Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Task 3: Fix LintErrors |
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix misnested tag lint errors |
||
Line 216:
::::Or "This includes topics whose proponents believe not to be subject to scientific examination when scientists generally believe that it is subject to such examination." <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 23:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that thing is going to come back for clarification like lightening. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
Clarification needed: Under Supervised Editing, it says "then the mentor should be advised". I suppose this probably means that the supervised editor should advise the mentor, and if so perhaps it could be revised to say so.
Line 223:
==SPOV==
Science as an ideal has certain POVs, such as that more-valid data can be gained by application of the scientific method. The proposal doesn't even address the SPOV dragon, since what people mean by SPOV is the POVs of ''mainstream'' science as an ''institution'' which is derogatory towards fringe ideas. Alternately, they mean debunking. IOW, you're just getting confused by the vagaries of speech. I started the whole SPOV thing when people objected to pseudoskeptic. Since then, I've chosen ''debunker'' as a better word. I would choose a word which was even less potentially insulting, if I could think of one. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:I would say that it's individual persons who have those points of view. Science can consider that X doesn't seem to work, and articles can't express that, but it will be either skeptics or individual individual scientists who will say that something is ridiculous, bad, evil, etc. Those are the statements that you have to be careful with, to separate the personal opinion from cold hard facts based on stuff
Line 233:
==Time==
I have more evidence to do- I hope you will give time. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:Oh, yes, I expect this will last at least another week. I've started with the proposed principles given that will color most everything else and may well direct some of the evidence. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::I should be inputting something tomorrow or Thursday; I've been extremely busy or out of town, for the most part. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Yeah, things are definitely still in process. For example, I'm trying to find a way to give the Arbs MrDarwin's (very good) credentials without revealing who he actually is. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
== Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ==
Line 253:
My own area -on Wikipedia- is parapsychology. Now, it will be argued that parapsychology is a subset of psychology. It's not. It grew out of psychology, but now has little to do with it. However, it often happens that psychologists have strong opinions about the paranormal, even though they know little or nothing of it. What this will mean is that most of the articles on parapsychology ([[Parapsychology]], [[Ganzfeld experiment]], [[Remote viewing]], etc.) will be weighted toward what psychologists in general think. Most of the article will be ''evaluation'' from the ''standpoint'' of mainstream psychology.
That's fine. It will allow ScienceApologist and friends to have a ''completely'' free hand in these and every other fringe article, to do what used to be original research and to do what I call debunking. This is what they have been asking Wikipedia to do for years, and they have it now. It institutionalizes the fringe exception to NPOV. I do not condemn this, because I have long advocated that Wikipedia choose forcefully. With this, the ArbCom completes formally what it began in the Cold Fusion arbitration, making things crystal clear. Thank you, Coren (: ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:It says we evaluate the prominence of the views, not that we evaluate the views themselves. I think that's an accurate description of what Wikipedian editors must do to enforce the NPOV policy.
Line 270:
::::The prominence of fringe views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.
:::That's more in line with what I think you are now saying. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::I don't think there were any ambiguities in "evaluating prominence", but your suggested wording is also acceptable. I've edited the proposed principle to match. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 276:
:::::That's wonderful (wipes cold sweat off forehead, snatches despairing emails back from cyberspace). Nah. Really, I expect to lose this ArbCom, but I'll do my best.
:::::(But you see how I got that out of your text. Because prominence determines WEIGHT. I advocate determining WEIGHT relative to the subject of the article, not how prominent a view is relative to other fields. The latter is SA's idea concerning WEIGHT.) ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::Please don't see arbitration as a "win" or "lose" situation. Some corrective measures may be put in place to make the ''encyclopedia'' "win", but we try to keep editor "loose" to the strict minimum (and tend to err on the side of caution). — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I expected you'd say that, but the area has been a zero sum battle for years. The Paranormal ArbCom helped, but it was generally ignored. There have been a few times when it wasn't a battle, like dealing with Ryan Paddy on [[Parapsychology]]. It's hard to know more of the subject than the other people on an article when they think you're a POV pusher. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::::If it becomes less of a battleground, that is a loss for debunking. As I became a more sophisticated editor, I found that I could always form a consensus I could agree with if I could draw outside editors in. Even when the editor is skeptical, I often hear "I'm not going into that environment." If it isn't a battleground, there will be enough outside editors who don't refuse to get involved. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::::: Martin, you really need to clean up your POV pushing motivation for being here, amply demonstrated by your ''"... I could always form a consensus '''I could agree with''' ..."''. Your "sophistication" as an editor has amounted to becoming better at manipulating editors and the sytem to get your fringe POV included. Yes, you have proven that consensus can be manipulated and misused to violate NPOV and other policies here. That's very unwikipedian. I expect that you and a few other editors, including some skeptics, will soon become candidates for Supervised editing. It's just a shame that valuable time will thus be used to watch you day and night. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 288:
::::::::::You expect wrong, because I'm retired unless the ArbCom does something STRONG about this kind of constant attacking and debunking.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3AMartinphi&diff=260358379&oldid=260317239] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3AMartinphi&diff=260484972&oldid=260358379] Isn't it funny, Coren, how he attacks me for learning how to draw in editors from outside the dispute?
::::::::::I remember once how delighted I was when FT2 edited a fringe article, and made the lead NPOV. SA came right along and reverted him. I don't have to work to get outside editors to be NPOV- they already know what NPOV is. Here is Fyslee and others advocating OR for refuting fringe ideas [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F/Archive3&oldid=183363714#RfC_response_tally] (and the question they're answering [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F/Archive3&oldid=183363714#RfC:_Can_a_science_textbook_be_used_to_refute_a_pseudoscientific_statement_made_in_a_movie_even_if_the_textbook_is_not_about_the_movie_and_doesn.27t_mention_it.3F_Does_this_violate_WP:NOR_policy.3F]). ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::::::: No Martin, no diversionary tactics from you. Your offense is not a good defense. I just pointed out the [[self-incrimination|evidence you provided]] of your motivations for being here. Just looking at your subpages is an interesting experience that makes clear your fringe agenda here, and especially your attack page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinphi/diffs1 That attack page] should be deleted under [[WP:UP#NOT]] ("Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.") -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not really talking to you, but to the Arbs, merely using you as an example. You should have voted when you had the chance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Martinphi/diffs1]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
I think I finally figured out what Fyslee was talking about:
Line 297:
I said "I found that I could always form a consensus I could agree with"
Fyslee assumed I was a POV pusher trying to form a POV consensus. I was assuming that I would accept any NPOV consensus. With that assumption, no wonder he thought it was a matter of [[Self-incrimination]]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:Martinphi, in the "Encouraged, discouraged and dismayed" section, you said, "The other diff, it's in the middle of things but I'm basically taking the argument that science=majority and saying, well if that's always the case then parapsychology is majority. I don't believe that, but if your argument is right, then mine is right". This seems to contradict what I said above, " However, if there is a consensus among parapsychologists that telekinesis can really happen, or if there is a significant minority of parapsychologists with that view, that cannot be presented as representative of NPOV in the same way, because there would not be a general scientific consensus among the broader scientific community that such views are reliable," which I thought you had said you agreed with. Maybe it's that you're quoting from what you had said earlier and you've changed your mind?
Line 315:
Excellent concept. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, it does look good. It depends on who the Arbitrators accept as mentors: if they accept those who merely appear neutral, it will be a fiasco. Will the Arbitrators be fooled into non-neutral mentors- mentors who only pretend to feel neutral about the subjects? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:: It will only work if the mentors are acting as prison guards. They are dealing with known offenders and their job is not to coddle their subject, but to guide and teach them to edit according to policy. If they start taking the side of their subjects, they are betraying the community's trust. That happened in the events leading up to the Barrett vs Rosenthal ArbCom, where [[User:Ilena]]'s mentor defended her, encouraged her, and even aided and abetted her in continuing her disruption and BLP violations. His final misdeed was to start that ill-fated ArbCom as an attempt to punish me, one who was defending Wikipedia against her onslaught. Well, she is indefinitely banned, and her mentor has been silent since then. No, mentors for those under this sanction need to be chosen carefully for their ability to be wise, firm, and ready to hand out swift blocks and bans if necessary. They are not dealing with newbies. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 06:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 321:
: Time will tell. It is hard for me to imagine why someone who has repeatedly insisted that they don't understand what it means to be civil would suddenly abandon their feigned ignorance because of this arrangement, but since [[WP:DEADLINE|there is no deadline]], it doesn't really hurt to try. I'll be surprised, however, it this doesn't just turn out to be a way of postponing the inevitable. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 06:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, it may just turn out to be a way that POV pushers can learn to be more effective. The ArbCom hasn't elucidated anything which could really do anything about POV pushing. The fringe articles have been on restriction for a long time now. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::Curious about some things: 1) What if the person doesn't get along with the mentor? Can he request a different one? 2) if so, is there a limit to the number of different mentors a restricted editor can have? 3) And what if the mentor decides the relationship isn't working and wants to bail; will ArbCom appoint someone else? [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Good questions. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
(undent) The intent is that unless there ''currently'' is a mentor agreeable to both the editor and ArbCom, then the restriction becomes a simple topic ban. I suppose either the mentor can bail or the editor can boot them, but then the implicit topic ban kicks in until a new one is found. Finding a suitable mentor is, ultimately, the responsibility of the sanctioned editor but ArbCom will cooperate to help try find one. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:That's cool. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
This won't work for SA; maybe for other editors. SA has repeatedly stated his intention to IAR and push the boundaries. He's also stated his disdain for civility itself, as well as arbitration. (All this is on evidence page.) What do you expect? Honestly, WP's refusal to do anything for real about SA is right up there with the [[Essjay]] fiasco.
Line 335:
==[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Advocacy|Advocacy]]==
This is really good. One thing I would ask of the Arbitrators: they have made it really clear that they believe that advocacy of fringe views has happened in the past. I would ask for a finding of fact that deriding of fringe views has also occurred. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
: I'm not sure if more evidence, or evidence against particular editors needs to be presented. If so, I'll work on that... but it will take a bit of time. As the case has evolved, it's looking to need more evidence that we've so far gathered, because the scope the ArbCom is willing to address is larger than I expected. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:: Martin, from what you have just written, I'm wondering if it is now your intention to defend your long history of advocacy of fringe POV by attacking those who have resisted yours and other's advocacy of fringe POV? Is this a proper thing to do? It seems like you are dividing this issue into two parts: (1) the forbidden act of advocacy; (2) the act of opposing or ridiculing such advocacy. Then you seem to be intending to attack part 2 as a means of defending the commission of the forbidden advocacy named in part 1. This may seem like an assumption of bad faith, but the only reason I would ever think in such a manner is because of your track record here. How else are we to interpret your words, but by your writings and actions here? I AGF that you sincerely believe your POV are correct. You have written something to the effect that the NPOV policy needs to be changed in order to allow more inclusion of fringe POV. Those writings were forbidden here at Wikipedia, but are now housed elsewhere. Those are your sincere beliefs, but I also sincerely believe that those POV and attitudes towards NPOV as a faulty construct are inconsistent with an ability to edit constructively here. Why not just stop advocating for fringe POV? -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 01:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 345:
:My greatest expertise, here, is in parapsychology, but I am not an advocate of it, and indeed I am not personally convinced by its data. However, you might think I was an advocate, as I would be interested in contributing information about its studies- if only the debunkers allowed me to contribute significantly at all.
:Certainly, I do not hold the opinion that parapsychologists cannot be scientists: such is not an opinion supported even by the skeptical sources. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:: Our common aim should be to get the balance of sources right. Accusations of bias often fly thick and fast during editing of articles on controversial subjects.
Line 370:
I change my position all the time, as Wikipedia changes. I refine things. I also change what I say relative to the listener [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Precognition&diff=prev&oldid=92277993]. It would not be appropriate to give the kid a Randi treatment, and I responded out of my general knowledge of parapsychology. To give him an answer about confirmation bias or something would not have helped.
So again, like I said above I have learned not to act in a disruptive, way, but that is a very sophisticated thing to do on Wikipedia, especially when everyone else on the page is a disruptor and had an advantage since their actions are immune from censure, but yours are not. If I emulated a tenth part of the tactics of ScienceApologist et al, okay that was bad, but it was the best I knew how to do at the time. If the admins at Wikipedia had been on the job and fair to us both, the situation would never have occurred. He would have been banned years ago, before I even came to WP, and I would have had my hand slapped and reformed my ways. Get your double standard gone. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:What double standard do you mean? In the two ArbCom cases which centered on you and ScienceApologist ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist|here]]), you two were treated to essentially parallel findings and remedies. Neither one of you has been blocked for any extended length of time, and you're both still doing your respective things. You two are actually much more alike then I think either of you would want to admit. Yes, from your perspective, you've been admirably forbearing in the face of abuse, and whatever disruption you've caused is minimal and in the service of a greater good. I can guarantee that ScienceApologist feels exactly the same way. Whatever; but I don't see a double standard here. Quite the opposite. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 378:
::The double standard has been noted well by others. Here is just one quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Editing_restrictions/Civility_restrictions&diff=prev&oldid=236308339]. It happens relative to POV as well.
::Actually, the very worst thing that has happened to me at WP is having people think I am the opposite equivalent to SA. We don't use the same methods, and we don't have the opposite POV. His is against WP (''I think it's Wikipedia's job to show people how kooky they are''), mine -as an anti-debunker- is not. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::Okay, I take that back: properly seen, we do have the opposite POV, debunker and anti-debunker. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::hmmm, I think I agree with mastcell, I don't think there is much of a double standard regarding you v. SA. What has happened is that you have learned how to moderate your actions that seem to be disruptive to collegial editiing better than SA has. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm talking about a Wikipedia wide, systemic bias, not mainly about me.
::::So, you dislike my anti-debunking stance, and don't see a difference between my behavior and SA's. My point. However, if you guys want to judge me, that's cheap, but why not do something about it, and get rid of an incredibly disruptive editor, who is indeed equal to SA in his destructiveness? Here's the challenge: I think there is plenty of evidence against SA- I assembled the Durga's Trident evidence [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Evidence&oldid=254855873#Evidence_presented_by_Durga.27s_Trident], and have presented it at this ArbCom. So go present similar evidence for me, and you will, without doubt, get me banned. Indeed, if the Arbitration Committee sees a similar problem of disruptive editing, or that my purpose of anti-debunking is counter to the good of Wikipedia, I hereby ask them to create a finding of fact to that effect. If neither of these things happen, I hold you to be wrong. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::::You misunderstand me. I think at one point you were as disruptive as SA, but that you have learned how to work with everyone. SA has not learned that yet. I'm afraid he's still on the slow boat to site ban, whereas you certainly are not. Some users problems with you stem from their past interactions with you, and not recent activity (imo). --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Oh, okay, thanks, sorry I misunderstood ): ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::::: The problem posed to us by Martin and ScienceApologist, both, is the same as that posed by Robert the Bruce. They are crusaders. To what extent does their crusade match the aims of Wikipedia? I hope the Committee will eventually find a way of saying to both that this kind of activity, overall, is not compatible with Wikipedia's aims. No matter how civilly one might be on the surface, campaigning against Wikipedia's purpose of providing the most neutral and complete encyclopedia is not permissible. This isn't the place to fight battles. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::You can call me a crusader only in the sense that you could call the British crusaders in WWII. They were defending against a threat, and basically wanted to be left alone. In the same way, I would have written articles if I could, and since I can't I'm leaving after this ArbCom. The most obvious crusade here is against fringe ideas (or, from your perspective for science), and so you at least cannot say that crusading is necessarily negative. It depends on the method and the goal. When the ArbCom recognized that parapsychology could be science (and therefore was not to be treated as "obvious pseudoscience"), I got what I wanted. It turned out I wasn't asking for anything which NPOV could not grant. Since then, my only crusade has been against debunking, since I could not write articles without getting rid of the debunking first. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::::::: Martin, when you wrote ''"... basically wanted to be left alone. In the same way, I would have written articles if I could, and since I can't I'm leaving after this ArbCom."'', you triggered an old memory. We have had the same experience, but with a very different learning curve. When I first came here, I didn't understand how things worked, I was used to participating in discussion groups and making websites, and the description ''"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."'', sounded like I had come to heaven. Wow, free webhosting! I didn't know about or understand the rules here, or about how collaborative editing works, or about consensus, and I was rudely (and appropriately!) notified that my first few edits and additions were against policy. What was my reaction? I tried to adapt and learn and immediately change my behavior by not doing those things I was informed weren't right. You still aren't willing to do that.
Line 399:
::::::::::Fyslee does not appear to be making personal attacks. He is explaining his own personal perspective in editing problematic articles; his comments seem helpful. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: I respectfully disagree, attributing views to someone that they have not stated, and then criticizing them for those views, not only constitute personal attacks, but weak and fallacious arguments. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 19:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::I ''think'' Fyslee is trying to be nice, though it could be taken as condescending, and I'm sure we'd get along fine in real life. I agree with his take on proper conduct and editing, and how the content of NPOV articles will effect users. I simply disagree with his take on my conduct and his assumptions about what I think. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
== SPOV, [[Pseudoskepticism]] and exceptional claims ==
Line 456:
::::"Focusing the coverage of articles whose topics are the natural sciences on the best available scientific knowledge is in line with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. This includes topics that are on the fringe of scientific understanding and are not ''generally'' accepted by the scientific community."
And I assume that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Prominence Prominence] defines "best" relative to sources. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:I think it's easier to clarify with an example. Many edge beliefs about various sorts of healing powers postulate that they cannot be examined by science; they nonetheless fall within the remit of medicine and biology. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::I never heard of any, but okay. This looks much to me like a rule about the proper WEIGHT- focus on science, not culture. Yes, what you've done is to focus on science mainly. Like [[angel]], would focus on science since the visions of angels relate to medical diagnosis. It has been argued that articles should focus on the entire impact, rather than do a focus specifically on science like that. If you had an article on prayer healing, you'd state that "there are no chemical mechanisms through which prayer can work at a distance," or some such, since it's within biology and medicine. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::[[Chronic fatigue syndrome]] - this article, though purportedly scientific, ends up by saying nothing. There is no scientific consensus in the article. —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 466:
==Question on process==
Say an editor is placed under supervision for a certain amount of time. They decide not to edit for that time. They then come back. Are they still under supervision, or did they avoid it entirely? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:They avoided it entirely, in a manner of speaking. The remedy is intended to prevent disruption; leaving entirely (albeit undesirable) does that. It's a self-imposed upgrade, I suppose. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 05:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thank, just wondering... It would allow him to skip the evaluation. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
== Mentorship ==
Line 481:
::Very real possibility. I hope that the parties stay above ground for the duration of their restrictions. Whatever this arrangement is called, it'll be an interesting experiment. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:Yeh, I questioned that above, and Coren said that would be okey-dokey with him. However, there are certain admins who agree with SA but still have a good reputation, such as Shell Kinny, and I suspect one of them will take him on. Personally, I choose exile from the whole mess. I had what amounted to a similar setup with Vassyana, and the issues turned out to be too complex to agree on in terms of substance (he just didn't know the subject area sources well enough, we still disagree on this topic (; ). If the admin doesn't already agree and ''also'' understand the topic to begin with, the parolee won't be able to edit. That is to say, if the mentor has to agree on content. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::Durova: I think your position is admirable and am not trying to persuade you; I'm just elaborating on my position. Parents somehow manage to fill both types of role; there is not necessarily always a clear distinction between the two, although trying to do both can introduce difficulties. Most of the description of supervised editing gives special powers to the whatchamacallems, but does not require them to use those powers nor specifically place responsibilities on them that would lead them to feel a need to use those powers. The process of choosing a whatchamacallem acceptable to the ArbCom might or might not implicitly or explicitly, or in effect, add such responsibilities. Therefore as far as that goes, it seems possible to me that one could follow some other role by just not using the special powers. The only part where the role is required to be something different is where people have to bring complaints to the whatchamacallem rather than to the supervised editor. That does change the roles, as well as perhaps adding to the whatchamacallem's workload and preventing the whatchamacallem from coaching the supervised editor on how to respond to complaints. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 14:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 505:
::The more important point for me was the first, namely that the committee is going to miss the point on SPOV completely and make a bigger mess. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::The thing about SPOV having no POV doesn't mean a thing: no one has anything against SPOV, only debunking, which is how I was using "SPOV" (I knew it wasn't correct, but used it because it's what they say of themselves, that they are defending science). The Arbitrators acknowledging that scientists, and thus their works, may have a POV is an important distinction to be placed in WP history. And you are right, in the absence of expert oversight, Wikipedia will remain a source only for a first take on things. It is too bad that such a take is usually the only or most important one. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::I am sorry, but this case would not have been needed if there was no objection against SPOV. It is what each and every pseudo-scientist tries to circumvent by claiming things as science that are not. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 06:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::You just said "Yes, science is a methodology and by itself it cannot have a POV" and that was what I was talking about when I said no one had objections to SPOV. Maybe someone has an objection to applying the methods of science, like those who say some things are sacred or taboo. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::Yes, the method by itself has no POV. The choice to use a specific type of way to examine the world around us is POV, and in this case SPOV. You have also Religious point of view (RPOV) and Ideological Point Of View (IPOV). -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There isn't just one SPOV; there are multiple POVs each consistent with the scientific method but based on different values or on different ''a priori'' assumptions. There's the POV that we should act as if something is not true until it's scientifically proven up to a certain standard, and on the other hand there's the [[precautionary principle]]. Or, one person might accept a hypothesis based on some evidence, while another person would require much higher quality evidence because they consider, ''a priori'', the hypothesis to be an exceptional claim. <span style="color:Green; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 524:
[[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Collegiality. It needs collegiality. Having thought of solutions for a couple of years now, I don't think there are any compatible with basic WP structure- that people would actually try. You could go to expert oversight. You could do article projects: Let two teams of editors, who share a vision, take a couple of weeks to make drafts. Then have several evaluators, each of whom is willing to say they are neutral toward the subject area and who are completely new to the debate, choose which gets put up as the real article. I think that would really motivate toward NPOV, and frustrate the hell out of POV pushers. The better article team could then accept suggestions from the losing team, or else the losing team could take a few more weeks and go through the process again relative to the real article. During the initial project, ban all debate parties from the main article, and put up a totally-disputed or custom made template. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::Sounds like a total case of [[WP:CREEP]] :D --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Nah, CREEPS are what we've already got :P ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::Ah, nice word game, I'll see that: what you propose is even more WP:CREEPy than the WP:CREEPs that we already have, even if you don't keep those CREEPS around :D --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Lol. Okay. So ''you'' propose something creative, that doesn't depend on <s>jailing</s> sending gangsters to training camp. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::::I heard that the [[Ludovico technique]] works quite well --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
'''You are not going to get improvement in both articles and behavior (together)''' if you don't bring outside, subject-neutral editors into the process, and protect them from the nastiness. You can improve behavior, by banning either everyone with the wrong POV or everyone disruptive. OR, you can improve the article content by allowing subject matter experts in- who are almost always POV. So you'll have all the information but a lot of bias. Only if the editors have to meet an outside standard for content (and don't have to interact directly with the opposite POV too much) will you get both full and NPOV content and good behavior. This is the only way I know to do that without putting experts in charge. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
: I have seldom edited articles in the disputed area, mainly because of the potential costs in time and effort of getting involved in a long and unproductive dispute with editors who are here only to advocate for a point of view. I am encouraged by this proposed decision, which seems to be gathering support within the committee. I will endeavor to devote more effort to the disputed area in a good faith effort to work with other editors to bring all articles up to the standards of the neutral point of view. I'm not a subject expert, but I'm a regular editor of some four years experience who feels enouraged by this proposed decision, having been frightened away from the area in the past.
Line 542:
::I suggest discretionary sanctions, as have been used in the past, with the scope and severity of such sanctions adjustable by administrators from time to time based on the degree of disruption at particular articles. It's important for such sanctions to be designed as much as possible to be POV-neutral and content-neutral, not giving admins special powers to decide content: for example, 0RR or 1RR imposed on all editors of a particular article tends to be pretty neutral. <span style="color:Red; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::They already have that and it doesn't work. And the discretion of admins, in my opinion, has been roundly condemned by the community, on both sides of the debate. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::I just would like that admins would intervene ''before'' the situations become train wrecks. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::On what grounds would they do that? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::::That's what Jehochman and I have been suggesting: that behaviours be identified which, for example, if allowed to be repeated a large number of times, will cause serious disruption; and then action to be taken in the early stages, for example when the behaviour has been repeated a small number of times and may not actually be causing any disruption yet. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop#Disruptive editing]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=215397424&oldid=215390461 my suggestion at WT:Civil_POV_pushing]. The authority for doing this comes from [[WP:DE]] and from any decisions of this ArbCom case that support such enforcement. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 574:
::::The film is controversial. It has been criticized as pseudoscientific docudrama,[5] a letter published in Physics Today notes that most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided.[6], and James Randi described it as a fantasy docudrama and [a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults.[7] Movie Gazette describes it as Creepy, distasteful cinematic propaganda, fronted and funded by a bunch of cults.[8] The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry dismisses it as a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense, where science [is] distorted and sensationalized.[9] A BBC reviewer described it as a documentary aimed at the totally gullible.[10] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&diff=180789566&oldid=180772781]
::larding the lead with only negative quotes when the reactions encompass both positive and negative. That's not a re-interpretation. I do intend to leave Wikipedia, yet you are not doing anyone any good by making decisions which are opaque to understanding. I simply do not believe that I re-interpreted policy, nor that I attempted to rewrite it in a way more friendly to fringe. In fact, I did some rewriting which is less friendly to fringe. I also argued some points which would not allow such a loose usage of sources such as blogs. But that's not re-interpreting policy, it's making things coherent. ScienceApologist is the one who has re-written policy/guideline pages to favor lousy sourcing for debunking. I challenge anyone to come up with some actual diffs supporting the accusation that I rewrote policy to favor fringe. The only thing I can think of is that I argued that most of fringe articles should be about the fringe topic, rather than the mainstream reaction, although the mainstream reaction should be thoroughly explained. That's against debunker-POV, but it's not re-interpretation. If there are any diffs which look like that, you could allow me to explain them. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::(ec; reply to Coren) Those aren't diffs of Martinphi editing policy pages in any way. If there is such evidence, you might want to find it and put it into the findings of fact section (if that's how this process works). I'm not committing a lot of time to investigating past situations; I'm just commenting on the lack of presented evidence. However, in many ways I'm very positively impressed with the various items you've added to this page. <span style="color:Green; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 581:
:::::Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=prev&oldid=247312092] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=242084274] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=242080853] have all been disputed changes that let to escalating disputes. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The ban by Elonka, the other admins agreed, was unjustified. The other diff, it's in the middle of things but I'm basically taking the argument that science=majority and saying, well if that's always the case then parapsychology is majority. I don't believe that, but if your argument is right, then mine is right. What I believe is that we present all POVs per prominence. Don't take it as advocacy. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::::''Edit conflict'' To Coren:
Line 596:
:::::Martin edits for the article. Others may edit with the view that there is a SPOV, and edit for science or rather the idea of science. Martin is not editing for fringe but rather against the SPOV edits. SPOV has become larger- more and more inclusive. If it actually exists as specifically definable which I would say it doesn't,(its a kind of sophisticated "weasel"), then attempting to edit from SPOV is a violation of NPOV. SPOV editing requires a view, a slant and a choice to edit from the "science" point rather than the neutral. Again and again, NPOV is the mother policy. Any view that undermines that or attempts to supersede that will mean big time trouble for Wikipedia because it cannot by definition be non-neutral.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC))
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=242084274 This] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=242080853 this] was restoring some longstanding content which had been changed. IOW, I was on the side of the policy as it stood. I believe any changes I restored were not my changes, only ones I did not disagree with (and so would have been disruptive to revert out). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=prev&oldid=247312092 this] was part of SA + pals drive to use such sources as scientist's blogs to make absolute assertions of fact or scientific consensus. You are looking, I believe, at an attempt to maintain the status quo. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
The policies -NOR especially- was being heavily disrupted to allow more OR in the Chiropractic article. IOW, they were trying to change the policy to get their way in an ongoing debate- at least they were using it that way. '''Please talk to Vassyana about the subject, as he and I were essentially attempting to the exactly the same thing.''' ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
As a ''general'' rule, my position on policy has been to be a stick-in-the-mud along with a bunch of other editors like Blueboar and Vassyana, and say there is no change whatsoever necessary. And, to resist rewriting of policy, such as that done by ScienceApologist on the Fringe guideline. In a few cases, I attempted to clarify, but not change, existing policy. That's the full extent of it, as anyone will see who really goes through the discussions. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
Coren, other Arbitrators, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martinphi/WEIGHT_changes this] is a table of changes I made to NPOV. It represents the main actual changes I ever tried to make to policy, and the ones I was very hotly attacked over. Especially the last section of the table represents an addition which is less favorable to fringe views. '''And, you just wrote the same thing in this ArbCom! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Relevant_comparisons]''' It's like, my policy positions and clarifications are right here in this ArbCom, yet I was wrong in my editing of policy? Absolutely weird. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::::Coren, you mention a diff which is an edit to Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The Martinphi section of the "Proposed findings of fact" on this page contains Item 11, with five diffs, and item 12, with no diffs. The five diffs in item 11 are edits to pages "Talk:What the Bleep do We Know!?" , "Talk:Psychic" (two diffs), "Paranormal primer", and "Pseudoscience". None of these are policy or guideline pages and they don't include the diff you cited on this talk page. Also, the wordings of those findings of fact say nothing about Martinphi's editing of policy or guideline pages. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 632:
If my interpretation of policy is idiosyncratic, well, it's too bad because this ArbCom reflects my interpretation. IPOF, my interpretation is mainstream Wikipeida, and therefore opposed to debunker-interpretations of policy. TS does seem to be on the attack. The ArbCom has no evidence to go on in its assertions that I tried to make policy more congenial to fringe, though if it were inclined it could get evidence to the contrary. PARITY is simply against RS: it allows using bad fringe and bad anti-fringe or mainstream sourcing.
Of course, the ArbCom is allowing Original Research in this decision, and that will come back at them for clarification, and they will have to either repudiate it or give some hocus-pocus redefinition of it. Because at this point they are creating policy. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
: When you're now willing to accept all principles that eventually pass I'll be happy. Your statements here are confusing. On one hand you say I'm "on the attack" because I say your interpretation of policy is idiosyncratic, on the other hand you're saying you have a mainstream view which conforms with that of arbcom, whilst simultaneously saying arbcom is going against policy. Can you not see that you have here demonstrated that your thinking on policy ''is'', in fact, idiosyncratic? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 641:
:Uh-oh, looks like we've got a [[Empirical research|scientific thinker]] on our hands.
::"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, notorious for his gullibility over the claims of psychics and fairy photographers, probably isn't the best source to quote on this matter. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 16:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Sheesh ...lighten up TS. There are bigger issues at stake.:O)([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC))
::::LOL! <span style="color:Blue; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::FYI, TS, Sherlock Holmes was a complete skeptic of the paranormal/supernatural. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::::: Sherlock Holmes never existed. Conan Doyle ''[[Galaxy Quest|lied to you]]''. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
==Tiny example==
You want a tiny example of debunking? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=prev&oldid=230759308]. Note that the revert is per [[WP:UNDUE]]. This is the general policy position of what I call debunking. Just state it as fact because it's true. But it creeps right back in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=261240551&oldid=260895862], and even when it's a BLP violation, it's edit warred in again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=261425899&oldid=261240551]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=161055632&oldid=161055509 This] is what the Paranormal ArbCom dealt with. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:So, you're saying that every single medium, spiritualist and mentalist is, in fact, legit? [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 06:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::Huh? This is why I'd fine it hard to respond to your evidence section: the statements you make don't match up with the data. They aren't even ''wrong,'' but more like trying to fit the color blue into a square hole. Just not in the same field of concepts. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::: Cold reading is a technique taught in [[mentalism]], a form of illusionism that has long been part of the repertoire of stage magicians. The technique is also used by people who falsely claim to be doing it the hard way. There is no known case of somebody successfully and reproducibly performing the same feats the hard way (by actually reading minds), and nobody has credibly made such a claim. We should not give the false impression that the known facts are other than the facts we do in fact know. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:It says it's a technique used by fortune tellers etc.; it doesn't even say that all fortune tellers etc. use the technique, so I don't see how the statement could be considered problematic.
Line 663:
: The claim that this is a BLP violation is simply ridiculous; the fact that there are mentalists who use cold reading is clear. The notion that such a statement would be a BLP violation makes no more sense than claiming the statement "Some Catholic priests have molested altar boys" would be a BLP violation. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Some people here don't seem to have read all the diffs. Specific people were claimed to be using those techniques, which is calling them frauds without a source. TS should tell that to Ray Hyman, if he's refuted the Ganzfeld results- he's obviously done some studies which refute them, and therefore should publish. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::: ure. If you read the articles about every single one of those people their use of cold reading is already dicussed in their articles and well-sourced. It is book keeping more than anything else to move those sources into this article. It doesn't help matters that the first dif you complain about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_reading&diff=prev&oldid=230759308 this one] which doesn't involve anything other than you not liking the facts in question. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
: Martinphi, the ganzfeld results, at best, suggest a weak effect. To compare this to mind-reading, of the kind routinely faked on-stage by mentalists with no special powers at all, would be a gross exaggeration. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 00:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::I certainly see your point- Ganzfeld are weak. To focus better then, I do not think that you can make the claim you did without taking into consideration the early results up to about 1925, which refute your claim. Nor the ongoing studies by Schwartz and Beischel, for example. To say "There is no known case of somebody successfully and reproducibly performing the same feats the hard way" is a contested matter of opinion. I do not take a stand here, I just note that you are asserting your own opinion, contradicted by certain old and new studies. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::: I use the term "known" in the conventional sense. Something that is contested by most well informed observers is not known. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 695:
You guys must know something I don't- haven't seen any time when a fringe subject tried to make itself seem mainstream, or refused to have its level of acceptance defined relative to mainstream. But whatever. Coren, saying "evaluate" instead of "describe" disturbs me in general, it sounds like SYNTH and OR.
"If SA and friends insist on labelling foo as fringe science, orthodox scientists like me may be forced to come to its defence if we do not regard all of its advocates as quacks, even if we don't actually believe it." How sad :D ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
==Wording is too open for interpretation==
Line 722:
Certainly, [[evoip]] might go more toward discussion of Baruss's conclusions, but that is not really such a bad thing for the article. If one wishes to change that "inconclusive" verdict, more publication is necessary. With most fringe ideas, sticking to the reliable sources will give them decent coverage, whereas over-weighting the fringe component of skeptics like Randi just makes the articles into debunkery. Remember, this adds to the Paranormal ArbCom, it doesn't remove it from consideration. In the paranormal ArbCom it makes clear that there are several levels which might need to be considered per the sources, not just one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Three_layer_cake_with_frosting] "A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." Yes, and we cover all of that, and we don't weight something which is not a RS above an RS source, as the debunkers would have it. This is generally an NPOV decision.
There is one wrong part of it, and that is they are allowing Original research to refute fringe claims[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Scientific_focus]. They may not mean to. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
: I do hope the arbitrators have read your above declaration of intent to continue warring against those who you have decided are "debunkers", and will tighten their wording to ensure that you understand that such warfare is impermissible. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 734:
: evoip? Good grief I used to get noises like this from the radio when I used to go down to the seaside. White noise + loudspeaker cone + gray matter = voices. It's really scraping the barrel to call that paranormal. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::Okay, Tony, I've called you guys debunkers so you get to pronounce calumny against me some, but I do hope that the Arbs will read what I said and not just your reaction. They are no more for debunking that I am. They do not want Wikipedia to be a soap box for deriding and refuting fringe claims based on OR, SYNTH and inappropriate WEIGHTing of sources and use of non-RS. They have said this. TS, you've said outright that '''we do debunk fringe claims.''' That's where you're coming from. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::: As I've remarked several times now: a properly written, neutral point of view article about a fringe topic in science will necessarily inform the reader fully about why it is a fringe topic. Presenting such information in a neutral manner will tend to debunk the topic. In that sense and that sense alone, I am in favor of debunking on Wikipedia. In that sense and that sense alone, we are all debunkers. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::::In that sense, I agree with you. As long as there is no OR or SYNTH. Yet, in spite of the fact we agree on this, you keep acting like I'm an advocate. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::: That's true for the vast majority of ideas but not all of them. For example look at [[Electronic Voice Phenomena]] where part of the issue was for a long time that so few science sources bothered to even begin to consider it enough for a sourced debunking to exist. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::::: As I've already remarked, the notion is ridiculous on its face. I'm sure there are plenty of reliable skeptical sources who have had a bit of fun with evoip. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 744:
:::::::: What you need is proper framing. I don't start an article about Alice in Wonderland by saying it's a biographical account of a little girl's adventures down a rabbit hole. I make sure I start an article about some bit of fringe nonsense that would give the most po-faced grant committee a fit of the giggles by framing, as tactfully as possible, the fact that it's just some bit of nonsense that has attracted some self-styled ''paranormalists'' and that nobody has attempted any scientific research. Or if it's been taken seriously by parapsychologists, say that and, in as few words as possible, make sure that the status of the field of parapsychology is well understood before proceeding. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Like I have said, there is no reason not to use debunking sources. There never were too few sources for debunking on that article. The attempt to exclude sources was all on the debunker side. Also, they tried to act like Randi necessarily speaks for the opinion of all scientists- scientists who don't even know what evoip is. If we'd been simply allowed to say "Randi and Carroll say this, Baruss says this, the advocates say this, the history is this, and science in general doesn't even know the thing exists, that would have been fine. Instead, people wanted to do OR to debunk. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
:::::: What other sources exist? Paranormalists? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 753:
As I see it, this arbcom will only further solidify the ability of skeptics to use Wikipedia that sort of censorship. [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler|talk]]) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:I'm a bit rusty on it. There are plenty of fringe, news sources, and books by credentialed proponents, registered organizations of proponents etc. No lack of sources. It was purely a matter of presentation, and attempts to make statements which were either not in accord with sources. There was also no end of shit over getting a one sentence definition which was NPOV. It's nearly impossible. And they wouldn't let it be a two sentence definition, which would have presented both sides of it "EVP are controversial phenomena, said by [[paranormal]] researchers to be the voices of [[Soul|spirits]], and by critics to be [[pareidolia]]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
: I'm utterly flabbergasted that a mere photographic artifact has attracted people who think they need a paranormal explanation. I shouldn't be shocked, at my age, but I am. Since the only source for this is somebody on some website or other saying what nonsense it is, I suggest that the best thing to do would be to delete the paranormal reference, which only makes us look even sillier than the person who went to the trouble of saying how silly it was on another website. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::The Orb article is okay, Tom, because it is a mainstream article, and ITC is probably not notable in that context. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
::::TS, okay, so that is two times you have discounted a subject in sarcastic terms and without even having a clue about the nature of the subject. That is simply prejudice. How do you know research will not eventually show that there is a previously undocumented near-infra red atmospheric artifact just being made visible by the new generation of CCD arrays? You do not because the research has not been done. If you say that it is not so, you must be doing so from the perspective of assumption. That is the danger of excluding non-mainstream thought. Or, ... are you psychic? :-) [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]] ([[User talk:Tom Butler|talk]]) 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 810:
==Prominence==
This is nice, to re-affirm this. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup></span>]]'''
The phrase "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" is somewhat ambiguous; does it mean "publications that are academic and peer-reviewed", or "academic publications and peer-reviewed publications", thus including publications that are academic but not peer-reviewed? The latter kind are in general less reliable than peer-reviewed publications. To avoid the ambiguity, I suggest to strike the word "and", resulting in: "Academic peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually ...". (As far as I'm concerned the judgement "highly valued" is furthermore irrelevant and not indisputably true. A lot of academic stuff gets published in peer-reviewed outlets that may be scientifically valid but is so marginal that it is not worth the paper it is printed on.) --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 14:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||