focused our attention on chiropractic. (Read about the Streisand effect.)


 * Your actions here have highlighted the continued problems with chiropractic, and we are still convinced that the profession, as well as most other forms of alternative medicine, still deserve to be covered by discretionary sanctions. When RS stop consistently including chiropractic among numerous other forms of quackery and pseudoscience, then we'll stop thinking of it in that way. The profession has itself to thank, because it has consistently tried to deny the problems, rather than reform the profession.


 * When the president of the American Chiropractic Association called accusations of quackery a "myth", chiropractic historian, Joseph C. Keating, Jr. (who kindly and cordially helped me do lots of research on the profession before he died) responded by calling his comments "absurd" and stated:


 * "The so-called 'quackery myth about chiropractic' is no myth.....the kernels of quackery (i.e., unsubstantiated and untested health remedies offered as "proven") are ubiquitous in this profession. I dare say that health misinformation (if not quackery) can be found in just about any issue of any chiropractic trade publication (and some of our research journals) and much of the promotional materials chiropractors disseminate to patients. The recent unsubstantiated claims of the ACA are exemplary [examples provided]...It escapes me entirely how Dr. Downing, the ACA, MPI, and Dynamic Chiropractic can suggest that there is no quackery in chiropractic. Either these groups and individuals do not read the chiropractic literature or have no crap-detectors. I urge a reconsideration of advertising and promotion policies in chiropractic." (My emphasis.)


 * That was from 1991, and those charges still ring true. Reading chiropractic trade literature today makes that clear. While things have improved (that's my OR opinion), the profession still hasn't done enough about fixing its "crap-detectors". I couldn't have said it better. It took an insider, a professor within the profession, to say it. Brangifer (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to John Carter


 * John, you wrote: "Nor can or should we attempt to say that because perhaps a modern version of a discipline might be scientific, that earlier nonscientific versions were also scientific because the current version is."


 * Very true, and we certainly know that most living chiropractors have been educated under a "straight" paradigm (Life University is the largest chiropractic school in the world, and several other schools are also "straight" schools). We can't say that just because some understanding tending toward scientific legitimacy has suddenly alighted into the minds of some of the younger chiropractors, that all those other chiros are suddenly dead or not practicing under the paradigm of their education. They are still at work and their claims are what's making it hard for the newer, more scientific, chiros to gain legitimacy. It's not fair to them, but they have only their own profession to blame for that situation.


 * Instead of circling their wagons (classic chiropractic and cult behavior), retreating into denial and defensiveness, and attacking skeptics for "not being fair" (sob, sob), they need to vigorously attack their idiot colleagues, no matter if they are the most influential and well established chiros in the business: the ones who own the supply businesses, the ones who patent the techniques, who run the seminars, who own the practice building businesses, the ones who sell very expensive "practice scripts" and contracts (what a scam!), and who own and control the schools.


 * Here's my plea to science-based chiros: Stop the whining and get your profession to publicly admit its failings and publicly distance itself from all this crap and start disciplining unscientific and quackish chiros. Then you might gain some legitimacy. Those chiros are a ball and chain around the profession. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Neuraxis


 * All I'm getting is denial, defensiveness, and a lack of understanding and knowledge of chiropractic issues and history, past and present. Are you really going to tell me that Life University isn't the largest (for many years at that), wasn't a straight school (maybe still is), and that it temporarily lost its accreditation in about 2003 because it refused to teach differential diagnosis, but only taught that there was only one cause of disease, and a chiropractor's job was to find subluxations and correct them? We're talking about 2003 and huge numbers of recent chiropractors from that school alone, much less Life West, Sherman, etc.. I don't know whether it's the majority of chiropractors, but it's not a little fraction over in a corner. They are not dead. No, I'm hearing denial instead of reform. You're depending on one source which makes it clear that the profession has not yet achieved legitimacy, although it's getting closer.


 * User:John Carter is right in his parsing of English grammar:


 * "The most directly relevant quote so far as I can see is "Chiropractic in particular made significant gains toward legitimacy throughout the last few decades," which at least implicitly indicates that chiropractic has yet to achieve legitimacy, as it is still making gains toward legitimacy."


 * Your own edit shows you agree that your source actually demonstrates how "factions within chiropractic with unorthodox practice behaviors may have compromised interprofessional relations.", yet now you backpedal all you can. Odd behavior... You're seeing the results of those "compromised interprofessional relations", and RS have noted that. We use those skeptical sources in chiropractic articles. It makes no difference whether it's a majority or minority who are unscientific, because it has been and is happening, and we're resisting your attempts to hide that fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I'm offering my opinion here as one of the administrators who is active at the enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE), in the hope that this "practitioner's view" may help the submitter understand what may in practice be deemed to be within the scope of the sanctions. The discretionary sanctions apply to "articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". I understand this to include pages related to any topic that has been discussed in reliable sources as constituting or being related to pseudoscience and fringe science, or which is described in its Wikipedia article or categories as such (including, in either case, situations where the classification as pseudoscience or fringe science is disputed). What the terms pseudoscience and fringe science mean is described in their articles. On this basis, each case would need to be examined individually. I don't think that the entirety of the topics grouped under alternative medicine are within the scope of the sanctions, because our article about this topic says that alternative medicine is defined as being "not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method", which can be understood to mean that it is thought to be outside of the concept of science altogether. For instance, practices such as faith healing do not claim to be and are not normally discussed as scientific practices, and the scientific study of their practice is normally ordinary science (theology, sociology etc.) rather than a fringe science itself. However, I imagine that there are many "alternative" medicinal practices which are discussed in terms of their scientific validity, and these can fall within the scope of the sanctions under the conditions described above. Also, as a practical matter, the enforcement log shows that editors have in the past been sanctioned in relation to the alternative medicine topics chiropractic, homeopathy (both many times), mucoid plaque and orthomolecular medicine. Past practice, therefore, indicates that administrators have readily accepted these topics as being subject to discretionary sanctions. However, the majority of sanctions seem to focus on issues related to cosmology, energy (cold fusion, etc.) and the ideas of one Rupert Sheldrake, rather than on alternative medicine.  Sandstein  16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I think the most productive use of people's time here is not to determine whether Chiropractic is within the scope or not, but rather to work out how to determine whether Topic X is within the scope or not. The suggestion of "if a reliable source about pseudoscience considers it pseudoscientific then it is within the scope" seems like a good starting point for that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think changing the wording from "pseudoscience" will help (a rose by any other name and all that). It just needs to be made clear that it doesn't matter whether something is or is not pseudoscientific, just that if a reliable source has called it such then the discretionary sanctions authorised by the Pseudoscience arbitration case are available if needed. This status doesn't impact the article contents in any way, so it is irrelevant whether the label is applied by a single reliable source or by the entirety of reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, but we're not calling it "pseudoscience" just noting that some people do call it that. As for the reliable source number, an outlier or outdated source is problematic in this regard I agree but I don't want to cause disputes about whether or not there are a "significant" number of sources or the opinion that calls it pseudoscientific is "substantial" or not. Specifying an exact number (other than >0) or proportion of sources is also obviously problematic ("I've got more sources than you :P"), so how something like this is phrased needs careful thought. Remember here that my goal is only to provide a way to determine whether any given topic is within the pseudoscience topic area, not whether that topic is or is not pseudoscientific. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed my point, but I'm really not interested in which topics actually fall under the classification or not, nor which of those are actually pseudoscience because that doesn't matter. I aim only to provide a test that can be applied to any dispute to determine whether it is eligible for DS under the provisions of this case or not. As Newyorkbrd points out, whether something is actually pseudoscience or not can be a matter of opinion, so it seems best to make the categorisation "things that are called pseudoscience" rather than "things that are pseudoscience" so that the actual status becomes irrelevant and people can get on with settling the dispute at hand rather than arguing about something else as well. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru
See diff. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Perhaps we can't avoid having a philosophical discussion about where chiropractic falls on the spectrum between recognized medical science and outright voodoo, or more precisely, where the various aspects of chiropractic fall today or have fallen in the past. But it might be more useful to come at this from a different direction: are there editing problems on chiropractic and related articles that applying the discretionary sanctions to them would help to address? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor input here convinces me that Chiropractic is within the scope of the DS. I am beginning to wonder whether it might be desirable to rephrase or define the scope of the DS so instead of or in addition to the word "pseudoscience" we use a more neutral phrase such as "fields whose status as science is either rejected or significantly disputed in the scientific literature." (I'm sure that can be refined.) The point here being not to put lipstick on any pseudoscientific pigs, but to avoid pointless arguments about the wording, and to take up the suggestion of providing guidance to avoid future disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand Thryduulf's points, but can't agree in full. If I were a believer in chiropractic or another field whose status is disputed, I might well accept that "there is a serious dispute as to whether chiropractic is accepted as scientific," but fight to the death against its being called "pseudoscience." We have enough disputes about the substance of the articles without giving dispositive effect to some label. And I am not convinced that if one reliable source calls an area a "pseudoscience" that should be dispositive; we don't necessarily need a majority of sources calling something pseudoscience or the equivalent, but a single source, though acceptable as an RS, can always be an outlier, either because it reflects a small minority view or because it has become outdated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Sandstein's analysis with respect to the reach of discretionary sanctions is generally correct, though it is interesting to note that faith healing is listed in . T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also generally agree with Sandstein's analysis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Sandstein's on the money here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandstein's interpretation seems correct. I'm not sure that redefining the scope is necessary, as Newyorkbrad has suggested, although I do see the point about "pseudoscience" being pejorative. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (July 2014)
Clarification request: Cold Fusion is/isn't Pseudoscience

Initiated by  84.106.11.117 (talk) at 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * original ruling: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision
 * original ruling: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision

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

Statement by 84.106.11.117
While supported by article content at the time the pseudoscience label was dropped from the Cold Fusion article some time before October 2011.

In the wild it looks like this. Any admin may now ban the Nobel laureate? This is how it should be? It makes no sense to me. What is this doing on my talk page? What does it even mean? Is this the new welcome message?

I've posted one on User_talk:Sandstein talk page to see what happens. Surely he needs such helpful information as much as I do?

further informations
Sandstein, a remarkably productive editor I should add, just demonstrated how the sanctions are being used to ban non-skeptical editors, applicable in one direction only.

Sandstein did not read my deletion review request. My request talks about the one sided nature of these Discretionary Sanctions, he responds by posting an info box on my user talk page informing me about these same sanctions. He used imaginary guidelines and retaliates with victim blaming.

I am not the topic of this Request for clarification, is about cold fusion not being pseudoscience while still subjected to pseudoscience sanction.

If the Sanction would work both ways, Sandstein should now be topic banned. This strikes me as a completely idiotic way of doing things, typical skeptic methodology. I would argue the Sanctions themselves are not useful to the project.

My split request was disposed of by skeptical consensus, rather than edit guidelines. I ignored this consensus per Notability guidelines. Notability is the only type of guideline that skeptic teams can not kill by consensus.

Rather than so much as lift a finger to help split the article team skeptic used every possible method and every excuse other than the split criteria to troll the process while crying about the way I avoided "scrutiny". Of course I did! If we look at Sandsteins edit log he has soooooo many contributions he effectively avoids scrutiny himself. I cant possibly read all that? Or can I?

AFD is suppose to be the point where the team of anti-pseudoscience crusaders have to use edit guidelines. In stead the admin deleted by consensus. (he was trying to clean up the backlog we should add) Asking for clarification, from the closing admin (we used irc), and by means of a deletion review is entirely sensible. Not reading it and requiring an account is not. Specially not in that order.

This is not to defend myself but to illustrate the victim blaming routine. How can Sandstein, being an administrator, need further tools to dispose of IP editors? Look how his argument is that I edited fringe topics, as if this should be sufficient evidence of my wrong doings?

If this is how the sanctions are being used, then it is not worth having them in general, in this specific case, using them outside the scope of pseudoscience seems even less useful.

note: It strikes me as odd for the committee to try to rule if something is pseudoscience or not. I think, if you have some precognition about a topic you should use the article talk page and provide reliable sources that make your vision evident.

Thanks for your time.

response to Robert McClenon
Sandstein explained why he mistakenly (but understandably) assumed I have an account, AFTER THAT you write this:
 *  The IP editor who filed the arbitration clarification request states that he or she has an account but edits from the IP address. There is no requirement to create an account in order to edit Wikipedia (except that editing semi-protected articles such as cold fusion requires an auto-confirmed account).  However, Wikipedia policies do state that intentionally editing logged out is inappropriate, as it avoids scrutiny, and may be a means for topic-ban evasion or block evasion.  I will ask a two-part question.  First, do any of the IP addresses editing this talk page have accounts?  If so, why are you editing logged out?  Second (as I have asked before), is there a good reason why any IP addresses who do not have accounts choose not to create accounts (which would permit editing a semi-protected article)? 

I repeat: I don't have an account. This is not what the article talk page is for and not what this request for clarification is about.


 * '' "A request for amendment or clarification was filed with the ArbCom, requesting a clarification that cold fusion is not pseudoscience and so not subject to discretionary sanctions. Since a Request for Comments is currently open on this page, the ArbCom request appears to be an effort to bypass the consensus process.  The proper vehicle for determining whether cold fusion is, within Wikipedia, considered pseudoscience is the RFC.

In the comment before that you write:


 * "The choice of those categories was not a trick nor an effort to steer the result, because it is exactly what is defined by ARBCOM."

You are trying to have it both ways.


 * "The article has been under semi-protection due to disruptive editing by unregistered editors for a long term."


 * 21:20, 18 June 2012‎ Dennis Brown Protected Cold fusion: Persistent sock puppetry See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist

Staged by skeptics?

It is argued that the 400 skeptics, with watchlist and forum shopping is not enough to protect a locked article from lone newbies. Skeptics who evidently don't even read what the editor writes anymore and refuse all outsider contributions. I'm not here to be persecuted without reason, neither is anyone else. That is why I request clarification.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
84.106.11.117 is an IP address active since 16 June 2014 with few contributions, mostly relating to fringe-y topics such as alien abduction. On 11 July, they requested a deletion review of the article Fleischmann-Pons experiment, which relates to Cold fusion, which is in my layperson's understanding a fringe science topic. In the review request, 84.106.11.117 wrote that "I should note I'm not a new user, I just edit from my ip." As an administrator working at WP:DRV, I summarily closed the review request, suggesting that in discretionary sanctions topic areas where sanctions such as topic bans have been imposed, in view of WP:SCRUTINY, established editors should not make undeletion requests while logged out. I also alerted 84.106.11.117 about the discretionary sanctions applying to pseudo- and fringe science topics. In response, 84.106.11.117 copied the same alert notice onto my talk page and made this request for clarification, the point of which I don't quite see. In view of subsequent statements by 84.106.11.117 such as, it appears likely to me that we are being trolled by a returning, possibly previously sanctioned editor.  Sandstein  07:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, as long as we are here already: Would it be an appropriate use of discretionary sanctions, under these circumstances, to restrict the person using the address 84.106.11.117 from editing pseudo- and fringe science topics except with their main account (if they are not banned or blocked from doing so already)?  Sandstein   07:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was probably unclear. I agree that editing only as an IP is allowed and that we shouldn't force anyone to create an account. But I understood the statement by 84.106.11.117 to mean that they already have an account. My question was whether they might legitimately be directed to use that existing account when editing in the topic area covered by sanctions. Otherwise they might be able to avoid any sanctions that might apply to them under their existing account.  Sandstein   11:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I watch Cold fusion and there is often commentary at Talk:Cold fusion regarding a possible new development—something which in the future may validate CF as a new energy source. Wikiversity was mentioned and I had a very quick look and found recently-edited pages like these: Wikiversity is nothing to do with Wikipedia, but the activity suggests to me that discretionary sanctions in the CF area need to continue. Whether of not CF should properly be called "pseudoscience" can be debated elsewhere as that is not relevant to whether the topic should be subject to discretionary sanctions. Any new energy source with many enthusiastic supporters but no usable power should be treated as if it were pseudoscience at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cold fusion/The Wikipedia article/Comments on edits/Naturwissenschaften review/Reaction by Abd
 * Cold fusion/Skeptical arguments/Wikipedia talk/Shanahan

Statement by Robert McClenon
I oppose any request for the ArbCom to intervene and remove the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions from cold fusion. The article has been under semi-protection due to disruptive editing by unregistered editors for a long term. The talk page has been also disruptively edited, including personal attacks on skeptical editors, by unregistered editors. (There was also an edit war on the talk page, something unusual, where an unregistered editor began adding archived material, which was removed, and a revert war ensued.) I have also been watching the article and its talk page, and it has been more civil since editors have been templating the participants as to discretionary sanctions. The unregistered editors have been repeatedly asked if there is a reason why they choose not to create accounts. The usual response is either no response or incivility. This is to the point where the requirement to assume good faith is stretched, and there is reason to think that the unregistered editors are editing logged out either to create the appearance of greater numbers or because they are sockpuppets of a blocked or banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a Request for Comments at Talk:Cold fusion in process to determine consensus as to which of the four ArbCom-defined categories cold fusion should be categorized as. This request, to ask the ArbCom to intervene, may be an attempts to bypass the consensus process, which is going against the unregistered editors who are proponents of cold fusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I request that this clarification request be denied, because the RFC is the proper way to determine whether cold fusion is pseudoscience, but that the incoming boomerang be allowed to return, and that the filing party, who has been properly notified, be either topic-banned from cold fusion, or blocked, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the IP in question states that they do have a registered account, but choose to edit logged out, the remedy proposed by User:Sandstein is appropriate. There is no requirement to create an account (although creating an account would permit editing the semi-protected page), but there is a policy against intentionally editing logged out when one has an account, and the IP admits to doing exactly that.  That statement is relevant to the concern stated below of two arbitrators.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On further reading, I have comments about the statement by the OP: "I should note I'm not a new user, I just edit from my ip."  First, that statement was apparently misunderstood by Sandstein and by me.  If the OP did not mean that he was an existing registered user, then he does have a right to edit from the IP address.  Second, however, that statement that he is not a new user is incorrect.  He has made 32 edits since 16 June, which qualifies as a new user compared to experienced editors.  I will still ask, as I have at Talk: Cold fusion, whether there is a compelling reason why unregistered editors at Cold fusion choose not to create accounts (which would permit them to edit the semi-protected article) and instead persistent in making edit requests (sometimes amounting to edit demands) on the talk page.  If the IP does not have a registered account, then the IP is permitted to edit.  In any case, the request for a clarification by the ArbCom appears to be an attempt to game the system by asking the ArbCom to bypass the RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cardamon
84.106.11.117 is likely the same individual as 84.104.135.141, 84.106.9.95, 84.106.26.81, 84.107.128.52, and possibly others, going back to at least 2009. I notice 84.104.135.141 was blocked in December, 2009, and that 84.106.26.81 has two blocks.

This series of IPs has POV - pushed on a number of fringe topics, including on Cold fusion since April, 2009. Cardamon (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the IP, as 84.107.128.52, was warned of the existence of discretionary sanctions on fringe/pseudoscience subjects by Robert McClenon, on June 23, 2014. This was a few weeks before the warning by Sandstein of which the IP complains above. Cardamon (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Second Quantization
I'm not following the full case or what has preceded this, but I gently remind the arbitrators that I already brought up the ambiguities in an older wording of the text 2 years ago, and the text was clarified by motion after that. Arbitration enforcement in the area of WP:FRINGE does not in any way hinge on something being viewed as pseudoscience rather than fringe science (or pathological science in the case of cold fusion), Second Quantization (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC) (formerly IRWolfie-)
 * Although I haven't looked at edits in the last 3 months, I think its worthy of note that in general over the years 84.* has made few if any useful edits or contributions ever (almost every edit being biased and being reverted etc). Second Quantization (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Noren
The same basic dispute as to what extent the prior Pseudoscience case applied (along with some other issues) was heard in 2009, and the Committee decided that "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." It no longer matters whether Cold Fusion is included in the Pseudoscience case as the committee has ruled separately that Cold Fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions without regard to the Pseudoscience case. The committee later decided to merge the logging of that case with the pseudoscience case, but to my knowledge has not declared the 2009 ruling void.--Noren (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

While I share Robert's concerns about the editing patterns of IP users on that talk page, I think that we do have to make some effort to distinguish between IP users. The IP who filed this request and was banned geolocates to the Netherlands and appears to have a static IP. There is also a more prolific, longer term IP user(s) from Romania who uses a dynamic IP. That was the IP user who has been edit warring to dearchive stale discussions over the last six months or so. The Romanian IP as 188.27.144.144 asked about this filing on Talk:Cold Fusion, I don't think he's the same person as the filing IP. Other recent IP addresses that geolocate to Romania include 94.53.199.249, 82.137.14.68, 82.137.14.162, 193.254.231.34, 82.137.9.180, 82.137.9.236, 82.137.8.198, 5.15.53.36, 5.15.181.68, 86.125.186.149, 86.125.167.74, 5.15.53.167, 5.15.37.240, and 5.15.35.32. From April 1 to June 20, all the but one of the IPs who edited the Talk:Cold Fusion page geolocated to Romania. A country location is, of course, not proof that all of these IPs are the same person, but there does appear to be some quacking involved.--Noren (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Acroterion
I've blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring at Talk:Cold fusion. The block is solely due to the edit-warring by 84, I was led here afterwards by a review of their contributions. It is not intended to prejudice or pre-empt AE, but communication with them will have to take place on their talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: Hi . There's no requirement in policy for people to create accounts to edit with. What they are not allowed to do is evade scrutiny by editing from an IP when they have an account. It is possible to be an established IP editor.  Roger Davies  talk 07:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ; I don't think the IP topic-ban you suggest would be appropriate at all. As I said before, nothing in policy requires anyone to create an account before they can edit.  Roger Davies  talk
 * I agree with Roger. It's forbidden to edit anonymously to evade scrutiny on one's account, but it's allowed to just not have an account and edit anonymously. There's no precedent for forcing someone to create an account and I don't like the idea of creating such a precedent in this way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the editor is sanctioned under their account, and is editing to evade the block, they could be sanctioned as normal for block evasion, among other things. But otherwise, there's no rule against logging out, and DS doesn't currently have any mechanism to force an editor not otherwise subject to sanctions to log in. I would echo Newyorkbrad's request that the IP answer at least "yes" or "no" as to whether they have an account, and whether such account is subject to any restrictions or sanctions. If that needs to be done via email for privacy reasons, please do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been reviewing the language of the case. The current remedy authorizing DS reads as follows: 14) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.


 * This remedy, and the accompanying principles outlined in the case, make it clear to me that it is appropriate for cold fusion to be considered subject to this decision. I see no need to amend or clarify the remedy or other aspects of the case.


 * As to The IP editing, I can't see that we can do anything about that unless we knew for a fact that the person operating from the IP was also the operator of a named account that was subject to sanctions already. I suppose a case could also be made that if they do have an account they are using a good hand/bad hand strategy to avoid scrutiny, but again without having at least some idea of the identity of the named account I don't know how we could arrive at any sort of actionable conclusion. On a personal level I do believe that one of these two scenarios is the most likely explanation, but without further evidence I don't see what we can do about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I ask the 84... IP to advise us if he or she has ever been subject to any sanctions or warnings for editing in this topic-area. This information can be provided via e-mail if a serious privacy issue is involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So, in short: cold fusion is covered by discretionary sanctions (thanks Noren) and I'd say there appears to be no appetite on our part to revoke them. So, probably, this request can be closed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,  Roger Davies  talk 06:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification 2 (July 2014)
Original Discussion

Initiated by  jps (talk) at 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision


 * ARBPSCI
 * ARBPSCI
 * ARBPSCI
 * ARBPSCI

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

Statement by jps
I have never liked the fact that ArbCom included content rulings in WP:ARBPSCI, but we have, in the past, simply let this slide as it never seemed to be problematic. However, now it does seem to be problematic in a conversation I'm having about a proposed name-chase for a list:,.

I respect John Carter's position, and I think he has a point with regards to how Wikipedia tends to enforce jurisprudence in practice, but I also think I have a point that ArbCom is not supposed to make content decisions. There is no other way, in my opinion, that these principles can be interpreted except as content decisions.

The easiest thing would be for ArbCom to vacate the offending Principles as outside of ArbCom remit. Alternatively, a statement that these principles should not be used to trump discussion about content could be done.

jps (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that there is precedence for changing this part of the ruling: ARBPSCI. jps (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Newyorkbrad: Glad you think so. Now, whenever I see comments like this, should I just refer them to your talkpage and you can hash it out with them? jps (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thought not. So.... can we just remove those principles then? jps (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
This rather dovetails with recent discussion at Talk:Intelligent design, which I asked to review and summarize. He summarized it in the following table

He went on to say, “I think the clause that needs clarification would be: Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. In my opinion, some good questions to ask the committee would be:
 * Does Intelligent design fall into the category of Obvious pseudoscience (obviously bogus) or Generally considered pseudoscience (theories that have a following but generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, like Astrology)?”

These suggestions were made here. As can be seen in the recent request for clarification regarding chiropractic, I personally have had no reservations about wikipedia using the word, and it was only after a comment by NYB that I saw "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW. I do believe it would be very useful for this to be addressed. Also, with the possibly annoying (to you arbs anyway) regularity that this particular decision gets brought up here and elsewhere, maybe it might be useful to ask for some guidelines specific to pseudoscience be prepared.

Other points perhaps worth addressing are how to, if at all, differentiate between philosophical hypotheses and the generally woo theories based on them, and maybe specific indications as to how this might be relevant to the social sciences. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re iantresman's comments below, WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles lists the articles and named subarticles in the encycopedic parts of two encyclopedias of pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @NYB and arbs: should the questions of the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the title and lead as per WP:WTW and other matters be raised separately, or are the existing two current requests regarding that single decision here perhaps enough page area regarding that decision? Both matters seem to me anyway to relate to the unmodified use of the word pseudoscience itself. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding some of the comments below by others, while clarification of the existing policies and guidelines is basically what is being sought here, I do not see that even the recent change either directly addresses the matter of the relative prominence of such a potentially perjorative word to all other forms of description. Also, with all due respect, there is a serious question whether such a rapidly made change to far-reaching guidelines with such short consultation will stand. This is beyond the fact that the change was obviously made to "save" the use of a word several people, including recently one arbitrator, have at least implicity acknowledged as being a cause for reasonable concern. The questions of when, where, and how such "loaded" words should be used, when less emotive words are preferable, and the relative prominence or weight to give them, have so far as I can see not yet been addressed. And those are the concerns which are at the heart of the ID matter raised here. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arbs: I think one question which perhaps is in some way actionable here is Adjwilley's question "Does Intelligent design fall into the category of Obvious pseudoscience (obviously bogus) or Generally considered pseudoscience (theories that have a following but generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, like Astrology)?”" If as is perhaps understandable ArbCom believes they should not be the ones to determine this perhaps they could request community input in clarifying guidelines in this matter. I would think such a clarification or revision might merit such a request of the community. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by iantresman
The problem as I see it, is as follows:
 * 1) Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience.
 * 2) Yet Wikipedia gives the impression that there are gifted editors who are able to make this judgement using WP:SYNTH and a handful of often dubious sources (rarely peer reviewed).
 * 3) Wikipedia sets a high bar for contentious material, requiring several SECONDARY sources. Yet we readily label subjects as "Pseudophysics", and even as "fringe", when there are ZERO sources that may describe a subject as such, contrary to the requirement that the "Categorization of articles must be verifiable"
 * 4) Even where we have additional sources, eg. Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, editors cherry pick those subjects to fit their own agendas, and exclude subjects that are "inconvenient".
 * 5) In reality, in the outside world, individuals have their own opinions and reasons why they consider a subject to be pseudoscience. In general, mainstream science does not, and leaves the matter to the philosophers of science.
 * 6) Statements such as " is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars" is untestable, unverifiable nonsense, pretending to be science. Where have we heard that description before?
 * 7) For the record, I have no problems attributing a description of a subject as pseudoscience, but consider the general label to be wholly inappropriate as it generally fails WP:V and WP:RS.

--Iantresman (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @John Carter. Thanks, I don't recall seeing that page and list before. --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Second Quantization. I have no problem with classic examples of pseudoscience, such as astrology, where there are books and a preponderance of quality secondary sources. My issue with the more modern examples, where editors take a handful of primary sources, often from personal blogs, and judge for themselves (ie. WP:SYNTH) that they feel that a subject meets certain criteria, and that the editors decide that this means that a subject is considered pseudoscience. And then based on a dearth of sources, they write that "mainstream science considers...", or "the majority of academics consider..." where no such consensus is verified in reliable sources. Hence we should not be claiming that a list of subjects are considered pseudoscience, just because you and I may think that a subject meets some vague and subjective criteria. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't do it, and no science dictionaries do it. That Wikipedia does it uniquely, raises red flags. --Iantresman (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @dave souza. Thanks for that. This seems that Arbcom have made an extraordinary content decision: that despite the Demarcation problem, gifted editors can somehow clearly identify articles as "Obvious" or "Generally considered" pseudoscience .. "without more justification". Does this imply that uniquely, and contrary to Wikipedia core policies, editors do not need to meet the exacting standards of WP:V and WP:RS, when such contentiousness suggests that we should be using WP:V and WP:RS far more carefully? The Demarcation problem is a philosophy of science issue, not an excuse to subjectively label subjects under the guise of science. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @dave souza. Yes I'm well aware of WP:ARB/PS (I started the case), and its "Appropriate sources". But the principles "Obvious pseudoscience", and "Generally considered pseudoscience", and "Questionable science", all seem to blur their requirements for WP:V / WP:RS, and how also how editors word their findings. eg. Articles which sources suggest would be "Questionable science" at best, and according to the description "generally should not be so characterized", are actually described as if mainstream science as described them as pseudoscience. This has been going on since I started with Wikipedia, and the reason I brought the original WP:ARB/PS case. --Iantresman (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @jytdog. I oppose your amendment to deal with the term "pseudoscience", because (a) of the demarcation problem (b) there is no general agreement of the term "pseudoscience" (c) there is no general agreement on the reliability of sourcs (d) science itself does not label topics in this way (e) it is, and always has been one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia (f) the label adds little to a topic, when there is already much non-judgemental and well-sourced critical material available. --Iantresman (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ My apologies and thank you for the clarification. I oppose the WP:FRINGE/PS statement "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." as it clearly contravenes WP:V and WP:RS. Any topic that is "obvious bogus" will have numerous reliable secondary sources that will both verify this view, and allow it to be checked. There is no reason why this labelling uniquely does not require justification (verification). --Iantresman (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ and jps. Perhaps jps could clarify whether he is asking for clarification on the orignal principles in WP:ARB/PS, or on the naming of the List of psuedosciences,,, as this may change the emphasis of the discussion? --Iantresman (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Second Quantization

 * ArbCom made no content decisions that I can see nor have they set any policy. They have some principles that underlie their decision, but that is not a content decision. We are not obliged to follow, read or care about their principles they operated under. There is no reason any editor should pay one iota worth of attention to what is written there since it's not indicative of what editing policy we should operate under. Some editors under the misapprehension that arbcom dictates content policy put undue emphasis on the ideas of some arbitrators some time ago. So this is a non-issue; we are under no obligation with respect to that behavioural decision. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the specific text Arbitration/Policy: "The Committee does not rule on content". They can suggest ways of seeking remedies, but they can not provide remedies. This is policy, Second Quantization (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Iantresman "Because of the Demarcation problem, there is no "obvious" pseudoscience." Demarcation is one of ongoing philosophical research but is an issue for the borderlands between science and non-science, not for the obvious cases. There are certain examples that meet most criteria of philosophers, and are recognised by the scientifically literate as obviously pseudoscience. Astrology, Time Cube etc are obviously pseudoscientific. Care to provide a specific example of point 4)? For 7), on the contrary, where I've seen it used it's generally well sourced. Second Quantization (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza
Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience identified four groups, two of which could apply to intelligent design (ID):


 * 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
 * From the outset, it was obvious to experts on science and science education that ID is not science, but creationist religious views relabelled as science. That said, it clearly had and to some extent still has a following outwith science, essentially among creationists or proponents of its predecessor creation science.


 * 2. 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.
 * The scientific community, educators and philosophers of science have clearly shown that ID is a religious view presented as science and is not science, failing to meet the methods an standards of science. Several mainstream sources have specifically described ID as pseudoscience.

In talk page discussions there has been clear consensus that ID is pseudoscience, but continuing wrangling over wording in relation to sources determining that ID is not science without specifically using the word "pseudoscience". I therefore propose the following additional group:


 * 5. Non-science claimed to be science:  Arguments or beliefs presented by proponents as science, such as intelligent design, but which are specifically described by the scientific community as not being science or as pseudoscience, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Once a topic has been categorised as pseudoscience, the article should conform to WP:PSCI policy including "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." This is policy. . . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * John Carter draws attention to the point that "pseud-" words are specifically included in WP:WTW which is a guideline, not policy, and as it says at the top, is "a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Common sense clearly indicates that pseudoscience is a well established term, one which forms part of Wikipedia policy, and is a word which may be necessary in clearly describing a topic as pseudoscience.
 * The boxes included in John Carter's comment appear to invite Arbcom to set specific wording for articles, determining article content in a manner going beyond the WP:ARBPS decision and beyond policy. This prescriptive proposal is wholly inappropriate, and unnecessary given the clear policy. Obviously the best way to achieve the policy is a matter for article talk page discussion to achieve consensus. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @ Iantresman as of 11:31, 22 July 2014; perhaps you've not read Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, or failed to recall the various principles listed including, for example, Appropriate sources. Obviously the various policies apply. . dave souza, talk 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by logos5557
I am uninvolved, practically; just came here to greet jps's (was known as scienceapologist previously) allusion to one of my comments. I suppose you can safely refer confused ones to this. Logos5557 (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by jytdog
With respect to 's concern about surface contradictions with the WP:LABEL section of WP:WTW, last night I proposed an amendment to deal with the term "pseudoscience" and after a series of only-approving comments, tonight I implemented it. To save clicking, here is what I added:

"'With regard to the term, 'pseudoscience': per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views 'should be clearly described as such.' Per the content guideline, Fringe theories, the term 'pseudoscience' may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. In addition, there is an Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term 'pseudoscience' in specified contexts.'"

There is no more surface contradiction (if that amendment sticks).Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (struck the reference to Arbcom "authorizing" any content. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

With regard to the request for clarification, I support the request of to vacate the 4 principles. It is not clear to me on what policy or guideline each of those principles were based, and the Finding of Fact #9 that "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." seems to me, to be all Arbcom needed to define the field in which DS may be applied. In light of thinking through this more, I have changed the amendment above at WP:LABEL Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

the amendment to the guideline, WP:WTW (which itself is a fork of the WP:MOS guideline) simply brings it in line with a) the WP:NPOV policy (specifically the WP:PSCI section) which is quoted in the amendment and specifically says that pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such"; and b) the guideline, WP:FRINGE, which explains WP:PSCI. Your argument is with NPOV policy and with FRINGE, not with me or this amendment clarifying the style guideline; WP:WTW was simply out of step. Thanks to John Carter for pointing it out. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

the statement that you now oppose from WP:FRINGE/PS, namely "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification", is based directly on one of the four principles that are the very subject of jps's original post, seeking clarification. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Markbassett
Meh. I think the article is unretrievably biased, mitigated by it's obviously so, but for arbitration consideration I will say that the relatively recent (April) add of "pseudoscience" to Intelligent Design seems just phrasing difficulty resolvable on existing wiki principles and revisit bullets I said in Talk:


 * There seems misunderstanding or overenthusiasm of the Talk Lead and Arbitration material. At point 1 and FAQ Q2 it says avoid portraying ID as science or theory as it is not accepted by the relevant bodies as such, and to use words like concept or assertion. It does not say to add "pseudoscience".


 * WP:UNDUE Pseudoscience seems simply not the word that the academic community commonly labels ID. The most frequent and prominent scientific body positions seems simply to reject it as not science, and outside of them the label in general use seems creationism.  There are relatively fewer and minor mentions of pseudoscience, so it seems undue weight to give that prominence and incorrect attribution to portray that as the wording from scientific bodies or as a definite fact in Wikipedia voice.


 * WP:OR Talk history makes it look like "pseudoscience" was just something editors pushed in from word-smithing and their desires rather than from cites or article accuracy. Logical arguments can be made that it applies (or not), but that is a generated conclusion and not a simple fact or something that would be usable for wiki article as neutral and fair reporting of common use or prominent outside source.


 * The wording pseudoscience also has two minor issues in article construction First, the article starts with labelling it 'creationism' and the body has much about that, so the phrase pseudoscience comes off as a confusing disconnected and unsupported oddity.  Second, the article stripped the phrasing 'theory' out which conforms to guidelines but now the article does not portray anything that looks like attempting to be science so that core issue is not presented.

Hope this helps pull discussion back to better sources and some edits ... Markbassett (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The background principles adopted in this arbitration decision (which dates from 2006) do not govern how lists in mainspace are organized in 2014. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @jps: No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascinating though this is, I'm not seeing a significant actionable issue here. The 2006 case reflected the thinking of the 2006 ArbCom in 2006 circumstances and, in any event, cases do not create precedent.   Roger Davies  talk 09:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As has already been said, principles are not remedies and are not authoritative. Those that are citing them as policy (in distinction to guidance) should stop. At the same time, the fact that they are causing problems in one discussion on one article talk page among a handful of editors does not, to my mind, justify extraordinarily vacating a third of a previous decision. More precisely, it does not counterbalance the significant arguments in favour of the committee keeping an intact record of its previous decisions. In fact, I imagine I would not even strike through the text of the principles, which would make it clear to readers that they are no longer in force, because that would disturb this old case and its actors. Given that the associated topic area will always be contentious, to do so is to invite trouble. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Guide to arbitration states that "Principles highlight the key applicable provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice and, where appropriate, provide the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute." They are intended to provide context for the case, not to act as remedies. I would echo AGK's point that they should not be cited as policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my colleagues, I don't see anything we need to do here. Worm TT( talk ) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (October 2014)
Link to Motion

Initiated by  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) at 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

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

Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage
My apologies in advance if I've botched the maze of templates involved with this process in any way.

Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience establishes standard discretionary sanctions as its final remedy. It has, shall we say, an interesting history of amendments. Its current form authorizes sanctions "for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" (emphasis mine). Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions lists the areas to which discretionary sanctions currently apply, including "Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science" (emphasis mine); this wording is also used in the discretionary sanction alert template for the associated case.

It is my assumption that this is a distinction without a difference, and that the sanctions apply regardless of namespace. I inquired with Sandstein to ensure I was correct in my reading, as he appears to be among the more active arbitration enforcement administrators. He suggested that I refer the issue here for more explicit clarification. And so, I have.

Statement by Sandstein
The reason why I recommended that Squeamish Ossifrage ask here is that I'm not so sure that the answer is all that obvious. As Salvio giuliano writes, discretionary sanctions apply to all pages, not only articles, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise", but – it seems to me – that is precisely what the remedy in question does by specifying that sanctions apply to ""all articles relating to pseudoscience", underlining mine. If that is (as I suspect) not what the Committee intended, I recommend that the remedy and others like it are amended to read "for the topic of pseudoscience" or similar.  Sandstein   18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio giuliano's opinion in opposition to the proposed motion. The wording "authorized for pages related to ..." would exclude edits about the subject on pages that are not about the subject, such as noticeboards or list articles. This conflicts with the DS procedure which talks about "topics" or "topic areas", but would take precedence over it as a newer decision. The wording should be reconsidered.  Sandstein   21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf re motion
With the exception of the Falun Gong case, these are all simple clarifications that do not affect the scope of the remedies' intent and I struggle to think of any way they could be controversial.

The Falun Gong case is slightly different, in that it changes from affecting articles that are "closely related" to pages "related [...], broadly construed". I don't know if this broadening of the scope is either significant or relevant? There are no recent sanctions listed on the case page, but that's the extent of my knowledge of the current state of the topic area. The change is probably immaterial but arbs should be aware that it is a change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Changing (ex post facto) rulings by motion is a bad idea. There should be wider community input and and RFC about such matters.

Why? Because the Arbitration process is set up to at least have an appearance of inviting community input. Using motions to change the results subverts the community. Arguably amendment of one ruling through motions though this has always seemed a clunky and ill-conceived technique) where at least the motion is sufficiently similar to the amendment requested is reasonable. But essentially the use of motions outside a very limited scope in terms of the Arbitration Committee's power to make changes to purely procedural aspects of the arbitration process itself is ulta vires.

Moreover in this case the amendment request pertains to the "Pseudoscience" case, and, one assumes, that at least the parties to the case, and those under warnings within the last 12 months have been advised that an amendment has been tabled (or in American parlance, proposed). Those affected by the other eleven cases, which the motion proposed to change, have presumably not been notified, so no due process has been followed. (Again for American members, there are US laws relating to quasi-judicial processes, which may be relevant, no doubt NYB can advise.)

However if the committee is determined on this path, the phraseology of the motion might at least repay a little careful thought. For example do we really want to apply discretionary sanctions to a user over a page they are developing in their user-space? Might we, perhaps, wish to include the Pseudoscience ruling itself in the motion?

I refer the committee to the a previous example where the then committee instructed that administrators must place a "Arbitration sanctions" template on all talk pages of articles related to, I think it was, "Abortion, broadly construed", and only when I had scoped this task and reported on the enormity and non-necessity of it did they reword it to making the placing of the sanction notice optional. (They also had no business attempting to compel administrators to perform actions.) It is better, where possible to get these things right the first time.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Your interpretation is correct. Per Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, the rules that are to be applied to determine whether an edit is covered by discretionary sanctions are the ones outlined in the topic ban policy, i.e. this section. As a result, unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, [discretionary sanctions apply to] all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear. Looking at previous cases, I see "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with X", "pages related to the Y, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions" and "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Z"; however, I don't doubt that, irrespective of the different formulations, all these mean the same thing: all edits concerning X, Y and Z are subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of namespace. Then again, we could pass a motion amending all provisions authorising DS to read "for all edits" rather than "all articles or pages", but, if I can be honest, this looks like a waste of time to me.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. By "clearly and umambiguously specified otherwise", I'd expect some sort of phrase such as "but not in project space" or "for articles only". It's pretty clear to me that the discretionary sanctions extend outside of article space. I'm happy to support a motion, but I don't see that it's necessary. Worm TT( talk ) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The intention was to cover everything related regardless of namespace. I think a motion to clarify this won't hurt. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support a motion that would resolve the ambiguity here. AGK  [•] 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also support a simple motion correcting the language to be more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion
This motion amends the wording of existing discretionary sanction remedies to make clear that they apply to all pages related to the topic, regardless of namespace.

1) The following remedies are amended by striking the word "articles" and inserting the word "pages" in its place:
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
 * Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
 * Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology
 * Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

2) Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is amended to read as follows:

3) Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is amended to read as follows:

4) Clause (b) of Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong is amended to read as follows:

Any existing sanctions and restrictions remain in force and are not affected by this motion.


 * Support
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the reasons discussed above. Thryduulf's observation is well-taken, but I don't see it as a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand Salvio's concerns, but believe this clarifies it sufficiently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "edits" is the right word at all, pages seems more appropriate to me. Worm TT( talk ) 08:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Worm on the diction here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it shouldn't be problematic. Thank you for the comment Thryduulf, I think that aspect would have escaped me had you not noted it. However, I think for our purposes it's almost immaterial. NativeForeigner Talk 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * The various provisions should be amended to read "edits" (and not only pages) instead of articles. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but is it instead a political wind vane?
Principle 5 states "While it may be that paradigm shifts occur from time to time, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture projections regarding them"

In its context, the above principle seems to be implying that there is some sort of equivalence between paradigm subservience and pseudoscience. But this doesn't seem to be appropriate since Thomas Kuhn in 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' described paradigm dominance as a function of political power within the scientific community rather than any epistemological power held by the dominant paradigm. But a pseudoscience as I understand it, is a belief system that suffers from some inherent epistemological flaw that prevents that belief system from achieving the categorization of being a science.

The question then arises, is the purpose of Wikipedia to determine which way the political winds are blowing within the scientific community and then act as a "yes man" and report as being clearly true whatever theory happens to pop out of that community bearing their royal stamp of approval, no matter how far fetched and absurd it might be? Quarky Gluon (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a particular problem with ideas that have been largely abandoned in the west, such as Vitalism, particularly if a minority still accepts them. I have recently removed an edit that sought to dub Louis Pasteur a pseudo-scientist just because he was on the wrong side of a debate that was (to an extent) only resolved a century later. In that case Newton and Faraday are "pseudo-scienists" too, and a lot of ideas current today will one day be "pseudo-science".


 * Moreover, such edits are frequently done to make the page appear illogical and incoherent, which is vandalism, doing great damage to articles describing the history of science and modern controversies. Redheylin (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)