Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience

Initiated by GDallimore (Talk) at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle 15
  2. Finding 9
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

None

Amendment 1

Statement by GDallimore

Following this decision, the WP:Fringe guideline was modified to quote the above passaged: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience

It is also highlighted as notable pseudoscience: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Examples

This has essentially foreclosed any possibility of discussion on whether or not Time Cube is pseudoscience: [1][2]

In my view, it is a particularly poor example and should not be highlighted in the guideline. Specifically, it is not science, pseudo- or otherwise, but a semi-religious rant and Internet phenomenon. Labelling it pseudoscience actually gives it more credence than it deserves.

The requested amendment leaves the content of the statement unchanged, but removes the (arguably) inappropriate example.

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

If this statement is amended to remove time cube as an example, another suitable example should be substituted. Otherwise, what standard should editors use to judge what is obvious pseudoscience? I suggest Nibiru collision as pretty obvious pseudoscience. Also, the statement should be made grammatically correct. It currently ends, "... categorized as such without more." More what? Move evidence? LK (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2
  • Request change as follows: "Wikipedia contains articles such as Time Cube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a theory of time, 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. In the case of Time Cube, an anonymous editor, "Time Cube Guy," frequently reverts to his favored version."

Statement by GDallimore (2)

For the reasons given in amendment 1, referring to time cube as a [pseudoscientific] theory of time gives it more credence than it deserves. This part of the statement should be removed.

The reference to Time Cube Guy is out of place. He was not discussed or mentioned anywhere else in the decision and no remedies against him were proposed.

The amendment removes the (arguably) inappropriate example and needless mention of a particular editor but leaves the content of the statement unchanged.

Statement by Enric Naval

I searched in google books "time cube" pseudoscience and "gene ray" pseudoscience and I got zero relevant results. Other searches in google found only really weak sources and mirrors of wikipedia. So, yeah, by the policy of verifiability, Time Cube has turned out to be a bad example because there aren't really any reliable sources supporting its pseudoscienting status, and it seems that no book on pseudoscience lists it, not even as part of a name-check. It should be striken out as suggested.

Statement by other editor (3)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am favourably disposed towards both of these amendments for the reasons given. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I will propose a motion effecting both of these amendments. Steve Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Steve, both of these requests appear to be good ones, although I'm a bit surprised that an example cited in the case would continue to carry enough weight to motivate them. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • My guess is that it's because it's considered funny and funny Internet things always end up getting more prominence than they deserve (surprised it's not mentioned in WP:BIAS). People will always go the extra mile to ensure funny things are included. Usually it's harmless and fun to learn about these weird and wonderful things, but sometimes the joke can go too far. When I saw this article on the psuedoscience template alongside aids denialism and homoeopathy I decided it was time to reduce its prominence. GDallimore (Talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The point made in this request for amendment is well-taken, but what is obviously happening here is that undue weight is being given to what was clearly a throwaway remark in this three-and-one-half-year-old case. (I wish as much attention were paid to the core principles and findings of all of our cases.) Therefore, I am not sure that a formal motion to amend is necessary, though I will not oppose it. It would be courteous to notify the former arbitrator who wrote the Pseudoscience decision, Fred Bauder, and see whether he has any comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "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."

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Support
  1. Steve Smith (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Risker (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm not convinced this motion is really necessary, per my comment above, but since it is here I will go along. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  6. It would have been good, I suppose, to also sort out the strange wording in Principle 15, ("may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Without more what?)  Roger Davies talk 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  7. I don't mind, given that the decision stands in substance with the amendments. I should point out that Time Cube had the desirable property of being unambiguously bogus and unrelated to the pseudoscientific fields where there are significant content disputes on Wikipedia (so that nobody is unfairly singled out, even if just as an example). — Coren (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. I think Time Cube is not a terrible example, but I can also see that this example a content ruling. Torn; would gladly change it with the original drafters consent. Certainly a different category from homeopathy and the really influential pseudoscience. Incidentally, does anyone else think the image on Time Cube is inappropriate navel-gazing? Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    I think that the visual style of the Time Cube related website is part of their notability. Certainly, they are distinctive and bear some illustration. Bug resounding "meh" from me on that. — Coren (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. I tend to think this is not necessary, but not willing to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Recuse

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

Initiated by Ludwigs2 at 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Directly involved

Others are involved in the conversation and will be notified, but I don't want to commit anyone outside the direct discussion. (General notifications at the two below-noted discussions of this issue - [3], [4].)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Clarification is needed on the use of skeptical sources in general, and the use of Stephen Barrett and QuackWatch as sources in particular. The current dispute centers around assertions of 'expertise' in skepticism. The pseudoscience decision does consider expert editors, but does not deal with similar assertions of expertise by editors about sources.

See the discussions at:

Barrett in specific

In the specific case, ScienceApologist (and others) argue that Barrett can be used to critique the work of a minor historic scientist Weston Price as pseudoscience, despite the facts that:

  • Price's work would not have been considered pseudoscience at the time he was a publishing scientist.
  • Barrett's critique is actually aimed at the Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization ostensibly formed around Price's (in current times) discarded theories, but which Price was never to my knowledge directly associated with.
  • Barrett himself has no special training in the philosophy of science or the history of science, but is primarily notable for running the website QuackWatch.

The argument being used is that Barrett is considered an expert in the "field of quackbusting" ([5] assumedly by virtue of running QuackWatch), and this is defended by reference to the wording of Self-published sources [6], through the assertion that the following phrase:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

implies that Barrett is an expert because he has been published in reliable third-party publications.

The obvious problems with this arguments (from my perspective) are:

  1. There is no scholarly or academic 'field' of 'quackbusting'
  2. There are no objective criteria for determining expertise in quackbusting, even if such a field could be argued to exist.
  3. Publication is reliable sources does not automatically confer the status of 'expert'
  4. There is no reason to assume that Barrett (a retired psychologist) has any particular training or skills that qualify him as an expert at scientific practice or methodology, aside from having once been a practicing scientist.

Barrett is certainly notable (though his notability is largely due to self-promotion and self-publication through his website), and certainly reliable as a noteworthy proponent of the skeptical point of view, but (IMO) should not be defended as an authoritative expert in a non-existent field for which he has no specific training.

Skeptical sources more generally

This type of problem occurs to a greater or lesser degree across a broad number of articles. A variety of skeptical sources - including individuals such as Barrett and collected materials or journals such as The Skeptic's Dictionary or the Skeptical Inquirer - are used as though they were authoritative experts on all fringe topics. I'd like to propose that the following clarifications be made to address this problem:

  1. Skeptical sources can be defined as follows:
    • They are sources which advocate against pseudoscience, fringe theories, alternate theories or other viewpoints that they considered unscientific.
      • Different sources may use any of several definitions of the term 'scientific'.
    • They are comprised of people, usually with scientific backgrounds, working as generalists rather than working in a particular field for which they are trained.
    • They use scientific arguments for refutation and often compile and use scientific research from other sources, but do not generally do research of their own and are not subject to peer review, accreditation, or the other systems that assure accuracy and objectivity in mainstream scientific research.
  2. Skeptical sources should not be taken to be scientific experts, but should be treated (depending on context) as:
    • Equivalent to informed journalistic sources.
    • As primary sources advocating for a particular viewpoint.

In general, this would mean that editors who use skeptical sources would have a raised bar with respect to clear attribution, specific quoting and verification of claims, neutral and balanced language, and in other ways be obliged to stick more closely to proper encyclopedic methods and style. This should result in a general improvement of the quality of fringe articles across the project. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

Just as a response to ScienceApologist's claim that this is beyond ArbCom's remit... A few points:

  • This is not a mere content dispute on a single article - Barrett's is mentioned in 120+ mainspace articles, QuackWatch in 220+, and The Skeptic's Dictionary in 181. Almost all of those are examples where these sources are used as supposed experts.
  • The use of these sources is always defended under the ArbCom pseudoscience ruling, citing the need to present mainstream sources as prominent, and then using the specious claims of expertise to argue that a skeptical source represents the mainstream viewpoint.

ArbCom had the remit to deal with sourcing issues in the original ruling, therefore it has the remit (and I would argue the obligation) to clarify its ruling. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Statement by ScienceApologist

This seems to me to be a content dispute: mainly beyond arbcom's remit. I include, below, a rationale for why Ludwigs2 is incorrect in specific claims he made above only for completeness as I do not expect arbcom to actually agree to post any clarification on the issue except maybe to clarify that they are not permitted to adjudicate sources (c.f. this amendment to the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration case).

Click show to see why Ludwigs2 is incorrect
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:SPS gives us a guide as to how to determine whether certain sources can or cannot be used. In particular, primary source documents of experts can be excepted when they are commenting on their area of expertise. Expertise is determined, according to the self-same policy, by publication record and evaluations of the status of the author by external reviewers. In the particular dispute referenced by Ludwigs, I noted that Stephen Barrett could be considered an expert on alternative medicine claims since he has a publication record in the field: [7], [8], [9], and a record of accolades from other experts who have evaluated his work: [10], [[11]. These are only illustrative examples. A more complete evaluation can be read at his Wikipedia biography.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BruceGrubb

In this specific case, the claims of Barrett regarding Price can be shown to be incorrect or out of date using reliable sources.

  1. Barrett's claims regarding what Price ignored are contradicted by Price's own book (published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) (see Talk:Weston_Price#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words as well as in a 1923 publication by Price called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic
  2. Barrett's claims regarding focal infection theory are shown to possibly out of date by
  • Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; pg 188
  • Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009) Textbook of Endodontology; Wiley page 135-136
  • Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33
  1. With the exception of the focal infection none of Berrett's claims regarding Price have a reference.

This for me raises a lot of WP:RS issues regarding the use of Berrett in a biography of a man who died in 1948 when the understanding and state of dentistry and nutrition was much different than it is now. Price's work might have been perfectly good for his time but later research may have showed underlying premises common to his time were flawed or simply wrong. The problem is with no references we can't tell if these claims regarding Price are just Berrett's opinion, were the view of Price's contemporaries, or were the view of later researchers critiquing Price. Coupled with the idea the focal infection statement may be out of date, lack of information as where most of the claims are coming from, and apparent contradiction with Price brings up the issue of "if this is flawed then what else in this article is flawed?" putting WP:RS in the ICU.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum by BruceGrubb

I would like to add another reason for ArbCom to reconsider its remit; one editor seems to be using WP:BLP as a Censorship hammer to squelch meaningful challenges to Stephen Barrett's expertise.

  1. It has been used to call another editor a drunk ([12])
  2. It in conjunction with WP:BLP has resulted in apparent Wikipedia:WikiBullying (see Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, Griswaldo and BruceGrubb)
  3. It has been used to claim that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett, Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_9#copied_from_Ronz.27_talk_page, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett are off topic in the BLP noticeboard (an archive of the BLP Noticeboard is not on topic for the BLP Noticeboard? SAY WHAT?!?)

In short because of a lack of the requested clarification we effectively have possible conduct issues going on and will likely see this kins of problem in the future; I seriously doubt ArbCom had this mess in mind when it made its ruling. We really need to have clarification on how sites like can be used and if owner is the author how WP:BLP applies to them in the talk pages.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard has decided there was a conduct issue (with administrator User:Looie496 saying and I quote "It's a textbook case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taken to an extreme.") I must again again ask for ArbCom their position.

If it is still ruled that it was only a content issue then we MUST also say if a statement by a living person is shown vis reliable sources to be grossly inaccurate then it cannot be used per WP:V and people cannot throw up WP:OR to keep inaccurate information in an article. Similarly cannot have WP:CRYBLP being used as a amazing magical censorship hammer.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ronz

This is purely a content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Itsmejudith

It seems to me that we reasonable people on FTN rapidly reached a realistic consensus about Barrett/Quackwatch: a useful source in some circumstances but with limitations that need to be respected. That's true of any source, really. Although SA continues to demur from this, we can discuss such sources case by case like grown-ups. I can't see much that ArbCom can add. I agree with Ludwigs that "Quackbusting" isn't an area of expertise. The UK writers like Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh develop the phenomenon beyond Barrett's starting point. They make a point of referring to recognised experts, so we can use them as starting points and follow the cite trail to excellent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by The Founders Intent

It appears to me from sources in the Price article that Price was quite respected during his time. In fact he occupied a chairmanship position in research with the ADA, is the credit with several major technological breakthrough for his time. Furthermore his research in nutrition among aboriginal tribes in several regions is consider unique and rare due to the fact is could not be reproduced today, simply due to demographic changes. No one has been able to successfully determine that his work is flawed. At the time of his work, two opposing views in dentistry were being debated that of nutrition based the concept that caries were caused by system disease, and due to local infection from bacteria. Caried caused by local infection won the argument, and has guided dentistry for the most part since. Barrett's critique does not account for the context (time) of Price's research, and compares it to modern criteria. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I may have a potential breakthrough/course of action to discuss with you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Griswaldo

User:Itsmejudith summarizes the situation well from my point of view. It is also unfortunate that it has needlessly escalated to this point. While Quackwatch is probably a good critical source for determining how some contemporary medical practices deviate from the current mainstream scientific consensus, Stephen Barrett is not a reliable source on the history of dentistry, nor is he a reliable source on the cross-cultural history of nutrition (and these facts have been well established in the various discussions of the topic over the last few days). It appears to me that some editors are unwilling to parse the reliability issues of Quackwatch on a case by case basis in line with relevant policies like WP:SPS, and instead choose simply to defend the publication in its entirety at all times. In the end this is a reliability issue which can be settled on the relevant talk pages and noticeboards. I welcome Newyorkbrad and anyone else's input as editors in any of those venues.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We're not going to rule on what is essentially a content dispute here, I see no conduct issues that need to be looked at. SirFozzie (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Fozzie. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The good news is that I don't see any significant misconduct in the history of this disagreement so far. The bad news is that does leave the matter in the category of "content dispute, ArbCom can't help you." If you want my individual thoughts as an editor, feel free to ask me on my talkpage after this request is closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As everyone's said, this is something that needs to be handled via the usual community discussions. Shell babelfish 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is indeed a content dispute, though reading the comments made here may help. While not commenting directly on this specific content dispute, I will say that it should be obvious that any person's work needs to be considered in the context of the times and places in which they lived, worked and published. There are numerous examples of this in the history of science. Ideally, if it exists, find a published and reliable assessment made by a historian of science (or medicine, in this case), rather than relying on those who write mainly on contemporary issues. Care is also needed to avoid Wikipedians engaging in original research and giving their own opinions on what the verdict of history should be here. But please don't mix up historical issues with contemporary ones. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly a content dispute, and I agree with my colleagues here. On an editorial note, however, I do see a rather significant reliance on this particular reference source over a wide range of topics, and editors might want to consider whether the absence of similar information from other sources is or is not significant to individual subjects; if there are indeed other sources (as I suspect there are) then constant use of one reference source may be creating a perception of over-reliance on that source. Risker (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience

Initiated by jps (talk) at 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Case affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience
  2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • Current wording: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience reads "16) 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."
  • Suggested rewording: Replace the above principle with: "16) Theories which have a following but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
  • Precedent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Modified_by_motion
  • Rationale: singling out "astrology" is problematic and essentially a content ruling which is beyond arbcom's remit. Problematic aspects of this finding include: 1) indicating that astrology is a "theory" which it certainly isn't in the sense of a scientific theory, 2) insinuating by negative association with a previous principle that astrology is somehow not "obvious pseudoscience" which is a highly questionable proposition. Removing the specific example corrects these problems.

Statement by jps

Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Alternate wording of this amendment. see my comments under amendment 2 below for explanation and discussion:

Suggested rewording
16) Theories which have a following in the lay public but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. --Ludwigs2 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

  • Current wording: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable science reads "17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
  • Suggested rewording: Replace the above principle with: "17) Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience may contain information to that effect."
  • Precedent: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Modified_by_motion
  • Rationale: singling out "psychoanalysis" as "questionable science" and declaring a class of subjects that "should not be characterized" in defiance of reliable sources which say otherwise are both problematic assertions and essentially content rulings which are beyond arbcom's remit. Problematic aspects of this finding include: 1) indicating that psychoanalysis is a "science" which it is not generally considered to be — not even a "questionable" one. It is, rather, a technique that offers a perspective on human behavior, theory of mind, and modes of dysfunction. 2) insinuating by negative association with a previous principle that psychoanalysis is somehow not "obvious pseudoscience" which is a POV that attacks the perspective of such luminaries as Richard Feynman who outlines his argument in favor of psychoanalysis being a pseudoscience in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Removing the specific example corrects these problems. 3) The final directive, that these kinds of proposals and ideas "generally should not be so characterized" is a vague and unhelpful directive that has caused problems with editors debating whether a topic is truly "pseudoscientific" or merely "questionable science" — a meaningless and terrible game that puts the focus on trying to read the tea leaves of arbcom decisions rather than looking at the most reliable sources and trying to decide from them what the mainstream academic understanding of a subject is. In practice, this ruling is ignored by editors at, for example, list of pseudosciences because it is so contrary to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines (example discussion). I propose that the easiest way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to amend the ruling so that it no longer makes claims to content adjudication and instead returns editorial control of pseudoscience characterization to what reliable sources say on the subject.

Statement by jps

Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

I'm not a participant in the original case, but I am a regular at the fringe theory noticeboard. Personally I tend to favor examples, but if we have precedent for omitting them, so be it. I do not think the last clause should be dropped through amendment, however. In the case of psychoanalysis it seems to me that the article needs to reflect the mainstream viewpoint and express Feynman's criticism as that of a dissenter (assuming of course that this situations still obtains-- but if it didn't there wouldn't be any pressure to use this as an example). Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that show that Feynman's critique is close to the mainstream academic understanding of psychoanalysis. I just used his critique as an example. jps (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
While I prefer Ludwigs2's wording I don't think I would interpret the consequences of following it so stringently as he holds. In general for a subject of some controversy there is reason to mention the controversy in the lead. In the cases in question, there is some difference, however small, between a field which has always had trouble gaining general academic acceptance and another field which once enjoyed some degree of respect but which is now falling out of favor. As it appears at this instant it seems to me that the lead for parapsychology is up front about the controversy, and those testifying against it seem more relevant as authorities. Looking at the material in psychoanalysis is a lot more problematic, not the least of which problem is the considerable space devoted to criticisms from philosophers. If we had some solid sources from psychologists saying "look, we tried this stuff, and we now think it's a bunch of hooey" it would be a lot easier to class it as old, dead pseudoscience.
There's a content issue here of exactly how similar the two cases are. My sense of what's in the articles now is that they support calling the one pseudoscientific better than they do the other, but that there's some possibility of finding better material for the latter. In the case of string theory there is a lot of doubt being expressed but surely not to the same degree; the lead of that article is up front about the dispute but does not go so far as to elevate those doubts to the level of calling the theory discredited. I feel that we have more of an issue which can be dealt with here about specifically the wording of article leads. My interpretation of the various versions is that none of them which has been proposed here would forbid any use of the word "pseudoscience" in a lead; as I see it the issue is in expressing the consensus and how disagreement relates to it. Even if the line between them is not always sharp, I think we need distinct cases where there is general agreement that a matter is pseudoscientific and where there substantial opinion which has not been accepted as consensus. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2

This is problematic. Why should even a noted scholar like Feynman be used on wikipedia to critique an entire field of scholarship for which he has no special training or expertise? He is a physicist, not a psychologist or a specialist in the philosophy of science, so the most he's qualified to say is that psychoanalysis is not good physics (which I think we all already knew). We're not talking about UFO technology here: psychoanalysis is a valid field of research in its own right, and if it's going to be critiqued it should be done so by professionals in the relevant research area. Feynman is not even close. This is precisely the kind of thinking we do not want to encourage.

The sticking point, I think, is in the ambiguity of the phrase Theories which have a substantial following... which is used in both sections. The 'substantial following' of psychoanalysis is of a different character entirely than the 'substantial following' of astrology. Clarify that, and I think the problem resolves itself more cleanly. so, I'll offer the following as a counter-suggestion:

Suggested rewording
17) Theories which have a substantial presence in academic scholarship should not be characterized as pseudoscience, but may contain scholarly critiques which refer to them as pseudoscience.

I would interpret this to mean that Feynman could be used on the psychoanalysis page, but only in the body (not in the lead), and only properly contextualized as a debate about the rigor of psychoanalysis' methods. I've added a parallel revision to the other amendment request above. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a reasonably good formulation providing it says "... in current academic scholarship" as there are cases where pseudoscientific ideas have enjoyed academic favor prior to their rejection. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(please move if this is the wrong place to comment) I understand the concerns about overly weighting minority critiques, but the same rationale Ludwigs2 uses to dismiss Feynman's characterization of psychoanalysis could also be used to argue that famous critiques of parapsychology do not warrant mention in the lead of that particular article. The problem with Ludwigs2's proposed wording is, as I see it, that what constitutes a "substantial presence" in "academic scholarship" is very difficult to gauge. To wit, there are far fewer academic psychologists willing to go to bat for the scientific legitimacy of Freudian or Jungian theories than there were in the past, and the number of true psychoanalysts employed in the academy is most-assuredly steadily dropping (they're a minority in psychology departments these days, which is ruefully acknowledged by the psychoanalysts themselves). At what point do we as editors decide that the pendulum has swung enough to include the characterization of a subject as being pseudoscientific in the lead? This, I think, is NOT something that the arbitration committee should be deciding. It's something that informed editors need to decide after considering the sum total of the reliable sources on the subject. Trying to legislate this treatment from on-high is just inviting an additional conflict over the semiotics of arbcom decisions. If a hypothetical featured-article writer wants to improve our article on psychoanalysis and makes an editorial decision to deal with the academic critiques of the subject in a single sentence in the lead, why should their hands be tied by an arbitrary arbcom content ruling? jps (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't create the content ruling - that was here before I joined the project. I just think that if arbcom is going to indulge in a content ruling regardless, they ought to do it correctly.
As to why your hypothetical editor should have his hands tied... My belief on this matter is that any topic that has active, productive, ongoing work in the scholarly world is precluded from being pseudoscience by definition for the time frame it is active in the scholarly world. Each community of scholars gets to decide for itself what is and what is not 'scientific' for its field - that's the way it works in the academy - and so long as the field itself is accepted by the greater academic community, wikipedia should not be implying that it is somehow less than scientific. That does a disservice to the scientific world as a whole (where does wikipedia get off telling the scientific community that a field they currently accept as valid is actually pseudoscience?) Scientists are allowed to sneer at perceived methodological flaws of other disciplines, obviously, but wikipedia cannot present that as truth without without running afoul of a large number of academic scholars who happen to be in that other discipline. And yes, this is retroactive. Parapsychology can be considered pseudoscience now but for the brief period it was actively investigated by reputable scholars, it was science. Psychoanalysis may (probably will) eventually reach a stage where no scholars take it seriously, and anyone who practices psychoanalysis after that can safely be considered a pseudoscientist, but as of now it's still a valid area of scholarly research and deserves to be considered a science.
As I've said before, the entire range of fringe science conflicts on wikipedia boils down to two species of editors who both drastically misunderstand what science is. On one hand there are editors who are overly-enthused about improbable possibilities and think all such deserve to be called science; on the other, there are editors who seem to believe that 'science' can be defined as an abstract universal against which everything can be measured. Both approaches are wrong-headed. We shouldn't be trying to determine when something starts or stops being a science - if the status of a field is not patently obvious from the way scholars deal with the subject, then we should gracefully maintain the status quo (keeping unaccepted fields as unaccepted and established fields as established until scholarship makes things clearer). --Ludwigs2 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor User:Rocksanddirt

This sort of amendment is the sort of legal nitpicking that is not really important to the management of en.wikipedia. While singling out certain types of groups in the final decision is not the best practice, amending the decision two or so years later is also not the best practice. I think those on the committee would be better to spend the precious time they devote to committee activities to work on real disputes and problems within the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(Please move this comment if it should be placed somewhere else.) There are real disputes regarding these rulings that are ongoing on various pages. For example, Talk:Acupuncture has active editors insisting that these arbcom rulings are relevant to discussions of categorical labeling. In the past, the fact that the committee chose to make a content ruling such as this has emboldened editors to edit war with the claim that they are carrying out arbcom's commands. jps (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Vassyana

I think ArbCom should not revise their findings. Instead, just state that it was an understanding of the policy at the time, not a binding directive independent from established policy; direct editors to WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV rules that are binding now. Wash your hands of the content matter and be done with it. Vassyana (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think it's possible to wash ones hands of the content matter when there's always at least one genius editor who will be using that as a basis to push their silly POV much to the frustration of everyone else. It's a select few decisions that seem to have this issue, so it's better to just remove those mentions for everyone's sanity; the effort it takes to remove the content decisions compared to the time dedicated to explaining why that is out of date and not binding is quite a bit less in the grand scheme of things. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
What about what I quickly drafted out below? Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose it because it might reasonably work on the future dispute (and a way of handling them). However, I cannot actively support it as a removal serves more than that. The first reason is similar: a removal of that bit (per the request) would prevent an unnecessary (and what ought-to-be resolved) future dispute as no genius would be able to play around with the fact that the content matter has been removed altogether. The second is to ensure consistency as I remarked below - if Steve Smith was in a position to serve the rest of his term, I'd expect him to be consistent in the way he dealt with principle 15). The final reason is important: the fundamental and simple rule which has not really ever changed - AC does not and should not decide content, be it then or now. That it may have been their understanding/knowledge/example of how our policies worked at the time and that it was done with the greatest of intentions is really not good enough to keep it in my opinion (the same goes for saving an ego, or because it's too time-consuming to add 4 tildes in support of a similar proposal to principle 15). The amendment request was caused by the then-AC's "throwaway remarks" as some users charitably might call them, so it would seem unnecessary for the Community to have to address problems with individual AC decisions (particularly content issues) in its policy/guidelines or for AC to try to keep it in its decision...this is especially given that the now-AC apparently agrees, and, is in a position to resolve the issue through relatively simple procedure - removing the issue altogether. Though again, I wouldn't oppose your suggestion; just that I'd actively support removal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Well given that Fred seem to have noticeably been absent when similar issues have arisen, I don't see what the incentive would be for him to pop up and say "yes, that's not really what I meant in the long term - cut 2006's now-obvious-and-spotted mistakes from the decision". I don't see a reason why we can't proactively deal with the issue; why wait for the genius to pop up when that's what this amendment request seems to want to avoid based on past experience? If I wasn't busy in July, I'd have advised you to deal with these at the same time as when principle 15 of the decision was being dealt with. This just becomes weird and inconsistent if you're making amendments a few months ago, but now you want to say some parts of the decision aren't binding anymore.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't around in July. I've been absent most of the year. I'm around now and the discussion caught my attention. I don't see why there would be any conflict between the removal of certain examples and the idea below. I just don't see it as a priority and it does concern me somewhat that it would be reinforcing the letter-law use of ArbCom decisions, but it's not in opposition to my rough suggestion. Either way, I think it is important to de-emphasize ArbCom case law wikilawyering and emphasize the extant, mature community policy. Personally, I believe if an admin runs across someone playing those hairsplitting games, they should take care of that problem. If I run across a case on ANI or AE, that's what I intend to do, even if it is just providing a fair warning that lines are being crossed. That's all my opinion of course and you're welcome to grab a few salt grains with it. Vassyana (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed; either way is better than none of the above. We're in particular agreement about handling that problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
How would you phrase such an edict, Vassyana? It needs to be incorporated into the finding so it can be referred to. jps (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Something like, "X and Y from Decision Z are not binding policy. The Arbitration Committee recognizes that the community has rules in place to deal with this topic area. Editors should refer to the Neutral Point of View and Fringe Theories policies and noticeboards (NPOV, FT) for current guidance, per community norms." Probably not perfect, but I think the gist is clear. Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Remember that the case is linked at the top of many talk pages, in huge orange boxes that list the guidelines described in the case, like, for example, Talk:Astrology.

It's like a ghost that keeps haunting the pseudocience-related pages. Fix the ruling. Or pass a motion for a disclaimer, like Carcharoth says. Just do something that disables the danged thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Giving an example is illustrative and not "singling out" in any especial way. Astrology is a simple and unambiguous example of pseudoscience, this is not a content ruling as that has been established for a very long time in the articles on astrology. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

I think we need to develop two guidelines:

  • Regarding use or attempted use of principles drawn from arbitration decisions as policy. In the founding days of the Arbitration Committee the principle was adopted that arbitration decisions were not precedent, much less policy. They incorporate within them restatements of policy, in this case based on only the broadest general principles. Using links to this case in lieu of an editorial guideline reflects the poverty of the community's policy making procedures, fine in theory, but often not carried through. The decision filled a vacuum; but as the years go by and there is a failure of decision making by the community, it is being asked to serve in place of considered community policy. It is the use that is wrong, not its specific language.
  • The questions raised in the pseudoscience decision should be addressed by editing guidelines developed by the community which addresses them.
    • Actually Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience should serve. It incorporates the principles from the decision in a usable way, although I think removal of clear specific examples makes it less clear than would be optimal.

If the community is unable to collaboratively craft, by consensus, if possible, needed guidelines they should expect arbitrary decisions, which this arguably was, to continue. If that is the case alternative methods of developing guidelines need to be considered. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect to unfounded beliefs: There are numerous reliable sources that many people believe, and act, on information for which there is no reliable source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I would likely have supported these changes (and a number of others) if I had been an arbitrator when the Pseudoscience case was decided in 2006, but I am not convinced that any infelicities of the wording are doing any actual harm some four years later. (I'd reconsider this conclusion if there were a showing that the wording is being thrown in people's faces as pretermitting legitimate content or categorization arguments.) Perhaps it would be sufficient if I and other arbitrators observed here that the examples given in the decision do not constitute binding rulings by the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps Fred Bauder, who wrote the decision, would care to offer his perspective on the matter. I'd also like to welcome my former colleague Vassyana, who has commented above, back to this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I tend to concur with Vassyana. It's four years later, and the community has moved this along; we're not in the business of reworking what is now the community's guideline, and that the community is certainly at liberty to update as it feels appropriate. Risker (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the best thing here is to simply remind everyone that examples in decisions are just that: examples. They are, by definition, not exhaustive or definitive. While they might have been helpful to clarify things at the time, they are not binding. — Coren (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rewriting such as this should only really be done within a new case, though I am aware that we have engaged in rewriting previously on this very case (as mentioned above by the filers). See here. I also think what I said previously on an earlier clarification request applies: "I've always been uneasy about the practice of quoting ArbCom principles in policies, especially very old principles [...] please don't ask ArbCom to participate (from RFAR) in the editing of policy [...] Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)" and also what Newyorkbrad said at about the same time: "There are several paragraphs of the Pseudoscience decision that venture more closely to content or policy rulings than would normally be found in one of our decisions. [...] Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)" Given that last quote, it might be useful to pass motion to add a disclaimer, similar to what Vassyana has proposed above, to the case. But to then avoid further messing with what is now a very old case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If someone is consistently using ArbCom remedies to "win" content disputes, it's most likely that behavior that needs addressed, not the ruling. Shell babelfish 20:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with Vassyana. That case had a number of content decisions I would have outsourced to the community, which looks like what we have now with Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Not thrilled with using psychoanalysis as an example, as it is rather an egregious one. Hence, shall we draft a motion along Vassyana's entry and vote? (I'd say principles 3, 6.1, 6.2, 9, 9.1 and 11, FoF 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10.1, 11, 12, 13 and 17) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • PS: Do folks think we need specify these content findings in the motion? I think yes as it reduces ambiguity and firmly pushes folks in the one direction to find answers/consensus. Anyone want to add or subtract any? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I do not think that this should result in an amendment at all, and instead should be closed. There's nothing really to amend here unless we're going to rewrite the entire decision, and I do not think that is a reasonable outcome. Risker (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Much per Newyorkbrad, if there are concrete examples that these findings are being actively misused in current content disputes, then some amendment or motion may be required. These findings strayed closer to ruling on content than I am comfortable with, but it is generally understood that committee decisions neither set precedent nor create policy; they merely interpret existing policies and guidelines. Agree that a reminder of this and a reference to current guidelines on the matter should be enough to counter any argument that is based on these 2006 findings. –xenotalk 18:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Coren - it was only an example, not a binding content decision, and also with Risker - this should be closed. PhilKnight (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Case affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. "Deprecation by ScienceApologist" 11a) Using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos", The Electric Universe (book) "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, argumentative"
  2. "Discretionary sanctions" 12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[13] (Maunus notfied)

Amendment 1

Statement by Tijfo098

It seems trendy to now bash on scientific theories and disciplines using language not directly covered by the pseudoscience arbitration case, but which have effectively the same meaning or worse. 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To SirFozzie: because it's not clear (to me) that a WP:AE request would be considered in scope. The Electric Universe (book) is deleted now, so I have no idea what that was about, but I suspect it was a more wp:fringe topic than evolutionary psychology. On the other hand it's clear that many anthropologists (Maunus identifies himself as being one) do not hold EP in much esteem. For instance Thomas Hylland Eriksen writes in his book What is Anthropology? that "Most anthropologists are unenthusiastic about evolutionary psychology." (p. 138); and then describes some "academic turf wars". Is this sufficient to put the matter in scope of the Pseudoscience case? 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For instance, Mathsci below writes that it doesn't fall withing that scope, so a clarification seems useful. I'm merely seeking a clarification for future events like this, not seeking to have anyone sanctioned in this particular incident, which appears resolved already. 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Another, kinder(?) commentary of User:AndyTheGrump is comparing EP with homeopathy, again without providing a source [14]. The current Wikipedia article on Homeopathy identifies it as pseudoscience and quackery. Does this type of "pseudoscience by comparison" declaration fall under the remit of the Pseudoscience case? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, since some here make allusions to my motivation, my only recollection having participated in that article is responding to a RfC where I was in agreement with Maunus that sourced and attributed criticism of EP should be included, even if it sounded extreme. 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus

I am not going to defend my use of the word "cult" which was clearly uncivil and uncalled for regardless of whether it is included in any sanctions, and for which I have already apologized.[15] I would like to note that this happened after a protracted dispute in which I have been repeatedly labelled as an "anti-EP'er" a "marxist" and a "cultural determinist" by the user to whom the comment was directed in spite of having made expicit statements that I am neither of those. It does not seem fair to me to single out my example of incivilty for an ArbCom remedy when other editors on the page have been repeatedly breaching WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. I apologize for my uncivil language, and accept any sanction that might be deemed justifiable as long as the transgression is seen in its proper context of prolonged incivilty by Memills (talk · contribs). ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record I do not consider Evolutionary Psychology to be a pseudoscience or a cult. I consider the particular editor to be unable to understand that there are different perspectives on the discipline and that not everyone who disagrees with some of EP's conclusions do so out of spite or for political motives. This obviously does not extend to all EP practitioners. It is correct that many of EP's critics have been anthropologists, but many have also been philosophers or psychologists from other subdisciplines. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Leadwind has repeatedly referred to anthropology as being the carrier of "Marxist ideology" does this mean that his statements fall under the scope of Eastern Europe arbitration?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved Mathsci

This request seems absurd and WP:POINTY. It is related to a current thread on WP:ANI on Evolutionary psychology (EP) in which both named parties are participating. It is an unnecessary escalation of something that has been clarified by Maunus there (e.g. [16] where Maunus also makes an apology). This is forum-shopping gone wild. Although EP is regarded by some as controversial, it does not fall within the realm of pseudoscience (as far as I am aware). Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Tijfo098 has explained some of his motives for tabling this amendment here. Mathsci (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Homeopathy had its own case and rulings Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement about EP ResidentAnthropologist

Extreme EP theories tend to conflict with other fields of scientific knowledge and thus receive accusations of pseudoscience. Moderate theories of Evolutionary psychology have substantial recognition as scientifically valid theories and are used in the cross-disciplinarily in fields involving human evolution and Human cognition. The most vocal proponents are those who hold the extreme theories that rule out cultural elements and are the source of conflict between Anthropologists and EP. More Moderate Evolutionary psychologist who recognize the significant interaction between culture and the mind tend to work pretty much in harmony with Anthropologists. Two of my mentors are both Cognitive Anthropologists who work closely with Evolutionary psychologists so we must be careful when saying that they are competing disciplines 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Amendment 2

  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm a bit confused. They may be using alternative language, but why wouldn't what your suggesting fall under: that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I would think accusing other editors of being members of a cult would fall under the above? SirFozzie (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed this request and don't see a need for an amendment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In regards to Amendment 1, being the request to modify remedy 12, I am also confused (or dont see the need) as the only mention of "pseudoscience" in that remedy is intended to be broadly interpreted.
    Regarding Evolutionary psychology, I suspect there are some individual theories within the field that should be referred to be pseudoscience, and would therefore fit within the remit of the Pseudoscience case, however the entire field is not. Comparing evolutionary psychology to Homeopathy, or referring to proponents of the former as a "cult", would fit within this arbitration case irrespective of where these comments are made, however that is up to the discretion of uninvolved administrators, who should be looking at context, and seeking corrections instead of remedies, unless it is a reoccurring problem. If inappropriate terminology becomes a reoccurring problem on articles relating to evolutionary psychology, unfortunately those articles would need to be included in the scope of the pseudoscience case. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with SirFozzie and Newyorkbrad - I don't consider an amendment is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases

Initiated by Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! at 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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


Statement by Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön)

An acrimonious dispute has arisen regarding the sources that are useful for expanding the articles on astrological signs, and having far reaching implications for a large number of existing articles. The discussion has taken place on a variety of locations, including Talk:Scorpio (astrology), Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard[25], Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#General_astrology_sourcing[26] These are the places I'm currently aware of now.

The dispute involves a number of rulings contained in the several cases collected at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. Everyone involved seems to be under the impression that they are keeping these principles, although the interpretations of them vary widely. Particular passages that I personally consider relevant include:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources

  • Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Basis_for_inclusion

  • In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Wikipedia contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from Wikipedia:Verifiability).

The WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources guideline, which by my understanding was written at least in part as a summary of these arbitration cases, may also be relevant:

  • Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed in order to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it; and for a fringe theory to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter.

    Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

    …

    Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Wikipedia policy prohibits original research. The no original research policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources.

The dispute centers around what are appropriate sources for the content of articles on astrology, and in particular the availability and usefulness of works by astrologers describing the content of astrological beliefs, to improve and expand articles on the elements of astrology, such as the individual pages for the several zodiac signs. A related issue is whether these articles are worth expanding and improving at all.

Astrology is an immense subject. Its literature goes back 2500 years, or more if you count the Sumerian omen texts; and also extends to the present day. New astrological books and magazines appear on a regular basis. It exists on multiple levels. On the one hand, you have horoscope columns, and charts cast to find the location of stray dogs. On the other hand, these guys invented spherical trig.

The literature of astrology is rich in technical detail. Astrologers attach meanings to the several planets, orbital points such as the lunar nodes, the various signs of the zodiac, various fixed stars, the rising, setting, and positions of signs and heavenly bodies, and other elements. My opinion is that all of these details of astrological belief and practice are articles that should be written if missing, and improved by expansion if present.

The literature of Western astrology alone is so extensive at various levels of high seriousness that I believe it is possible to speak meaningfully of "mainstream astrology" as well as "fringe astrology".

Others disagree. Dominus Vobisdu, in particular, claims that all writing about astrologers for astrologers constitutes "in universe" writing. "In universe" is a phrase that comes from our guidelines for writing about fiction, where its purpose is to curb extensive plot summaries and detail about fictional narratives that are not considered to be important outside the fiction itself. Referring to astrology as fiction is in my opinion a manifestation of bias.

The underlying claim appears to be that astrology is incoherent. It is or should be impossible to write about astrology using astrological texts as sources. Because astrology is fiction, astrologers who write books about it have no expertise in astrology; there isn't a subject for them to be experts in. No astrologer is an independent source; to be independent, a source must have no relationship to astrology as a field. Since astrology is not science (I don't think anybody is claiming it is, myself), every astrologer can and does make it up anew, and without regard to prior work. Even the publishers who print astrological sources regard the subject as a joke. [27] Because of this, Wikipedia editors cannot review astrological sources, collate what they say, and rephrase it to create articles on astrological topics; this will always be original synthesis. The omission of information on astrological belief and practice does Wikipedia readers no disservice. [28]

Other editors have given even more startling opinions, such as a claim that astrological beliefs cannot be presented unless they have been scientifically demonstrated. [29]

I find no support for these positions in the precedents set by ArbCom on issues relating to fringe and pseudoscientific topics. I find no support for them in the WP:FRINGE content guideline. My opinion is that they show bias, and are an attempt to lawyer up a regime under which all that can be said about the notional content of astrology is that "True science has rejected it. This is all you need to know."

I can't go along with that. Whether you believe in astrology, or believe along with Jim Morrison that it's "a bunch of bullshit," it's a big subject with a rich literature, plenty of historical depth, and appropriate for fairly detailed coverage here. Astrological sources are in fact plentiful. The current guideline suggests that we ought to cover it in detail.

No, astrology is not science. This means that it isn't a scientific theory that requires science sources. Its methods are mediæval. Our article on pseudoscience helpfully points out that its methods and substance have not changed much for two thousand years. In subjects like this, progress and truth do not come from testing hypotheses, but by fidelity to and expanding on the auctores. Astrological claims, even pop culture claims like 'Scorpios are dark and sexy', are "true" in the same sense that " Wednesday's child is full of woe" is true. My opinion of astrology is that it's a baroque sort of two thousand year old, learned folklore.

The usual method of Wikipedia editing, of collecting, rephrasing, and reporting what the sources say remains appropriate here. This is what we always do, because this is what we must do. We can do that with astrology as elsewhere without making original synthesis. We are entitled to rely on astrological literature as a source for astrology. Publication by mainstream publishers is an indicator of reliability and significance. Publication by astrological specialists may in fact indicate higher regard on the technical details of astrology, and is in fact an indication that other astrologers find that text worthwhile.

What I would ask for is a clarification of the prior rulings from ArbCom on these sorts of topics. Specifically, I'd propose that:

  • Astrological writings and authors can be reliable sources for the substance of astrological belief and practice. Their reliability as sources can be determined by their reputation and influence in the astrological community.
  • The appropriate level of depth and detail in articles on astrological topics is determined by the number and detail of available reliable sources. These sources are not discounted by being written by astrologers for astrologers.
  • Articles about astrology can be written from astrological sources, collecting, rephrasing, and reporting what the sources say, without original research.

Yes, this is wordy. I'm a Gemini. You could have predicted it. (wink) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest for Knowledge: Comment. My understanding was that this venue did not necessarily relate to conduct, and I meant to accuse no one of misconduct, only call attention to an apparently intractable dispute about the meaning and application of the rulings to astrology, which I think presents unique challenges as a subject. I sought only to name and notify participants in the debate. If being named here is a black mark on your record, I will be happy to remove your name, or that of any other editor I named. Nobody is being accused of anything. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, @A Quest for Knowledge: Again, I apologize, and am not even accusing the people who disagree with me strongly of misconduct. I thought this might be productive, because the page is for "clarification", clarification is needed, and portions of the previous decisions did indeed seem to me to be rendering opinions on the appropriateness of content. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment, for @Dominus Vobisdu, @Jclemens, and generally. I may be a latecomer to this whole dispute. I had rescued (Stars in astrology) or started (Tetrabiblos) a number of articles on astrology related subjects over the past year or so, and saw that a lot of the astrology articles seemed to be lacking in content and otherwise unintelligible or deficient. My first thought was to expand them with lightly edited text from public domain astrological texts, of which there are plenty; in many other situations, this is a solid first step. This.... did not go over well. I'll agree that astrology is no longer a mainstream pursuit; once it was. There are contemporary writers who are engaged in interpreting classical astrological texts; the issue is, they're astrologers. I do strongly disagree with the claims that astrology is somehow incoherent or improvised, or that there is no internal consistency in it, so that any attempt by editors to restate its ideas is original research. There are books of instruction in astrology and its methods that seem serious-minded and have all the usual indicia of reliability. The books I have closest to hand are On the Heavenly Spheres by Avelar and Ribiero (American Federation of Astrologers, 2010, ISBN 0866906096); and DeVore's Encyclopedia of Astrology (Philosophical Library, 1947); other, more popular sources, like Derek and Julia Parker's The Compleat Astrologer (Bantam; don't have it handy) would also be a potential source. All of these works are written from a POV that assumes that astrology is worthy of study.

I'd like to grow our articles with information from astrologers that discuss, for example, the characters attributed to the sun signs, houses, and planets, and that set forth how these interpretations flow out of the qualities attributed to the bodies by astrology. But there isn't much point in trying if all that means is enrolling as a footsoldier in an endless edit war. I'm not asking that anyone be sanctioned or punished, and if that means that there's nothing ArbCom can do so be it. Rather, I was hoping for clarification of the prior rulings and the WP:FRINGE guideline, because they did seem to contain decisions on content and sourcing. And if the threat of misconduct is needed to persuade ArbCom to act, I would note that many of the anti-astrology editors seem to be affiliated with the "rational sceptic" movement, if not the actual projects, and use its dismissive jargon (e.g. "woo") to refer to astrology content. If there is misconduct here, I'd locate it in the attempt to use "rational sceptic" assumptions to invalidate the subject and its literature, which strikes me as inherently non-neutral. The bottom line is that the current climate makes improving these articles next to impossible even if I'm not complaining about any formal rule violations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose it's obvious this is not going anywhere, and as such this discussion need not be prolonged. There is a wide divergence of opinion on how to interpret the prior decisions and the content guideline that came out of them, but if clarification can't be sought from ArbCom without accusations of editor misconduct, answers may have to wait until it gets to that level. I would have preferred to forestall that if possible.

I remain astonished by the idea that anyone imagines that contemporary astrology can be treated as fiction, or that its belief system cannot be explained out of its large literature from mainstream publishers. There are entire shelves of textbooks instructing in contemporary astrology whose contents are forbidden to describe. I still don't know why. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

asked and answered at RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The fact that this was extensively discussed at RS/N; that opinion was overwhelming, voluminous and undivided; that Ihcoyc was upset with this response from the forum for reliability consensus building; and then came to arbitration for clarification of a content issue that was already resolved by remarkably consistent community consensus is the basis for requesting a warning over IDHT and forum shopping behaviour. If you go to the community, you accept what the community says. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

I'm not I'm happy that I was named as someone "involved or directly affected". I'm not interested in astrology and to the best of my knowledge have never edited Astrology or Scorpio (astrology) articles. As many regular editors of Wikipedia know, there's been a content dispute between various editors in astrology topic space for the past 6 months. A few months ago, I made a relatively minor number of comments at the Astrology talk page to help move forward some of the discussions between the editors of the article. In any case, I pretty much stopped following the astrology discussions after Ludwigs2 was topic banned.

My current level of participation is only that I'm a regular patroller of the Fringe Theory noticeboard, and I responded to someone else's request. (I'm number 23 on the list of its most frequent contributors[30]). I know that WP:INVOLVED only applies to admins, but I felt that my comments at the Fringe Theory noticeboard were in an uninvolved capacity. In any case, my advice on how to proceed[31] was rejected so I walked away from that thread this morning.[32]

I don't expect anything to come of this request for clarification since it's mostly about content issues, not conduct.

As I recommended earlier, I think the best path forward is for the editors of these articles to try informal mediation or formal mediation.[33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I am against all 3 of Smerdis of Tlön's proposals. At best, an astrological source is only reliable for the opinions of its author. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön's: ArbCom doesn't rule on content issues. Instead, it only rules on conduct issues. Your proposals are basically asking ArbCom to make a content decision and they're not going to do that. IOW, you shouldn't have filed this request. And that's not a knock or criticism of you. Wikipedia's rules are vast and complicated. Most people learn them through experience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön's: No apology is necessary. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't directly involved in the dispute, only that I provided help (or at least I tried to help) resolve the disputes. Anyway, just to avoid any further tension, I'll strike through my first sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

I don't understand exactly what needs to be clarified here. Both WP:RS specifically state several times that sources that are not reliable and not independent cannot be used on WP at all, except perhaps to provide information about the author themself, and only the author, in the case of SPSs, and then only with caution.

I guess the basic question being asked is whether sources written by astrolgers that have received no serious attention or mention in independent sources outside of the "astrological community" can be used as sources for factual content on WP.

The sources that certain editors would like to use are neither reliable nor independent. They are not scholarly in any sense of the word. The various sources include:

1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable.

2) Astrological websites and blogs.

3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses.

4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not.

5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review.

6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation.

There are numerous problems with these sources:

1) The field of astrology is not recognized as a genuine field of study in the real scholarly community except at a single university in Wales (The Sophia Centre), which offers online degrees in "cultural astronomy and astrology".

2) Unlike other fringe fields like creationism or Intelligent Design, modern astrology has receive very little attention from serious scholars or journalists, and there is therefore a suprising paucity of high-quality and mid-quality reliable independent sources that discuss the field.

3) The sources proposed and have received next to no attention in serious independent sources, making it impossible to determine whether the claims presented should be given any weight without resorting to original research.

4) The authors of these sources have likewise received little attention in serious independent sources, making claims of expertise or authority impossible to verify without resorting to original research.

5) Unlike other fringe fields, astrology has few if any experts or authorities, or centers of authority, that are recognized by outside of the astrological community. It is also impossible to determine whether such recognition exists within the astrological community itself without resorting to original research.

6) It is impossible to determine which beliefs are widespread among modern astrologers because no independent researchers have conducted serious research comprehensive enough to base an assessment upon without resorting to original research.

7) There is no evidence that any of these sources have been subjected to editorial review or peer review or any other manner of fact checking with regards to factual content, despite occasional dubious claims that they are.

8) Many of the authors of the sources and the organizitations that publish them misrepresent themselves as genuinine scholars and scholarly societies, and their books and journals as genuinine scholarly, academic or scientific publications. The mainstream scholarly, academic and scientific communities do not recognize these claims.

9) Many of the sources produced promote a particular type of astrology, and cannot be considered representative of the astrological community as a whole, or even a significant part of it.

10) Many of the proported experts in the in the field are actually entertainers who have no demonstrated expertise or qualifications to write seriously on the subject. This is especially true for newspaper and magazine astrologers.

11) Most, if not all, of the popular books in the field are published for entertainment purposes only, making it impossible to use them as sources for factual content here on WP.

12) Much of the content that these sources are used to support is properly the domain of genuine scholarly, academic or scientific disciplines such as history, philosophy, sociology, psychology or the natural sciences, but does not meet the scholarly requirements for those disciplines.

13) The content that these sources are used to support is presented in WP's voice without in-line attribution as if it were derived from genuine scholarly, academic or scientific sources.

14) Even if the content were attributed, it would still not be suitable for inclusion because there is no way to determine its noteworthiness or how much weight it should be given without resorting to original research.

15) Some of the sources are ancient or pre-modern primary sources, and have been used without any reliance on modern scholarship for interpretation.

16) On a more worrisome note, many of the proposed sources originate from or are endorsed by the most visible astrological society, the Astrological Association of Great Britain and the closely allied Sophia Centre. This group is very "elitist" and ardently assert that they don't endorse the most popular varieties of astrology. It is impossible to determine how widespread the variety they do endorse is without resorting to original research. Furthermore, their writing are more concerned about astrology as they think it should be rather than about astrology as it really is at the present time. The core of this group is small and incestuous, so it is impossible to consdider their views as widespread within the astrological community as a whole. In fact, they seem to be considered a fringe movement not only by the mainstream scholarly community, but by most of the astrological community as well.

In short, the conflict over sourcing on astrology-related topics is a long-standing and serious problem that has been difficult to resolve with numerous RfCs and discussions on RSN and FTN. The paucity of genuine reliable independent sources severely limits what we can report on the topic of astrology, especially modern astrology. Editors wishing a fuller treatment of the subject have aggressively campained for relaxing WP sourcing policies. I strongly object to their demands, and feel that sourcing policies should be as strictly enforced on astrology-related articles as they are, or should be, on articles on other topics. What good is a fuller treatment of the topic to our readers if that treatment is based on unreliable sources. The proposals made by Smerdis of Tlon grossly violate WP policies, and must therefore be rejected. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I agree with your point about organizations being considered authors. I assumed that from the start. Yes, there has been some misconduct, but none bad enough to bother arbcom with at this point. The dispute is about how low we should go in providing sources. The "pro-astrology" editors favor no restrictions that I can see, espcially with regard to in-universe sourcing as Tlon's proposals demonstrate. They had a little field day for a while before someone blew the whistle on them. That's when I arrived and stated an RfC that brought plenty of new eyes to the article, and a second RfC when the pro-astrology editors refused to acknowledge the consensus from the first. That brought even more eyes. The end result was that 25000 kb of cruft and nonsense was deleted from the article. The "pro-astrology" editors are not happy, and still filibustering and wiki-lawyering about sourcing. I don't know what Smerdis hoped to acchieve by starting this clarification discussion. I really don't think this is the right venue, though it would be nice to have an authoratative statement on in-universe sourcing of fringe topics that is wiki-lawyer proof. But I know that that is not yours to give. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Itsmejudith

I want to see good coverage of astrology as a historic cultural tradition. There are plenty of academic sources for that, and they should be used. It is not a fringe topic. By contrast, present-day belief in astrology is a fringe topic. I'm not sure that the pro-astrology group of editors recognise that distinction. The notion that there is an unbroken continuity of astrological belief and practice from high antiquity until the present day is itself a fringe viewpoint. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Zachariel

I do believe this has now become a matter for Arbcom. I would ask the arbitrators to understand that these matters have already been referred to the RS noticeboard several times, but no one – even there – seems capable of bringing clarity to the interpretation and use of RS guidelines in relation to this topic. For some reason it has been singled out as subject to the most purist ideals of WP sourcing policies, which are taken to the most stringent extremes imaginable. It is no longer helpful to have these ongoing multiple noticeboard discussions; they are only generating more confusion and not bringing resolution.

There is another ongoing thread on the RS noticeboard, where the problems described demonstrate more clearly the level of disruption being caused and how this (I believe) is contrary to the aims of Wikipedia. That discussion shows that there are behaviour issues involved here too, so perhaps Arbcom should be taking a critical look at the conduct of some of the editors involved. Specifically myself, Itsmejudith and Dominus Vobisdu, since we regularly get locked in content disputes when I try to contribute referenced text, and meet with persistent blanking of the content without indication of specific reasons - just something like "all these references are unreliable". (There is no question of bad conduct from Ihcoyc, A Quest for Knowledge, or anyone else that has been listed as involved and requested to comment here).

Regardless of whether this endlessly frustrating style of editorial blocking constitutes misconduct, I would like to find a way to work more collaboratively, and not have to engage in a 3-day discussion every time I want to make what should be a 3-minute edit to improve the quality and information value of content already present on WP. Much of the astrology-related text is crying out for improvement, but unless we get some clear Arbcom statement that content relating to astrology may indeed by verified by reference to famous, notable, influential and popular astrological texts (without them being automatically rejected as primary, fringe, unscientific or not published by a scholarly press) then this situation will be nothing but hopeless.

Ihcoyc’s proposals look like perfectly reasonable common sense suggestions to me. If others disagree it is probably because Dominus Vobisdu has completely misrepresented the situation regarding the sources proposed and the state of astrological consensus. I would like to demonstrate that with a response to his statements, but since I need to go out for a little while I am posting this now, primarily to say that I hope this Arbcom request is not closed without attention, or without giving everyone involved a chance to comment, identify the real issues, and hopefully find the best solution. -- Zac Δ talk! 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

To explain my involvement, I have a reliable knowledge of this subject and have made a fairly broad input into the astrology-related pages; so I understand the issues that Dominus Vobisdu is referring to, and believe I can give you a more balanced picture on the sources he says the astrological editors are wanting to use.

I should also say the state of the zodiac sign pages disappoints me. I have little personal interest in them but have tried to improve them, feeling that they should be much better than they are. So I’m mainly responsible for the state of the Virgo page today – which looked like this when I started working on it. I recently initiated a WP:astrology project discussion in the hope of establishing a project group to create guidelines, and develop content for the series of pages, using that page as a model for discussion; but I’ve lost heart to take that further right now because of constant arguments over issues like this that are a total time-sink.

With regard to the types of sources Dominus says are being proposed (I have cut/copied his list):

1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable.

Only to demonstrate what the writers of the popular coffee-table type publications have to say on the subject.
No, these types of books are not written for the astrological community (taken to mean those who have good knowledge of the subject and practice it or are seriously involved in the study of it). They are written for the general public, are simplified accordingly, and demonstrate a type of astrological approach that the general public can readily relate to.
So, for example, on Virgo (astrology), where the key characteristics of the sun-sign personality type is defined, reference is given to Martin Seymour-Smith, author of The New Astrologer (Sidgewick and Jackson: 1981); Linda Goodman, Linda Goodman’s Love Signs (Harper Paperbacks: 1991 - don't like her myself but she's very popular and her books have sold millions); Joanna Watters Astrology for Today (Carroll & Brown 2003), etc., to demonstrate what these popular-end writers say about the commonly reported personality traits of the Sun-signs. This is given in the style of

Joanna Watters (2003) defined a keyphrase for this sign as "I serve", and summarises the Virgo reputation for over-analysing emotions by saying:"One of the Virgo lessons in life is to learn that to err is human, to forgive divine, especially when it comes to love".(ref) Martin Seymour-Smith (1981) suggested that appropriate keywords for this sign include: Discrimination, analysis, calculation, loyalty, tidiness, hypochondria, the cutting out of the useless and wasteful.(ref)

These books are readily identified because they are popular, well-known, and published by reliable, established publishers. The page also features a reference to Sasha Fenton, who is very well known, although I have argued that reference should be replaced because it goes to the Readers Digest, which is not subject-specific. So to me that is too trivial to be of any real merit.
My view on this: if the publisher is a credible one, and the astrologer well known or known to be well trained with an established reputation, these sources should be deemed reliable for what they are aiming to do. They are not authoritative, but neither is that information. This is concerned with content that might be found interesting and curious. Being told that my Chinese horoscope sign is The Tiger, with a certain degree of idle curiosity, or maybe because my school project requests it, I might want to look on the WP page for that sign and see what it is supposed to mean to be a Tiger in Chinese astrology. Disappointingly, the page doesn’t tell me anything at all about that – it used to do, but at some stage all the information regarding the traditionally reported characteristics was removed because it didn’t have any references.

2) Astrological websites and blogs.

I have not seen editors with knowledge of astrology arguing for the addition of references to a website or blog. I have only seen these types of references given by editors who are clearly hostile to the subject, and then because they lead to something that ridicules the subject. However, I have placed references to published papers and good quality articles that have been previously published in reliable sources and then reproduced on the web, giving details of both the original and online publication.
Using that Virgo (astrology) example again. The page includes reference to an article written by a well known astrologer, Deborah Houlding, whose explorations of the zodiac signs are notable as a series of features originally published in the The Mountain Astrologer. This is a leading astrological journal with an excellent reputation and high-standards of editorial control. Hence the combination of good author, good content, and previous publication in a popular and well known subject-specific journal, combine to make this a reliable source for showing what astrologers have to say about their subject IMO.

3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses.

The only recent example I can think of where a self-published text was proposed as a reference is detailed in the Scorpio mythology thread on the RS noticeboard. No one has presented an argument against the use of that reference within the context of its use (as explained in that thread), and I don’t believe there is a good argument that can be made against it in that context. But so often context is forgotten.
Another example: I want to substantiate content on some pages by reference to John Frawley’s works. Everyone in the astrological community knows his reputation, and very few do not have at least one of his books on their shelves. But his books - though widely available - are self-published. Is he is to be excluded without any consideration of his prominence, notability or worth?
I can see it's a problem that other editors don't know which sources are the reliable ones. This is because they don’t have the knowledge and experience of the subject that members of the Wiki:astrology project do have. It would save a lot to time is all such arguments were deferred to members of the astrology project to decide. Editors with good knowledge of the subject can recognize instantly if a text is generally considered reliable and representative within the astrological community. Recourse to the RS noticeboard could then be reserved for specific queries with the knowledge that the source is deemed to be a reliable one within the community, but for other reasons there are concerns attached to it.

4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not.

There are only two peer-reviewed astro-journals I am aware of: Correlation: Journal of Research into Astrology, published bi-annually by the Astrological Association of Great Britain, and Culture and Cosmos, Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy, which publishes proceedings of academic conferences, etc.
Submissions for both are peer-reviewed by reputable academics with appropriate subject expertise; the former is sponsored by an astrological society while the latter is a university publication. I would say these journals gain no special weight other than to suggest that the publication involved has an established reputation for reliable knowledge of its subject and an editorial policy that is concerned with fact-checking. So long as the point being made is not one that breaks other policies (like using Correlation to counter claims made by mainstream science journals in a way that would create UNDUE weight - a point of controversy in the past) then I believe these journals are appropriate for reference. Dominus Vobidus wants them to be entirely excluded as prohibited sources, regardless of the context of their use. This is because their subject matter is astrology: a fringe subject (therefore these are 'fringe publications' which, in his eyes, must not be considered reliable sources, not even for reporting fringe).

5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review.

To prohibit this would mean a book like A History of Western Astrology by Nicholas Campion, senior lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Wales, Lampeter, cannot be used because it wasn’t issued by a university press.
This will also rule out the prospect of adding a reference I proposed (in the RS thread given above) Gerald Hawkins' Mindsteps to the Cosmos where the relationship between mythology and zodiac symbolism is described.
I argued that Hawkins was professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University, a reputable author and famous for his work in the field of archaeoastronomy, so surely acceptable to verify a bit of sun-sign mythology that is so well known it is reported all over the web and in many other books similar to (and so just as useless as) this.

6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation.

The example here relates to the use of astrological texts that are so famous, influential and historically significant that they remain authoritative text-books.
We are not talking about references to dusty manuscripts, but modern type translations of texts that are widely available, in hardback and paperback, and all manner of forms of modern reproduction, because they are considered essential astrological reference works and are used to establish and authorize traditional techniques.
An example is Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos. Another recently brought up for debate, is William Lilly’s 17th-century Christian Astrology, the first major astrology text to be written in English rather than Latin. Check this Google books result to get some idea of how extensively this book is used and made available.
Lilly's text is the only authoritative source of reference for the principles of horary astrology – his book is so important for that subject that the use of horary astrology was effectively abandoned until his book was brought back into mainstream circulation about 30 years ago. Since then his work has become considered the most reliable and useful source of reference for astrological principles - many astrologers can name the page references for where certain points are made without needing to have the book in front of them.
I used this source to give references for the association between astrological signs and body parts. Lilly tells us (in English - on p.97 of his book) that the sign of Sagittarius is given astrological rulership over the thighs. I am told that I cannot use this as a reference to verify existing astrological content (such as the statement that Sagittarius rules the thighs), to demonstrate that this is a reliable statement concerning astrological belief, and that some WP editor hasn't just made that up. I am told I must find a modern scholarly source which interprets the meaning of Lilly's remark and confirms the intention of what he wrote. Yet here is is, right in fornt of me: “Sagittarius: It rules the thighs” (CA., p.97). It's a textbook that modern astrologers study and which most astrologers either have or know about. There should be no question that these influential traditional astrology texts can be used for refrence of traditional astrological principles.

Sorry this is so long - may be because I'm a Tiger (alas: no way of knowing what that means) -- Zac Δ talk! 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Fifelfoo. Reqgardless of whether arbitrators are able to clarify some issues here (I sincerely hope they can) your suggestion that Ihcoyc should receive a warning for "not liking what he got told" is illogical. Read the other editor's posts: both sides agree this matter is causing great disruption because the forum discussions have only added to the confusion. I have demonstrated this, and Dominus Vobisdu expressed it succintly in his final para of 3 Dec: "In short, the conflict over sourcing on astrology-related topics is a long-standing and serious problem that has been difficult to resolve with numerous RfCs and discussions on RSN and FTN".
Forumshopping? Itsmejudith has initiated several discussions simultaneously and this has not been helpful, but has Ihcoyc done this? This appears to be the only discussion he has initiated, and his motive was clearly to bring an end to time-wasting.-- Zac Δ talk! 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@ Dominus Vobisdu – your 16 point list is tiresome for being almost completely misrepresentative. I am not going to waste time on most of it, except to say that your summaries are unreliable. Eg, for 8, can you specify an author who purports to be a “genuine scholar” in contradiction to what is recognized by the scholarly academic society? I am not talking about scholars who publish in journals that make no/little impact on the mainstream scientific community, but your implication that astrological authors pretend to untrue academic qualifications.
Your 16th point “On a more worrisome note”, makes allegations against two societies with good standing, and what you say is false. This is a toning down of slanderous remarks you made on 18th Nov. against named persons in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=461342177]. That is why I called for that thread to be closed, and have refused to contribute further while it is used to publish such false accusational remarks. There you also said this:
"the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand."
This is not true. What she said was this, and this:
"Perhaps it would be best stated that 'the practice of sun sign astrology is a very small part and recent phenomenon of the history and full body of knowledge on western astrology' and have a link through to the sun sign astrology page? Thank you for guiding me to the COI page. As you have read, I am the Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain but the views expressed here are my own and not representative of the organisation’s members."
You could have pointed to those diffs yourself. This is indicative of the extent to which you regularly present twisted, inaccurate information in alarmist terms. Being aware that you have quoted a contributing editor, you should also have given that editor some notice to create a chance for clarification. I turned a blind eye to the Fringe notice board misrepresentation but since you insist on repeating these allegations, as if there is substance behind them, they deserve to be taken seriously. Please qualify or retract your untrue remarks here and in the post that still shows in the Fringe notice-board thread. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@Fifelfoo. The only thing that is overwhelming in the RS 'general astrology sourcing' discussion is the amount of words and lack of clarity. Opinions are certainly divided and the discussion continues. This is what happens when too many issues are presented at once. There is no sense of authority in the posts, and the matter is blighted by contributors not understanding what this is all about. This is why the astrology project should hold these discussions and make refrence to the RS thread for specific circumstances that can be understood according to their context.
I have never contributed, but will copy over my post - though I'm sure the only thing it will add now is more disinterest from a broader community who must be exasperated by all this. BTW, no one has contributed any support for the suggestion that the Babylonian myth refs were not satisfactory after I made my post to that. I believe that is because the suggestion that the refs are not satisfactory is unsupportable. If you disagree please comment there and explain your reasons why. -- Zac Δ talk! 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow, John Vandenberg, that is a striking remark. Do you have a reliable, verifiable source for when astrology ceased to exist, by which you can justify your argument that it may only be discussed in historical terms? Can you point me to the WP policy which states that editors must adopt the view that astrology is no longer recognised in contemporary culture and society? Presumably some kind of policy is needed to support your comment that to suggest otherwise "is begging for a ban" -- Zac Δ talk! 14:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
John Vandenberg, you are correct in saying that astrology has not ceased to exist. No one here has suggested that it be presented as a science. I am pleased to see the endorsement of the need to respect all people and their beliefs. Can you affirm that extends to astrologers and their astrological beliefs, and confirm that no editor is "begging for a ban" by reporting what these are (according to the astrological sources)? -- Zac Δ talk! 01:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg. I'm assuming that even via the authority of your arbitrators comment box, you have not been authorised to invent the meanings for words to propose the application of policies that do not exist. Belief is categorised differently to fiction, and it is quite wrong to suggest that modern astrological works fall under the category of "fiction". I realise that you have divided the world into only "approved models of modern science" and "fiction", and left no room for philosophy, metaphysics, and pseudoscience itself, which may present some elements that science recognises yet fall outside the recognistion of mainstream science due to its incorporation of conjecture and belief. However, since you suggest a reliance on academic sources, I will happily give your point some credence if you can show that your statement "Modern astrological sources are works of fiction" is an approved categorisation, as demonstrated in reliable academic sources. If not, then what you have said should not be given with a sense of Wikipedia's authoritative standing on this issue, for it is simply your own personal opinion. That is all. -- Zac Δ talk!

Statement by Agricolae

My involvement in this dispute is sort of peripheral to the issue being raised here except for serving as a straw-man. I answered a specific question as to what would be a reliable source for attributing human characteristics, "dark and sexy", based on astrological signs. Contrary to what Smerdis is suggesting, I said that if one were to present this information as fact, it would need to be supported by a scientifically reliable source, but I also distinguished this from (clearly) presenting it as belief, for which the sourcing would differ (e.g. we don't present medical quackery as fact, just because the quacks believe it, but there are circumstances where as long as it is made clear this is what is being done and it is balanced with the modern medical counter-belief, we might present the beliefs of quacks if their particular flavor of quackery is notable). What I am trying to avoid are cases where Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for propagating such beliefs based on nothing but the whim of an editor citing their favorite astrologer and presenting their beliefs in-universe. There is no coherent organizing body or accepted literary canon and there is essentially no academic scholarship into the views of modern astrology, so it is problematic to treat the writings of any modern astronomer as reliably representing the consensus within their universe, let alone that of the more general community. Presented as simply individual opinions, one must wonder about what makes this particular astrologer's opinion of specific merit that it is singled out for mention. (Sagittarius (astrology) is an example of a current page that presents one astrologer's view about personality characteristics without broader context. Scorpio (astrology) is even worse, making medical claims regarding reproductive fecundity and pregnancy in violation of WP:MEDRS.) Wikipedia should not be taking the role of the newspaper astrology column in forwarding these beliefs, unbalanced by the counter view that it is all bunk. That all being said, my concerns were not specifically drawn from the cited ArbCom decisions. Agricolae (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nuujinn

My involvement with this is limited to the discussion at RSN. I do think that a review of that and other discussions might be useful, as it seems there are some strongly held opinions. Agricolae has a good point that we should not simple repeat the view of newspaper astrology columns. But I think some editors are pushing a bit hard in requiring peer reviewed academic sources for astrology in general--most of our articles do not rely on such sources. We have found some sources that appear promising, but all of this appears to me to more of a content discussion appropriate for other venues. Perhaps what is required is more general discussion about how one might determine who is and is not worthy of consideration as a reliable source for this topic. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't think that issuing the clarification here is necessary. There are other places to use the principles set out in that arbitration case, namely the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). The page mentioned in this clarification request is noted as outdated. Also, while the Committee has set out principles (based on Wikipedia Policy) on what constitutes a reliable source, we're not in the habit of declaring that "This site is a reliable source" or "This site cannot be considered a reliable source" SirFozzie (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've seen the positions the requester articulated above advanced occasionally over the years with respect to religious topics, and my personal thoughts on them is as follows:
    Ultimately, NPOV means Wikipedia doesn't take a stance in Wikipedia's voice on anything. Everything ultimately gets attributed to someone, but when something is extremely common and uncontested knowledge, we drop the in-text attribution for readability's sake, and let the footnotes suffice. Thus, having an article on a particular belief system doesn't mean it's true, just "verifiable".
    I have heard editors suggest that religious sources were not independent for the purposes of describing religious claims. That not only attempts to build a bridge too far, in my opinion, but it also falsely sets up Wikipedia as in the business of evaluating religious claims. We can describe any particular belief system appropriately, using both the sources within the particular new religious movement, denomination, group, etc. (per WP:SELFPUB if independence is indeed compromised), as well as mainstream reliable sources. The sad bit here is that mainstream reliable sources never seem to go into the depth and detail that sources close to the belief system do.
    This does not excuse advocacy, which is itself an NPOV violation. Our job is to describe accurately (WP:V) and neutrally (WP:NPOV) things within our scope (WP:NOT) which are of general interest (WP:N). Of course, as a one sentence summary, that's a horrible oversimplification. Likewise, I haven't had time to examine the dispute in detail, so these thoughts are based on my previous experiences, rather than the specifics of this dispute. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    @Dominus Vobisdu, I think you're overly-narrowly interpreting the rules in your first paragraph. If an organization publishes a primary source, that primary source can be used about that organization since it is the author, under the terms of SELFPUB--that is, an author may be an individual or an organization. I've stayed out of fringe topic areas, entirely on purpose, but I confess I don't understand the sourcing dispute at all. Could someone explain to me the desired endgame here? Having read through the above statements, I'm still not sure what ArbCom has to do with this, or what either party wants of ArbCom, since no misconduct is alleged and ArbCom does not make content decisions. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with SirFozzie; this is not really a request for clarification of the earlier Arbcom decision, but a request to declare whether certain types of sources should be considered "reliable". This needs to go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Risker (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I concur that this is not a case where we can intervene. As my colleagues stated, we cannot rule on the reliability or usefulness of individual sources (nor should we); the reliable sources noticeboard is the proper venue to raise consensus on this. — Coren (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Per my colleagues. The reliable sources noticeboard is the proper venue for this.  Roger Davies talk 15:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Writing about Astrology should be done from a historical studies viewpoint, using history studies academic output. Modern day astrology is not science, nor is it art. There is no need to use the writings of modern day astrologists; doing so is begging for a ban. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    @Zachariel, Astrology has not ceased to exist entirely, however it has ceased to be a science. There are many dates on the timeline of this transformation of Astrology from science to myth. In crude terms, astrology has been demoted from high culture to low/pop culture. Current day practitioners of astrology do so in spite of all available science contradicting their beliefs. When modern day practitioners attempt to assert that there is a grounding in science, even by inference, they are peddling pseudoscience. Those current day practitioners should be discussed from a historical & academic viewpoint, as they are believers of a science that only had currency (as a science) in ages long gone. The only exception is for current day practitioners who unambiguously treat astrology as pop culture, or clearly portray it as a religion based on faith rather than on science. As previous arbcom decisions have tried to elucidate, our terminology about modern practitioners can be firm regarding pseudoscience while still being sensitive to the need to respect all people and their beliefs. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    @Zachariel, low/pop culture (inc. modern astrological beliefs) should be sourced to academic sources. Modern astrological sources are works of fiction, and should only be used as sources for the authors own astrological beliefs as they lack any credible peer review, so they can not represent state of the art or current science. That is all. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, the Arbitration Committee's remit is user conduct, as opposed to article content, or policy. What is being asked here, to some extent, is a matter of policy, and to some extent, article content. Consequently, I agree with my colleagues that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to provide a ruling. Instead, I would suggest trying the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or starting a Request for Comment. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Discretionary sanctions in cases named after individual editors

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Case affected
Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Martinphi-ScienceApologist arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. The "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, variously named and numbered.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
N/A: the suggested amendment is cosmetic.

Amendment 1

Statement by Timotheus Canens

This request is prompted by a recent AE request, in which the practice of naming the applicable discretionary sanctions provision after an editor caused confusion on an editor who is not very familiar with the AE process. The three listed cases are the only cases named after individual editor(s) with a discretionary sanctions provision, according to WP:AC/DS; all other cases are named after the relevant topic area instead.

I recommend that the Committee make a cosmetic amendment that allows these discretionary provisions to be easily referenced using an arbitration case named after the subject area instead of individual editor(s). Not only is the latter approach rather counterintuitive and potentially confusing (if someone unfamiliar with AE wants to look up the discretionary sanctions provision for Eastern Europe, WP:DIGWUREN is not really the most obvious place to look), but it is also rather unfair to the editors at issue to have their usernames perpetuated in literally years of AE requests that usually have nothing to do with them. Digwuren (talk · contribs), for example, has not edited since June 2009, yet his username has been, and will be, by necessity, brought up in all AE discussions related to Eastern Europe simply because, by happenstance, the discretionary sanctions in this topic area was passed in a case named after him. As Newyorkbrad observed in a somewhat analogous situation, such a situation is "neither dignified nor fair". T. Canens (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@Kirill:
  • For Martinphi-ScienceApologist, my suggestion is to move the entire discretionary sanctions apparatus to the existing Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). The discretionary sanctions in this area were added by motion simultaneously to both the Pseudoscience case and the M-SA case, so the log is already split across two cases. When the Committee standardized discretionary sanctions, the new phrasing was added only to the M-SA case.
  • For Digwuren, the problem is that we already have the Eastern European disputes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) which post-dates this case. Maybe simply "Eastern Europe"?
  • For Abd-WMC, perhaps "Cold fusion 2"? T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: WP:ARBRB doesn't have any remedy targeting non-parties to the case, which is why I didn't include it in the list. T. Canens (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1

Seems like an excellent idea Tim.

Statement by EdJohnston

I support Tim's proposal to rename these cases. Replacing 'Digwuren' with 'Eastern Europe' sounds good. The acronym WP:ARBEE is available even though WP:EE is in use. Another option is WP:EECASE. We should not worry too much about confusing the proposed name, 'Eastern Europe', with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, since that case is less well known and there have been no enforcement actions since 2009. Tim did not mention Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys, also known as WP:ARBRB. If you want to include ARBRB in the reform, then how about 'Former Soviet Union' as a new name. EdJohnston (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tim: I accept your reasoning for why ARBRB should not be included in the reform.
@Courcelles: Keeping 'Eastern Europe' in the revised case name For Digwuren would be a benefit not a disadvantage. The older cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes and WP:EEML, are historical curiosities and they don't need to be referred to very often. It is unlikely that any violations are going to be reported at AE in 2012 under these cases. WP:DIGWUREN is frequently cited at AE but it could logically be renamed to something like Eastern Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

I would also like for WP:ARBRB to be renamed to something that does not include my username. I see no reason why I should also be required to put up with an Arb case being named (partly) after me, when the issues of the case were deeper than that -- as suggested by Ed above. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 10:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This has been suggested before, IIRC, had some support but because it wasn't seen as urgent at the time no one got around to carrying through. This is a good time to implement it then. I think Tim articulates the reasons for why this is a good idea quite well, so I don't have much to add on that.

All of Timotheus C's and EdJohnston's specific renaming suggestion are good.VolunteerMarek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

This is both long overdue and welcome.

  • I would suggest ARB-EE for Eastern European disputes OUTSIDE the Soviet legacy--DIGWUREN is the appropriate basis: the later EE arbitration case actually resulted in some level of amnesty and moving forward; all the sanctions are in the Digwuren case (the one-sided naming has always been a problem as well).
  • I also suggest/second ARB-FSU (Former Soviet Union) for Soviet legacy cases (historic portrayal) as well as current geopolitics, i.e., Russia related to South Ossetia, Transnistria, et al. as well as the wider conflict between official Russia and the Eastern European countries over the Soviet legacy.

To some of the other comments, I don't see that EEML poses any confusion issue. This does leave us with what I see as one issue remaining regarding the above and all that has been stated so far:

  • "EE" is not really the appropriate rename for DIGWUREN, as I believe the sanctions have exhibited considerable scope creep outside the original Baltic purview. It might be more appropriate to consider a name completely outside the EE realm, a bit wordy but ARB-GEOPOLITICS might be what we are really after.

I would like to see a more active approach to renaming cases as soon as their enforcement bounds move beyond the scope of the original case and editors involved. There is no useful purpose to stigmatizing editors on any side of an issue manifesting strong disagreements amongst editors. I trust that actions here will set a positive precedent. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Seems the previous case that is named Eastern European Disputes was renamed for similar reasons as it was also previously named after a specific editor. However, it appears the Digwuren case has been the only one cited with regards to sanctions in the topic area. Not sure what the appropriate action would be there but several of the same editors are mentioned in those two cases and they involve the same topic area. As far as potential short names I think WP:EEUR or WP:EASTEUR would be good ones as they are regularly-used abbreviations and sufficiently distinct from the existing short names such as EEML.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I see no problems with a cosmetic amendment of this sort in principle. Timotheus, please identify suitable new names for the three cases you mention, and we will proceed from there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I also support this proposal. (In the case of Digwuren, we need to be careful not to confuse the new case name with the similar but separate Eastern European mailing list.) AGK [•] 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As one who spent nine months trying to figure out what DIGWUREN was an acronym for, I fully support more sensible names - Eastern Europe disputes (perhaps abbreviated to WP:EED)) would be so much more intelligible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If we're going to do this, can we come up with something for Diguren that doesn't include the phrase "Eastern Europenan"? With EED and EEML already out there, another case title like that is just going to be confusing. Actually, I've always thought that Digquren and Macedonia having discretionary sanctions was overkill, and could be consolidated, since the area covered by Macedonia's sanctions is just s subset of Eastern Europe. Might be worth considering while we're here... Courcelles 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The discretionary sanctions provision of Digwuren has the scope of "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I share the view of Ed and the other observers that the similarly-named cases (EEML being the most prominent) are nevertheless infrequently cited. I therefore propose as follows. AGK [•] 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Martinphi-ScienceApologist discretionary sanctions moved

2) The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.

The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Support
  1. Proposed. Pseudoscience already exists, but counter-intuitively the discretionary sanctions for the topic were put under the Martinphi case. This motion moves the sanctions to the auspices of the case of broader scope, for clarify in future referencing. AGK [•] 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  6. Suggested copyedit: change "stricken" to "relocated" or the like. (I think the motion uses "stricken" to mean either "lined through" or "relocated", but it can also have the different meaning of "cancelled altogether" which is not intended here, so it would be good to clarify.) The Clerk who implements this and the related motions to should put an explanatory note at the appropriate place(s) to minimize any confusion resulting from the motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    By "stricken", I mean "stricken through", so I have copy-edited to that effect. To be clear, the strike-throughs were supposed to serve as explanatory notes; the purpose of these motions is explicitly to not cancel any sanction, but to bring them into a more appropriate case. Sorry I wasn't more clear in the first place, and thanks for your suggestion. AGK [•] 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  7. And per NYB's copyedit suggesstions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  9. Courcelles 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  10. Very weakly. I think that cases should be named to what they're about, but not strongly enough to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support but do we mean psuedoscience or pseudoscience, or have I missed something?  Roger Davies talk 05:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    Well spotted. We mean pseudoscience, of course, and I've copy-edited to that end. (My browser doesn't mark the ue form as a typo, for some reason.) AGK [•] 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Comment by Arbitrators
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Amendment request: BASC (Iantresman)

Initiated by Iantresman (talk) at 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman

Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Result of Appeal to BASC: "Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined."
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

Statement by iantresman

On 18 September 2011, the Ban Appeal Subcommitte unblocked me under the condition that a topic ban continues. Now that six months have passed, I would be grateful if this was re-assessed. Please take the following into consideration:

  • During the past six months, I've created over a dozen well-sourced new articles, over 70 new images (plus over 50 images on Commons), and made over 6,000 edits
  • I had previously edited a number of articles (within the current topic ban), which I feel are well-sourced and stood the test of time, eg. Birkeland current, Critical ionization velocity, Double layer (plasma), Heliospheric current sheet, Pinch (plasma physics), etc
  • I do not support nor condone edit warring. I was once blocked for 3RR but which another editor felt was done in good faith [34] because I felt my edit was exempt per WP:LIVING (and said so at the time of the edit), but would now use WP:BLP/N.
  • I also took part in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience. I also do not "support", nor deliberately "push" pseudoscience or fringe science, and in the few subjects I have edited, have merely tried to describe points of view accurately, fairly and with appropriate sources.
  • Nearly 5 years have passed since my Community ban, and Wikipedia is a somewhat different place with different personalities.
  • I am also happy to consider (a) a Mentorship (b) restricting my input to talk pages until consensus is reached, although obviously I'd prefer unrestricted editing, and taking the usual responsibility.

____

  • Response to PhilKnight. Surely if the topic ban wasn't working, it would be a convincing reason against removing the ban. Isn't good editing a positive step? Otherwise what makes a convincing reason? --Iantresman (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Skinwalker. Rupert Sheldrake is a person (involved with biology), Electrotherapy (cosmetic) is cosmetics and beauty, Supernova is astronomy, and Decimal time is a numbering system (maths?), and I was looking at Galvanism from the biological point of view, but concede that it could be taken as physics, in which case it violates my topic ban. I'll also let others decide whether nearly 6000 other edits, and my contribution as a whole, outweighs my possible misjudgement --Iantresman (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Cardamon. I think we have to be careful with subjects that are part of physics, and subjects that are of interest to physics. If we go merely by the WikiProject Physics template, then the following subjects are deemed to be physics: the whole of astronomy, rainbows, kilograms, many people (eg. the Queen guitarist, Brian May), and a picture of a soap bubble. --Iantresman (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Cardamon [2]. (1) There is no dispute that supernovae are of great interest to physics, but I continue to be a little puzzled that you consider my grammatical edit to the article, to be subversive and outweighing my other 6000 edits. (2) I don't recall any of my edits to redshift and plasma physics including inappropriate references to plasma cosmology (you should be spoilt for choice for diffs?), but I do recall, for example, making significant improvements[35] to plasma physics that together with the contribution of other editors, resulted in it achieving Good Article status. --Iantresman (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Cardamon [3]. Can my Sep 2005 edit to supernovae, be described as "POV pushing" if it is "obviously true" (who's POV)? And where is the "pushing" of an edit that remained in the article for over 2 years[36]? I think there are many valid criticisms that could have been made, rather than the pejorative "POV pushing". --Iantresman (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Skinwalker [2]. In my opinion, a physics-related subject is one that you would learn about in a physics lesson, ie. the physics-related Newton's Laws, but not the man Isaac Newton who is of interest to physicists. I acknowledge that every editor will have their own views, but I don't think that contributing personal information [37] to an article on a biochemist with a double-first-class honours from Cambridge University, was meant to be covered by the ban. --Iantresman (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to PhilKnight [2]. While I feel that the Isaac Newton article would not have be included in the topic ban, the fact is that I did not edit it. It does seem harsh to judge me on my opinion, and not just my actions here. With regard to Sheldrake, you'll also find that my only other edit to his article five years ago, added a citation and quote supporting the statement "his ideas are deemed controversial and are considered by some mainstream scientists to be pseudoscientific"[38], hardly the action of someone trying to be disingenuous, (and hardly the action of someone trying to push pseudoscience). --Iantresman (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Casliber. Excellent point. I have already been involved in some negotiation in some articles, the most notable I can think of being two issues in the article on sushi (a) RfC: Nyotaimori (b) Alleged original research, and (c) a contentious edit on the Authorship of Shakespeare. But I shall further try and seek out improving an article to GA or FA level. --Iantresman (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Update. Just a note to say that I have requested (23 Apr 2012) a Good Article Nomination for an article I initiated, as I felt this would provide better interaction with other editors than either (a) joining in a GA nomination that is on hold during improvement, or (b) reviewing an GA article nomination. I think that the aforementioned (to Casliber) negotiations, where there was actual disagreement, may still be better examples of editor interaction. Unfortunately work commitments have not allowed me more time to participate. --Iantresman (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to SirFozzie. I would be grateful if you could offer some criticisms which would help me improve/address my recent editing over the last 6 months. --Iantresman (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Update 2. My GA nomination on Bradwall has failed, and I am addressing the criticisms, though interactions with other editors is non-existent. This would seem to be partly expected as GA nominations are supposed to be fairly stable articles, whereas interaction with other editors would be more likely in more contentious articles. --Iantresman (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to proposal. (1) I would humbly suggest that all contributions to Wikipedia are audited by other editors, not just the Good Article nomination process. My recent 6000+ edits did not generate any major incidents, and my talk page shows no problems with my conduct, and two positive comments (a cookie and a thanks) (2) I have no problem working on Good Article nominations, if only this had been mentioned in my BASC appeal decision, the Wikipedia guide to Arbitration, or indeed anywhere, then I could have saved you all a lot of time, and the need to repeat this process all over again. (3) If my topic ban was lifted, there are already guidelines and mechanisms in place to regulate my conduct and contributions. --Iantresman (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Roger Davies. Good questions. (1) I think it is worth looking at my earlier conduct in context. Nearly all the problems in the past were caused by conflict with just one editor, against whom I lodged the arbitration/Pseudoscience complaint in 2006. While this does not excuse my conduct in the past, other editors with whom I worked within my banned topic area, for example, noted in my Community Ban that "despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him"[39] As the said editor is no longer part of the Project, I do not see the same kinds of issues arising. (2) Nothing prevents me from working outside my topic ban. Not to brag, I have a degree in chemistry, a master's in computer science, and university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy, so like most editors, I have my areas of interest. This extends to some "fringe science" topics too, and only wish to see them described fairly with reliable sources. When another editor "goes so far as removal of well-sourced positive comments he doesn't agree with or "knows" is wrong or the inclusion of negative material without any source or with poor sources"[40] (not my words), again I do not try and excuse my conduct, only to put them into context. (3) Yes, I have been involved in contentious editing that has reached a compromise, see for example two discussions on Sushi, here [41] and [42]. (4) Finally, I would just like to mention that (a) my addition of a source supporting Nature's editor describing Rupert Sheldrake's books as pseudo-science [43], (b) Creating the article "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience", is hardly the work of someone intent on pushing pseudoscience, and, that many of the science (and fringe science) articles I started (before 2007), have stood the test of time, and consequently have improved Wikipedia. --Iantresman (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Update 3. Just a note that since my GA nomination on Bradwall failed, that I have been slowly improving the article, having increased its length from 2200 words [[44]] to 4600 words, and almost doubling the number of citable facts, today.[45]. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker

Since being unblocked Iantresman has contributed to a number of articles that could be reasonably construed as "fringe science and physics-related subjects".

Many of these edits have been minor spelling/formatting fixes, but some have been more extensive. I leave it to others to decide if these are actionable violations of his topic ban.

He has also commented on discussions of fringe issues on policy pages,[51][52] though it appears this is permitted by the wording of the unblocking conditions.

Update: I fail to see how an article about a parapsychologist does not fall unambiguously under a fringe science topic ban, nor am I impressed by the "What is physics?" wikilawyering. But it appears I'm being humorous and/or unreasonable. Do what you will. Skinwalker (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

The examples of "violations" are humourous in nature I trust. I see no POV presented in them, and that is why any topic ban exists in the first place. Absent anything of import, lift the dang ban. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by Cardamon

Supernova does fall within the topic of physics. For those who can't tell this from its content, one clue is that its talk page says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics" with a rating of "FA-class, High-importance". It seems to have been classed as a physics article for more than 5 years. [53] Cardamon (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Collect: Minor constructive edits to a topic one has been banned from are not always ignored. Someone once got a 3 month site-ban for a few constructive edits to an article at the edge of a topic he had been told not to edit.
@Iantresman: Supernovas have a lot to do with astrophysics. Supernovas are a source of astrophysics problems and puzzles. (For a quick clue, count how many of the references in Supernova contain the words “astrophysics" or “astrophysical".) Supernovas have been important to cosmology (often considered a part of astrophysics) by providing (sort of) "standard candles" that have been used to estimate the rate of expansion of the universe, and thus its age, and to provide evidence that this rate is increasing. Earlier, they were important to cosmology by providing a mechanism for making heavy elements, thus letting the Big Bang theory off the hook of having to explain the production of heavy elements. Supernova SN1987a seems to have produced a detectable pulse of neutrinos (electron antineutrinos); the fact that their travel time was so close to that of the light from SN1987a put limits on how massive those neutrinos can be, and provided an insight into the physics of neutrinos. In general, astronomy has considerable overlap with physics. This isn’t really the place for this particular discussion though, so I’ll stop.
@Arbs: As I recall, Iantresman's main areas of fringe POV pushing were physics – related astronomy, and plasma physics. Examples include the articles Redshift, Plasma cosmology, and Plasma (physics). The connection was his desire to make Wikipedia present the not - at - all - widely - accepted theory of “plasma cosmology” much more favorably than it does.
In editing [Supernova]], Iantresman was inside the range of articles he was told not to edit (physics), and at the edge of the range of articles in which he had POV pushed. In fact, long ago, he made a (really quite mild) POV pushing edit to Supernova. (It made a statement that was obviously true, but didn’t help the article.) Cardamon (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements. However, as an initial comment, the fact that the topic ban is working well at the moment, allowing Ian Tresman to edit in other areas, isn't as far as I'm concerned, an especially convincing reason to remove the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Further to Skinwalker's diffs and Ian Tresman's replies, I'll oppose any motion to remove his topic ban. I find Ian Tresman's comments about Rupert Sheldrake to be entirely disingenuous, and the assertion that under a broadly construed physics ban he could edit the Isaac Newton article to bordering on the absurd. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems the original ban was in July 2007. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been placed on Probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. He was unblocked after an appeal six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no particular issues with the article diffs listed by Skinwalker; they seem to be both encyclopedia-improving, and outside what I believe a reasonable man would conclude as the boundaries of the topic ban. Leaning towards granting the relief from the topic ban. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Before considering lifting this, I'd like to see Ian Tresman participate in an arena where one has to negotiate with others. An area such as this would be improving an article to GA or FA level. This would best be an article which is unambiguously and clearly not under the scope of current sanctions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not 100% sure this request is still active/ongoing, but right now, I think I would oppose any such motion to lift the topic ban at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with PhilKnight and Casliber on this one. Risker (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • @Iantresman. Just trying to focus this discussion a little as it does not seem to be best use of everyone's time to have a very similar discussion again in a few months time. Firstly, what I am not seeing is a compelling reason to lift the topic ban. So, how do you think it improve the encyclopedia within the prior area of conflict, while avoiding the problems of the past, if we were to do so? Secondly, what prevents you making valuable contributions outside the prior area of conflict? Why are you so intent on editing again within a topic which has been problematic for you in the past? Thirdly, have there been specific instances in the past six months where you have edited in contentious areas, and where your patience was tested (this amendment request apart) and you negotiated a compromise? If so, please provide diffs.  Roger Davies talk 12:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

  • In which case I propose we close/archive this and give Ian Tresman a chance to produce some audited content and review at a later date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    I concur. AGK [•] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    I'm pretty much okay with this too; I'd just like to give Iantresman an opportunity to answer my just-posted questions before finally making my mind up.  Roger Davies talk 12:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    While I thank Iantresman for his comments, I am not completely persuaded that it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia to lift the restrictions just yet. So I suggest he applies again once he has the audited content that Casliber's seeks under his belt.  Roger Davies talk 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    I agree as well. I think Roger's questions are excellent... but regardless of the answers, the sanctions do not appear to have support for modification absent audited content creation, so there's no pressing hurry to have them answered. We can keep this open, or we can archive this and start a new one once some audited content has been re-created--I'm not sure there's a substantive process difference between those options. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There appears to be unlikelihood on achieving consensus on lifting the restrictions, but we do have consensus on closing/postponing this request until some audited content is produced so I support this proposal in order to move the matter forward. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have asked the first available clerk to archive this appeal as unsuccessful. As discussed, this archival is without prejudice to appeal in future. AGK [•] 10:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Archive_2"