![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Initiated by GDallimore ( Talk) at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
None
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.
{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)
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.
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.
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
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)
This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
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].)
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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)
Just as a response to ScienceApologist's claim that this is beyond ArbCom's remit... A few points:
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)
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)
In this specific case, the claims of Barrett regarding Price can be shown to be incorrect or out of date using reliable sources.
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)
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.
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)
This is purely a content dispute. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Initiated by jps ( talk) at 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps ( talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Alternate wording of this amendment. see my comments under amendment 2 below for explanation and discussion:
Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps ( talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I think we need to develop two guidelines:
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)
Initiated by Tijfo098 ( talk) at 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
[13] (Maunus notfied)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
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:
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
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Basis_for_inclusion
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:
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:
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)
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)
asked and answered at RS/N. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
@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!
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)
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)
Initiated by T. Canens ( talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Seems like an excellent idea Tim.
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)
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)
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)
This is both long overdue and welcome.
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:
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)
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)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
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)
Initiated by Iantresman ( talk) at 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN: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:
____
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.
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.}
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Initiated by GDallimore ( Talk) at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
None
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.
{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)
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.
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.
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
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)
This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
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].)
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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)
Just as a response to ScienceApologist's claim that this is beyond ArbCom's remit... A few points:
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)
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)
In this specific case, the claims of Barrett regarding Price can be shown to be incorrect or out of date using reliable sources.
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)
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.
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)
This is purely a content dispute. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Initiated by jps ( talk) at 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps ( talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Alternate wording of this amendment. see my comments under amendment 2 below for explanation and discussion:
Rationale for the amendment is made above. jps ( talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
I think we need to develop two guidelines:
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)
Initiated by Tijfo098 ( talk) at 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
[13] (Maunus notfied)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
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:
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
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Basis_for_inclusion
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:
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:
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)
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)
asked and answered at RS/N. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
@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!
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)
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)
Initiated by T. Canens ( talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Seems like an excellent idea Tim.
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)
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)
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)
This is both long overdue and welcome.
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:
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)
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)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
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)
Initiated by Iantresman ( talk) at 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Case affected: BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN: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:
____
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.
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.}
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)