Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Requesting evidence of pseudoscience

1) Can I request specific evidence (ie. article Diffs) to substantiate claims in their orginal statements, that I push or promote pseudoscience inappropriately, from (a) ScienceApologist [1] (b) FeloniousMonk [2] [3] [4] (c) Guettarda [5] (d) Joke137 [6] --Iantresman 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

You can request that your opponents present their case better. However I suspect that if the charges are true, the arbcom will find plenty of evidence on its own. Fred Bauder 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This request refers to a statement by me that is misrepresented by Ian. --ScienceApologist 22:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not needed and somewhat confrontational. Best if each party puts down your evidence and proposals as needed. Arb com can go from there. FloNight 00:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting confirmation of expertise from ScienceApologist

1) I note in your introductory statement that you described yourself a "mainstream expert"[7], while describing me as a "nonscientist layman" [8], and an "admitted non-expert and non-scientist" [9], and one of the "editors who champion pseudoscience"[10]. You also note that "the scientific community defers to its expert members for evaluation of controversy"[11], and JBKramer suggest that "[Eric] Lerner .. is likley not 'an expert in physics.' .. He does [not] have 'a doctoral degree.'"[12].

Under the circumstances, perhaps you would confirm your statements, that you are "a professor of physics" [13], and confirm your doctorate? --Iantresman 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

No one is required to prove expertise, but if they hold it out, it is only courtesy to confirm it. Fred Bauder 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

At some point Ian Tresman's continued disruption of this workshop page is going to get him blocked regardless of the outcome of this case. JBKramer 18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is not relevent to Arbitration. Question removed. --Iantresman 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to the arbitration if a question of telling falsehoods is brought up. It would be good to know ne way or another if SA really is a PHd and professor. Tommy Mandel 06:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Requesting determination of inclusion

1) The article is about Plasma cosmology. By definition the material should be about plasma cosmology, correct? Why should the Plasma Cosmology article be about/derived from/compared to the Big Bang article? Such a comparison would be perfect in an article called "Cosmology", or even non-standard cosmologies, but big bang has no place in Plasma cosmology. Just like classical music is not expected to be included in the Rock n Roll article. Seems to me that in the plasma cosmology article undue weight would apply to those aspects of plasma science which differ in significance. The old view and the new view for example. So exactly where are the boundries of inclusion of determinants of undue weight? Does undue/due weight apply ALSO to comparisons to subject matter from outside the plasma cosmology domain? Where does it stop?Tommy Mandel 06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2)Is my earnest striving to "disrupt" the actual POV editors, who consider only their evidence, in order to maintain the honesty and integrity of Wikipedia, a violation of Wikipedia policy?

Tommy Mandel 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

3) Why is it that all of us are allowed to beat down plasma science to the status of a fringe theory, but we are admonished not to point out big bang flaws because we are only amateurs" If this case is not about content, then how did plasma cosmology content become fringe science, and big bang science become unassailable?

4) Why is it that no one is allowed to debate the validity of the big bang on the big bang talk page, but "they" can not only question the validity of plasma cosmology, they are the ones to have the final say?

5) Can Wikipedia presuppose that the big bang theory is the only correct theory?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikipedia has no opinion on the matter. However, each article is usually held to be subject to the requirements of NPOV. That means that the article properly includes criticism, as should the big bang article. Fred Bauder 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant Wikipedia editors/articles. No doubt that policy governs what should be happening, but the problem here is that it is not being followed via circumvention. Who will own this criticism section?Tommy Mandel 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No one "owns" any section or article in Wikipedia. Whatever else may be decided by ArbCom here, that is immutable. Serpent's Choice 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I first looked up plasma. I saw the "Free Encyclopedia" And when I got to Plasma cosmology, I saw they portrayed plasma as free flowing electricity. to paraphrase them. So I clicked on the edit button and corrected it. At that time the dominant editor was ScienceApologist, everything that went into the article only went in if he approved. If he didn't approve, it was reverted out. Not the a single item by item, the whole edit reverted. Maybe he didn't know that he wasn't supposed to own it...Tommy Mandel 06:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's very simple. The article is about Plasma cosmology. The big bang group is not helping the article by interjecting their obviously biased viewpoint of (an alternative) plasma cosmology into the article which is titled and serves to explain plasma cosmology. The big bang group, and groups do exist, on the grand scale, is destroying the integrity of Wikipedia

Tommy Mandel 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

to 3): Plasma cosmology (plasma science is a red herring) is promoted by amateurs and a very few professionals, hence it's fringe science. Big Bang theory is led by professionals. Each is best debated on its own terms. Art LaPella 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Art, it is not possible to debate big bang here, the article is locked down, and those who would want to introduce evidence which does not support the big bang are told to go elsewhere. Is that how the professionals do it at the big bang? The "professional". e.g, the authors of Inflation theory, recognize that they are presenting only a theory which has yet to be proven. They are not the problem, the problem is here where the big bang is "presupposed" to use an editors words.

I don't understand the last sentence, and the rest seems to ignore "verifiability, not truth". Plasma cosmology is a fringe science - remember when we counted scientists and papers? Art LaPella 01:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The authors of the big bang theory are quick to say it is a theory. Subsequent interpreters/commentators report that the theory is most popular. An anomynous editor here wrote that big bang is not arguable, it is presupposed. Do you see the logical disconnect?Tommy Mandel 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Knowledge is nowhere discontinuous. In a comprehensive article on rock and roll, of course you need to talk about the effects of classical music have actively had on rock and roll, which at the most extreme has led rock and roll to be played in a classical style and for rock and roll bands to play with classical orcherstras. But classical music was not an immediate influence on the development of rock and roll, nor is one musical form true and the others not. As an immediate ancestor of the plasma cosmology theory, and a dominant theory that conflicts with plasma cosmology, of course it needs to be mentioned in the plasma cosmology article.--Prosfilaes 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your phrasing "In a comprehensive article on rock and roll, of course you need to talk about the effects of classical music" spot-on, as it indicates due weight. Only a fraction of that rock-and-roll article would discuss classical music. Harald88 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, so what fraction would discuss Jazz? Pop? Rag? Blues? Country and Western? Tommy Mandel 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

May I say something? The article is about plasma cosmology. It is not about various non-standard cosmologies which of course would include all significant cosmologies. Well, according to the cosmology article editor, "big bang is not argued, it is presupposed." If that is how it is, so why not plasma cosmology presupposed in the plasma cosmology article? Tommy Mandel

[Back to margin.] Tommy Mandel is showing a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission. The mainstream scientific theory is what we should be presenting as such in all articles. Wikipedia is a reference work, not some sort of media outlet that misguidedly thinks it has to give "equal time" to all sides. That said, the main focus in an article on a fringe theory should simply be to describe the theory (while making clear that it is a fringe theory). Metamagician3000 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, in the plasma cosmology article mainstream plasma cosmology should be presented, correct? In the (general) "cosmology" article, plasma cosmology deserves only appropriate mention. So why doesn't this rule apply to big bang when it is cited in the plasma cosmology article? Deserving only appropriate mention?

How then, is NPOV applicable? Isn't a determination of mainstream made by wikieditors a violation of NPOV which states that we should not be introducing a POV?

If I understand you correctly, then all religious articles should be written from the POV of the mainstream religion...Does that really make sense to you? Acknowledging that the epistemology is different between science and religion, but for the sake of discussion, does an article about Buddhism be required to also present the view of Christianity?

Tommy Mandel 18:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Restrict the Plasma cosmology article to edits about plasma cosmology.

1) At a glance, the plasma cosmology article should be about plasma cosmology, not about how the big bang has more popular explanations.

Tommy Mandel 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not possible as the article must include significant criticism of the concepts. Fred Bauder 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In what manner is this criticism to be presented? Intertwined inbetween the text? Or on the side? And can we criticize the big bang too? Tommy Mandel 07:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Significant critisisms or significant views? Which one does the official NPOV state? Tommy Mandel 03:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Restrict big bang editors from editing plasma cosmology.

1) One way of dealing with this "problem", and precedent setting situation, is to let the plasma cosmology editors edit the article as they wish for a period of thirty days. At that time, the big bang side can edit a criticism section as they wish. And see what happens?

Test us!

Comment by Arbitrators:

A violation of the basic premise of a wiki, anyone may edit any article. Fred Bauder 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly in principle, but if that principle were followed in this case, we all wouldn't be here. All of being here is proof that it isn't true that anyone may edit witkipedia.

That sounds like a violation of m:MPOV. Guy 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It is possible to make a huge mistake merely by trying to maintain the status quo. It is also possible to make huge changes at Wikipedia merely by being insightful.

Comment by others:

Who are big bang editors? Certain editors named in the case? Or anyone who supports the Big Bang?--EngineerScotty 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would defeat the purpose of the probation if any big bang supporter edited the plasma cosmology section. A separate section for them could be set up where they would write to their hearts delight.Tommy Mandel 01:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Restrict big bang editors to a section

1) Combining comments, If the plasma cosmology article must mention "alternatives" why not do it as a section? Why not let the plasma cosmogists edit their plasma cosmology article, and let the big bang edit their big bang section within plasma cosmology, and see what happens?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, a violation of the basic premise of a wiki, anyone may edit any article, the whole article. Fred Bauder 16:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I contend that your statement does not reflect reality. Tommy Mandel 08:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Iantresman, Rednblu and Tomysun restricted

1) For continued disruption to this workshop page, Iantresman, Rednblu and Tomymandel are enjoined from any further edits to the page. They may only make edits to the workshop page if such edit is approved of by any arbiter or clerk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Completely unacceptable. We rely on the workshop page for feedback from the parties, the community, and outside observers. Restricting the editing of parties would both handicap them in presenting their case and prevent the arbitrators in their search for mutually agreeable solutions. Fred Bauder 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

For your consideration. JBKramer 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is how they think. Because I am presenting good evidence, they must find a way to get rid of me. It is no diferent in the article. The big bang editors seem to believe that the plasma cosmology article should be about the big bang cosmology. And therefore, when a plasma cosmology edit is undertaken, it is considered disruptive if it does not support the perceived position of the big bang cosmology. Why would plasma cosmology be expected to conform with the big bang hypothesis? Why should the plasma cosmology article be written in relations to the big bang theory? Tommy Mandel

Criticism of the theory is properly included under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction. There is an ongoing dispute within the cosmology articles. This dispute centers around the big bang theory and plasma cosmology. The problem is that acknowledged big bang supporters are actively editing the plasma cosmology page as if it is their page. They are very adept at POV pushing by taking out evidence that questions their theory. They do under the pretense that the big bang is the most pupular/accepted/correct theory. But it has been shown elsewhere that the big bang is actually Inflation theory and inflation theory amounts to several different versions none of which has risen to the status of the correct one, let alone accepted and popular theory. Therefore it cannot be said that Plasma cosmology is a discredited fringe theory. It can be shown there are physics involved with cosmology that are not taken into consideration by the big bang theory. In this sense plasma cosmology theory is not discredited, it is uncredited.

My point is that if we do look at the content, the big bang as it exists today as a theory is not an extablished theory, it is not a selected theory, it is not a proven theory, and there are several alternative Inflation theories within the big bang theory, none of which meet the criterion above. Tommy Mandel 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction to your correction:

• While the Plasma cosmology page does not belong to acknowledged big bang supporters, neither does it belong to plasma cosmology supporters or anyone else.
• If anyone is justifying edits on the grounds that the big bang is the most correct theory, that is wrong. On the other hand, that it is the most popular and accepted theory is verifiable and relevant.
• There have been big bang theories that were not inflation theories. Don't equate big bang and inflation just because those theories are no longer en vogue.
• It is true that there are several versions of inflation theories. So what? They have a lot of similarities, and it is fair to say that it is widely believed that some sort of inflation theory will turn out to best explain the universe. The big bang and inflation are "established" in exactly that sense. The question of correctness is not our business here.

--Art Carlson 19:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(Back to margin) Then it is not our business here to imply that "correctness" if only because if one digs deep, "correctness" has not been "established" and if that is so then the so called scientific concensus/acceptance is meaningless. But if it is used here, then it is a delibrate falsehood. A NPOV, a real NPOV would have the diffficulties we are having.

And I would want to say that I resent having to jump through all these hoops for no reason. Plasma is well I know we can't self reference, but here it is anyway from Wikipedia

...the dynamics of bodies near these non-black hole attractors is largely similar to that of bodies around black holes. It is currently a very complex and active field of research involving magnetic fields and plasma physics to disentangle what is going on. Hence, for the most part, observations of accretion disks and orbital motions merely indicate that there is a compact object of a certain mass, and says very little about the nature of that object.

So much for that discredited/fringe/pseudoscientifc opinion of Plasma. Plasma astrophysics, and plasma cosmology are not even related to fringe science in the sense that it is used here. Plasma is investigated by means of electromagnetic forces, forces which are not considered in the standard theory. This does not mean in any way that those electromagnetic forces are non existant/discredited/trivial. Tommy Mandel 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagree. Some of their comments seem ill-advised and unhelpful, but I think we should all show them a bit of latitude as long as they are civil (which they mostly are). It's important that their understanding of the situation be presented and understood. In some cases, Tommymandel in particular shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about, but I don't want to gag him. Metamagician3000 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with MM3. If their comments fail to help their cause; that is their problem. --EngineerScotty 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In a post graduate University of Illinois course in information science, according to my daughter, the class considers Wikipedia a "social phenomenon and not a reliable source of information" that should not be allowed in the classroom.Tommy Mandel

Working on that... Fred Bauder 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of this situation, is that certain editors are circumventing NPOV in order to edit in their own POV. An encyclopedia should be written so as to present all meaningful evidence in such a way that the reader can become competant enough to decide for himself.

And isn't it obvious that the subject material should be about the subject matter? Tommy Mandel

NPOV requires that critical material regarding the subject matter also be included. Fred Bauder 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we assume that applies to all parties? And that plasma cosmologists may criticize the big bang theory? And by what means? Can we have a section all our own in big bang article , and have a section in Plasma cosmolgy that is all all their's? Tommy Mandel 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I believe you meant "NPOV requires that notable critical material regarding the subject matter also be included." But you try and explain the difference to Tommy. And while you're at it, you can try to teach him how to indent properly. --Art Carlson 18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rednblu restricted

1) For being disruptive, User:Rednblu is enjoined from any further edits to the workshop or evidence pages. He may continue to discuss his ideas on the talkpages. Note that the user is not a party to this arbitration but has nevertheless taken it upon himself to redirect the conversation toward a discussion about Wikipedia policy, a criticism of a single article content edit, and criticism of a single talkpage refactoring.--ScienceApologist 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm really getting tired of User:Rednblu's actions here. They are disruptive. Proposed by ScienceApologist 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RednBlu is sorry that he is being disruptive and is wearing you down. 08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Scienceapologist shows his true colors above. Everyne who opposes him is being disruptive. Tommy Mandel 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't see any disruption. He is being civil; let him have his say. Metamagician3000 03:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that workshop page is for all users. I do encourage Rednblu to stay focused on the evidence of the case and not attempt to make broader points the main focus of the case, though. FloNight 06:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wordy, but accepted. Fred Bauder 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Of course, But..:

• Perhaps the exemption in 3RR on "Reverting potentially libellous material" could be clarified, where it says it does "not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision". (my emphasis)

In such a case permitted reversions are without limit. Fred Bauder 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the description in WP:LIVING could also be clarified, ie. "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons.. or is a conjectural interpretation of a source .. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (my emphasis) --Iantresman 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Means what it says. Fred Bauder 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good faith efforts to remove material should not be confused with the repeated removal of sourced material or non-sourced uncontroversal material that are critical of the subject. --FloNight 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Right Fred Bauder 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Plasma Cosmology article is written as if it were an addon to the big bang article. It does not include any of the nuances of Plasma Cosmology because the big bang editors have removed them, Tommy Mandel 04:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Need some diffs.... Fred Bauder 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Basic and applicable. --FloNight 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. To make it practically applicable in the sense that FloNight interprets it, it should be somewhat modified: If first of all one editorremoves properly sourced and pertinent material, another editor should not be punished for reverting one time more than the first editor (just do your math!) in an attempt to protect the article. Or, to put it differently: Such simple revert rules are indifferent about the subject of removal of properly sourced and pertinent material. Harald88 21:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If properly sourced and pertinent material is being removed, that is a violation, diffs.... Fred Bauder 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, reverting is not helpful as you describe it at all. It is edit warring. It is clear from WP:BLP that 3RR applies except for a very narrow exception to remove controversial poorly sourced or unsourced content. If someone reverts negative material back into the article they might be blocked. This exception is not meant to aid experienced users in edit warring to their prefered version to reinsert noncontroversial material. FloNight 05:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We seem to agree but express it differently. The 3RV rule is not helpful for making the distinction you discuss here above: it can't help protect against the removal of pertinent material. Harald88 11:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR does not generally go to content, but to edit warring per se. Fred Bauder 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That was not the intent of my comment. I was highlighting the difference between good faith efforts to remove potentialy defamatory material with the repeated removal of sourced material that is critical of the subject. In the second instance discussion on the talk page is always needed. The BLP exception to 3RR does not apply. FloNight 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] Support proposal. Metamagician3000 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Do we need to include in these policies, the implication from WP:LIVING that we extend this courtesty to living people "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages"[14]? So calling a controversial scientist a "pseudoscientist", "woo-woo", "out-and-out insane", etc, would be prohibited, though commenting on a third party source with these description might not be? --Iantresman 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We have not usually express the principle in that way, but especially when the subject of an article shows up, we should be very courteous to them. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is essentially an elaboration of our responsibility toward living people, especially those who have not sought fame. Fred Bauder 16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the conduct of the editors that brings us here. They are big bang editors who will not allow Plasma cosmology editors to write a good article on plasma cosmology. Isn't that vested interest?

Tommy Mandel 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Need to prove this, not just repeat it over and over. Fred Bauder 16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the evidence, the talk pages, the workshop, and then have you got a question?Tommy Mandel 08:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is about editor conduct towards each other. Editor conduct is the main focus of arbitration cases not article content. FloNight 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment had nothing to do with content, but conduct towards living people. Lerner was insulted before he became an editor. Calling other living people by the names above, is not going to encourage them to become editors. --Iantresman 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How about some diffs? Fred Bauder 16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I provided diffs in my Evidence presentation. Should I repeat them on the his page where necessary, or assume they'll be assessed in due course? --Iantresman 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Essential to avoid adding heat instead of light to discussions. --FloNight 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Metamagician3000 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of policy

3) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but what conflicts conflict here? Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The conflict here is between theories and editors. The editors make it as if there is no conflict of theories, that the big bang is the correct theory, and all the alternative theories have been discredited. But Wikipedia editors are not qualified to ascertain what is correct, AND, it cannot be said in the scientific sense that the big bang is correct. Strictly speaking, it is not even up to the theory status yet, there is no specific theory waiting to be proven, let alone proven correct. The conflict is because even while the evidence doesn't support them, they assert that pl;asma cosmolgy is a discredited/minority/fringe view when in reality it has as much scientific validity as does Inflation. Tommy Mandel 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How can an accurate article on Plasma cosmologists be written by the big bang group?Tommy Mandel 04:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By using the material they find in reliable sources. Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. A group of editors act as if they are big bang supporters trying to help the plasma cosmology editors improve their article...Isn't there something wrong with this scenario?

Tommy Mandel

No, the wiki way, anyone may edit any article. Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes in principle "it shouldn't matter what view the author holds" because he will not let his beliefs influence his editing. But what really happens is this, as published by Wikipedia in the article called cosmology --[[15]] ...

"This discipline (Plasma cosmology), which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins with the big bang,"

Could definitely have been qualified. Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that!Tommy Mandel 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember the article is cosmology which is a general term for all cosmologies. Perhaps this is a mistake. So how productive has it been when we don't recognize groups pushing a POV? Is there anything wrong with the big bang group tearing the plasma cosmology to pieces in their effort to help? When does right become wrong? Or can admins do, as one wiki admin stated, "as they damn well please?"Tommy Mandel 00:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue is easily cleared up. The sentence cited is not in the introductory paragraph, but in the section titled "Disciplines". The antecedent of the pronoun "this" is not cosmology in general, but only "physical cosmology". This distortion is either terminally sloppy or dishonest to the core, and I would like to offer it as evidence of Tommy Mandel pushing his POV. --Art Carlson 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

THe issue was cleared up by me who added "theory" after big bang. It has since been changed again this time saying "it is generally understood..." I don't understand how assuming that physical cosmology applies to the scientific explanation is ternminally sloppy or dishonest to the core, can you explain? If stating that the big bang is a theory is a POV then I am guily. Although if you ask me saying that "begins with the big bang" leaving the theory qualification out is pushing a point of view. But this demonstrates how they work, valid objections are met with counter attacks, not civil discussion.

As I said above, could have been qualified and it was. Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, I have no objection if you want to try to improve the formulation of that sentence. The sloppiness or dishonesty, whichever it was, starts with your emphatic statements

Remember the article is cosmology which is a general term for all cosmologies."

and

To recap, the article titled "cosmology" states in the beginning of it "This discipline...begins with the big bang..."

although you damn well knew (dishonesty), or should have known (sloppiness), that that sentence certainly did not refer to cosmology in general. --Art Carlson 07:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know how to read Art. Of course I knew it applied to physical cosmology. The point to be grasped is that the big bang is a theory, so it should read "This discipline begins with the big bang theory. By leaving out "theory" the big bang become a presupposed fact of life. The way it was written implied that physical cosmology is the big bang. Is that true? Tommy Mandel 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, is it true Art? Is physical cosmology the big bang? Or is the big bang theory only one of many possible theories?

Since you knew it applied to physical cosmology, then it was not sloppiness but dishonesty. You cited a sentence referring to physical cosmology, and your commentary on it unambiguously implied that it referred to cosmology in general. --Art Carlson 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Art Carlson that a fringe theory needn't be mentioned in the second paragraph of the cosmology article, and I agree about dishonesty from Tommy, but I don't understand how this issue is an example of dishonesty from Tommy. Omitting the word "physical" isn't dishonest unless it significantly distorts the truth. In the context of the cosmology article, physical cosmology is distinguished from metaphysical and esoteric cosmology. Given those choices, plasma cosmology is classified as a physical cosmology. Therefore we may honestly ask why cosmology is said to start with the Big Bang and not with other physical cosmologies, without dwelling on the irrelevant adjective "physical" - although a more honest debater might be quicker to recognize the answer to that question: plasma cosmology is a fringe theory. Art LaPella 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above, starting with "Since you ask"? The "significant distorsion of the truth" is following the quote "This discipline, ... begins with the big bang," with the comment "Remember the article is cosmology which is a general term for all cosmologies.", and in another place "To recap, the article titled "cosmology" states in the beginning of it 'This discipline...begins with the big bang...'". How can you read that without thinking, Wow, somebody is really pushing the scientific POV if they don't even allow a place for the religous creation myths? Not until I went there to fix it did I realize that the sentence was simply a very terse summary of physical cosmology. The sentence might still be improved upon, but it is not the blatant POV-pushing that Tommy would like us to believe. (It is possible that I am so fed up with Tommy for many reasons that I am not capable of discovering a charitable interpretation of his comments. If you can, more power to you. I will leave my comments as evidence for the arbitrators to use as they see fit and drop the subject now.) --Art Carlson 11:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My charitable interpretation is that "Remeber the article is cosmology..." occurs in a paragraph that emphasizes plasma cosmology, not creationism which wasn't his point. So considering the source, I don't consider this a biggie. Art LaPella 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(Back to margin) The article is about cosmology in general. In that article a special case cosmology called physical cosmology is presented. "Physical cosmology," according to the article "begins with the big bang." While that sentence has since been corrected somewhat, my point is/was that it is a violation of NPOV to present the assumption that the big bang theory is the only physical cosmology. Tommy Mandel

Following is a statement by an anonomous editors found on the history page of the cosmology article.

(Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

Is this how wikipedia works? Tommy Mandel 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Each Wikipedia science article and biography needs to be an useful, up-to-date, accurate reference work. --FloNight 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that using WP:NPOV it shouldn't matter what view the author holds. While many Wikipedia authors have clear POVs that influence their writings, viewing authors as a block as the Big Bang group isn't productive to good Wikipedia editing.--Prosfilaes 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people who believe the Big Bang theory is correct improving the Plasma Cosmology article. In practice, when people are working together well, points of disagreement should be cleaned up to NPOV status by peaceful discussions on the talk page.--Prosfilaes 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In principle yes, you are correct. But in practice they do not improve the article, they rip it to pieces leaving behind a pitiful skeleton. Here is an example of how I was introduced to your so called peaceful discussions.

"SA, in my view, you are obviously anti-plasma" : User:Tommysun,

"in my view you are obviously an incompetent editor who knows very little about the subjects on which you are trying to inject a POV based not on verifiable fact or Wikipedia style guide or policies but on your own prejudices. No one here is "anti-plasma". No one here denies plasma exists. You seem to have some warped view over what exactly the controversy is, but I welcome you to explain your edits rather than heading off on such tangents. By the way, you should keep your paranoid conspiracies regarding the Big Bang gang to yourself. It makes you sound a bit fanatical." --ScienceApologist 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently no one is concerned about that behavoir.

Tommy Mandel 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should drop everything and search for the diffs you fail to provide, but obvious mutual failure to be courteous and extend good faith to one another. Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If the post above is a response to my post below, Tommy's endless posts started taking over the talk page about here and for several archive files thereafter. I don't recommend studying it all. Art LaPella 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(Back to margin) Mr. Bauder, read the comments of Art LaPella and yo will have an idea of what I have to deal with. Obviusly you have just appeared in this discussin, have you read it all before commenting? Tommy Mandel 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Any such concern should be directed against the flamewar that erupted when Tommy first showed up, rather than focusing on a specific flame. Art LaPella 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being civil with your insults Arts. So now that I have been insulted, what am I supposed to do? The flame war was not started by me, and it was not continued by me. I am the one who was continually insulted. And both of you have cleverly twisted the facts around so that I am the villian. That is why I think you lie. You know what you are doing.

Going too far here. Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is going too far here? Art who is dissing me or me who is trying to give an example of the conduct of the 'others?"Tommy Mandel 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the ommission of physical discipline, I made a mistake. My intent was to refer to the comment that the discipline of physical cosmology begins with the big bang. Apparently I left out the physical discipline. That was a mistake. I admit I am sloppy.

But rather than stick to the evidence. both Arts decided to insult me and no one cares about that. That is what they always do, ignore what I am saying and throw mud at me. I thought I did a terrific job by not calling them the names I was thinking of...Tommy Mandel 16:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Again going too far. Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe all that, have you wondered why even your allies haven't defended you? Art LaPella 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not since I found out that what counts comes from inside, and not from any outside source. Do you understand that?Tommy Mandel 01:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so. You see yourself (or would like to be seen) as the apostle of a great revelation that no one else, not even Ian Tresman and Eric Lerner have begun to grasp. So all our irrelevant refutations prove only that we haven't seen the great light yet. Art LaPella 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate bantering Fred Bauder 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) I don't recall being refuted, not that I haven't made mistakes. It doesn't take much of a great light to realize that plasma plays a significant role in cosmology, and ignoring it merely because it is considered fringe science by the standard theory folks is more telling than revealing. You argued that the standard theory does include plasma, but now I have a source that states that General Relativity which the standard theory is bsed on does in fact leave out plasma. Plasma cosmology is not discredited it is uncredited. Tommy Mandel 02:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I argued that the standard theory includes plasma - search for the word "plasma" in Big Bang. To me the Sullivan quote says that relativity (like Newton's laws) doesn't explain electromagnetism because that isn't what it's about - not because Einstein or modern science was somehow unaware of plasma. Here's Ian's explanation. Art LaPella 03:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What you argued was that plasma is mentioned prior to recombination. What you didn't mention is that afterwards the big bang is not about electromagnetism. That fact doe not make plasma a fringe science. Tommy Mandel 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Support this principle. Metamagician3000 01:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

4) Users who disrupt editing by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Is removal of verifiable and sourced information which does not support the mainstream theory aggressive bias or is it doing a good job for the team? Tommy Mandel 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is aggressive biased editing. Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. What is "mainstream science" within the plasma domain? In an article titled plasma cosmology, mainstream science refers to what?

And exactly who is this "mainstream science"

Scientific consensus, I suppose. Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific concensus of whom? The principle investigators? The secondary commentators? the public? The opinion of an editor? The conclusion in a peer reviewed published scientific paper?

Tommy Mandel 05:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Chronic biased editing in the form of repeatedly introducing fringe science or psuedoscience into articles and claiming it is mainstream science is disruptive and causes articles to remain in an unstable form and not be an useful, up-to-date accurate reference work. FloNight 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, if that is the case. Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Factual comment:

Due to a for me unknown cause, the above comment copies an error that is diffused by some people such as ScienceApologist. The error is the confusion between fringe science which is a minority scientific POV, and pseudoscience which is an unscientific POV. According to WP:NPOV, notable minority scientific POV's of a subject must be included in a scientific article about it, while such is obviously not the case for pseudoscientific POV's. Thus, for this discussion it is essential not to confuse such matters. Harald88 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, I listed both because there is a difference between the two concepts. It is against NPOV, V, and NOR policy to misrepresent either one in science articles as a accepted science when it is not. FloNight 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok

FloNight, some people here misunderstand the meaning of "Fringe science", as also other editors here emphasized. Your use of the term is erroneous, as fringe science is accepted science by definition (note that "science" and "theory" are different things). Please see the definition in the article Fringe science. Harald88 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] I agree with the spirit of FloNight's proposal. However, I don't think this dispute is really about pseudoscience at all. It is about fringe scientific theories, in the sense of theories that may be accepted as products of scientific practice, but are not generally accepted (even provisionally) as correct by the relevant body of expert opinion. The main problem is that some proponents of such theories want them to be given what is, objectively speaking, undue prominence in articles on relevant mainstream theories (i.e. the theories that are generally, if provisionally, accepted as correct). That is not Wikipedia's mission: this is a reference work, and should be reporting what is generally accepted by scientists at the moment. There also seems to be a lesser problem of some users showing excessive zeal in attempting to discredit the fringe theories in articles on those theories and their proponents. Such articles should report the fringe nature of the theories in question and cross-reference to the "main" article. But there is no need for such an article to read like a hatchet job on its subject matter. Its main purpose is simply to describe the theory or to give a description of the career of the relevant proponent. I'd like to see some tweaking of the proposal with these thoughts in mind. Metamagician3000 05:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Fred's comment;this seems to be the heart of the matter. Shell ^babelfish 06:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is to be accurate, and following concensus is just a way to do that. But the way to achieve accuracy should not take precedance over accuracy. What good is a concensus that is not accurate? To be accurate plasma and gravity do not compete, there is no victor of one over the other, one is not correct and the other is not, they are complementaries. Tommy Mandel 05:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "read like a hatchet job on its subject" is an apt discription of what the big bang group is doing to the plasma cosmology article. Take for example the article on intrinsic redshift - if one were to read it, there is no such thing. Tommy Mandel

I'll be looking for a hatchet job version. Could you provide a link? Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Direct from the article

Future

Plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory, and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology. Most conventional cosmologists argue that this bias is due to the large amount of detailed observational evidence that validates the simple, six parameter ΛCDM model of the big bang.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun (talk • contribs) .

Comment. The first appearance of text that matches what is included above was from ScienceApologist in this diff. For the record, this is over 500 edits ago, and the same text is functionally present despite several long (and, at this writing) current periods where the "other side" had the most recent edit several entries deep. Nor, it should be noted, is strong language in this regard unique to ScienceApologist or recent. Similar sections have been present almost without interruption since this edit on 26 July 2003. Regardless of the merits of any side of this RFAr, I find it difficult to envision over 3 years of edit history, incuding many versions by those complaining most loudly here, can constitue a "hatchet job" outside of the most staggerinly extraordinary of circumstances. (Unrelated note: I have closed the bold/italics in Tommy's comment, above, to maintain page readability.) Serpent's Choice 07:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] I do think that the article on Eric Lerner was being taken somewhat in the direction of looking like a hatchet job at the point when Shell intervened. Though Shell now freely concedes that her block of Science Apologist was not a good idea, and I have said I believe it was a mistake, her actions were not outrageous in the circumstances she confronted at that particular time. See this diff and the events immediately before to see how the article was being pushed from one direction. However, it should immediately be added that ScienceApologist was willing to negotiate quite reasonably while the article was protected in this form, when attempts were made to address concerns. I don't have enough familiarity with the rest of the history to know whether any better examples of hatchet work can be found. There may be no version of any article that is really a hatchet job, but some of my (limited) acquaintance with the case suggests to me that some editors think it is appropriate to take articles on minority theories, or their proponents, in that direction: to write in a debunking style. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I do think it should be clear to all that that would be inappropriate, just as it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to attempt to promote pet theories or to create a false or exaggerated sense of the degree to which the Big Bang theory (for example) is scientifically controversial. Metamagician3000 12:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

5) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The first principle in this case. Fred Bauder 12:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Should the article on plasma cosmology be required to present a fair representation of big bang cosmology? And what about all the rest? Should Plasma cosmology be about all cosmologies or should plasma cosmology be about plasma cosmology?Tommy Mandel 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a question of editorial judgement. What is important is that all significant points of view are represented. Fred Bauder 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is someone going to answer my question? Tommy Mandel 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, because it's a content issue and ArbCom does not rule on content. Guy 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We would not rule on exactly where and exactly what would be said. Fred Bauder 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So then if content is off limits, then we cannot say which is correct and which is not correct. And if we cannot say which is correct, then we cannot say which is Mainstream (unless we have that verifiable reputable published source saying so which I have yet to see.

Tommy Mandel 02:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither is correct in the sense of being "truth". No reputable source is likely to say so. Fred Bauder 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So how can Wikipedia imply Plasma csmology is a fringe science if it cannot be ascertained if the more popular theory is correct?Tommy Mandel 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether a concept is "correct" in terms of objective truth and whether a concept is the mainstream or prevailing viewpoint should not be conflated. Wikipedia does not determine truth, but it does give appropriate -- that is to say, commensurately greater -- weight to ideas considered mainstream or prevailing. Serpent's Choice 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Metamagician3000 07:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, with the caveat fair and proportionate. Guy 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability and reliable sources

6) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.

6a) In the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable peer-reviewed journals. Theories promulgated outside the realms of scientific journals are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted. Fred Bauder 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Metamagician3000 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Support; added 6a (which may of course be edited mercilessly); the intent here is to clarify that a "scientific" theory promulgated solely in channels outside of those in which the mainstream view is debated, shoud not be held up as a significant view by comparison with the mainstream. I hope that's clear, anyway. Guy 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Fred Bauder 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say what is mainstream science? Tommy Mandel 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Leaders of the scientific community. Fred Bauder 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is no such thing in science, unless you mean "Priests"Tommy Mandel 08:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Why should peer reviewed articles be the only sources, Guy? I agree with the spirit of what you say in the explanation, but would have though that in many cases standard science textbooks written for undergraduates would actually be better sources for our purpose. They are reliable sources, are more accessible, and give a clearer picture of what is currently accepted in the professional community. There's nothing wrong with peer-reviewed articles, of course, and sometimes they made be needed to source the finer points, but they are certainly not always necessary. Metamagician3000 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Science textbooks are often more useful than specialized journal articles. Fred Bauder 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For sure. I was really referring to the process of peer-review (through which science books and journal articles both pass) more than the medium of publication. Guy 19:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, patience in dealing with others, and exercise good judgment in following official policy such as the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Should an administrator, involved in an ariticle, say something like: "your argumentation is disrupting wikipedia and if you don't stop you will be banned." Tommy Mandel 04:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if appropriate, but in the most courteous way possible. Fred Bauder 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Offered due to Shell's controversial unilateral block of an editor on one side of a content dispute (ScienceApologist) without prior broad community input and followed by a questionable explanation after a query was raised on AN/I by another admin. This block complicated the dispute resolution process. FloNight 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So much for recusal due to your disagreement with my block? Contrary to Flo's claim, I spoke with multiple administrators over a 24 hour period due to the wealth of areas complaints were received in. While there may have been better ways to stop the edit warring, the lengthy explanation on AN/I and on my talk page should clearly show exactly why I felt a block for disruption was in order at the time. It is also worth noting the similar group of supporters who rallied against that block and those running here to support SA's behavior. Shell ^babelfish 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that Flo is part of this group of supporters; I believe she commented as an uninvolved admin. Shell ^babelfish 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Flo is recused as clerk in the case. Any editor may suggest proposals on the workshop page and comment on other proposals. Thatcher131 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell, mind showing us the diffs showing where you spoke with multiple administrators? Or are we just to take you at your word? --ScienceApologist 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Peripheral issue, and Shell acted in good faith (even though I believe she made a mistake). Let's not get bogged down with this. Metamagician3000 05:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A clarification owuld be useful here, in that as soon as an admin makes their first step into a dispute they immediately become "involved" in the eyes of those disputants who disagree with them. The best that can happen appears to be that both sides accuse you of bias towards the other... At what stage does an admin become an involved party? Do we ban anybody who is has come to a disoute to act in an administrative enforcement capacity from actually changing the article? Guy 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A person usually knows when they have taken sides. Fred Bauder 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but do the sides know? Guy 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be asking for plaster saints here. It's well known that pseudoscience articles test the patience of even the most dedicated members of the community. Guy 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, it was decided here lonf ago that plasma cosmology is not pseudoscience, are you coming here and infering after all that, that plasma cosmology is a pseudoscience? It sounds like it to me, and because your assesment is not scientific, aren't you being pseudoscientific yourself? Tommy Mandel 16:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are going too far into the specific again. ArbCom exists to rule on general principles of editing and on specific issues of individual user conduct, not to dictate the precise level of coverage any particular minor theory must receive. This is about how we should cover, in the abstract, non-mainstream theories, and how the individuals concerned have conducted themselves. Admins are human, we act like humans, and asking them to be superhuman in the face of extreme provocation is pointless, especially given the rate of pay for the job. Guy 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles must adhere to the same standards, including verifiability and no original research

8) Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics must adhere to the basic Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." If the only writings about a topic are non-peer-reviewed articles by its main proponents, it fails the verifiability and original research principles and should not be included in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, but we do want articles about cattle mutilation. Fred Bauder 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Non-peer reviewed subjects may fail Reliable Sources, not necessarily WP:V nor WP:OR. If an author has a theory in a popular book, and it is described as such, that is still verifiable. --Iantresman 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that an author of a popular book may be notable for the book. If this is the reason for notability then the article needs to focus on book and not include other misleading statements worded to give the impression that subject is notable for other reasons. FloNight 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

At a minimum, self-published sources which are not referred to elsewhere in the literature should be used cautiously; and should be explicitly attributed to their sources. --EngineerScotty 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal appears to be self-contradictory and contain a misunderstanding of WP:NOR but it can be fixed. Not all Wikipedia articles must adhere to the same standards, and the proposal seems to be to raise the standard for scientific subjects to the use of peer reviewed sources only. Until recently I thought that that should be the rule. However, after I was confronted with a discussion of the Afshar experiment at my university, I changed my mind and did not propose it for deletion. Proposal 9a modified to "reliable sources" would do the job IMHO. Harald88 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the standards for certain subjects will necessarily be less. Fred Bauder 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see an example of a subject which is addressed only in negative terms by the peer-reviewed journals. The usual response to a completely outlandish theory is simply to ignore it, is it not? Guy 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the humanities, notable theories are frequently critizied in the literature--and often times, the most notable and interesting papers are subject to the most criticism. In science, you're correct; outlandish theories are generally ignored, and formal criticism is reserved for things like serious errors or emissions, unreproducible results, and instances of possible misconduct, and only for papers which were considered to be sound science prior to the criticism being published. --EngineerScotty 00:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics

9) Non-mainstream topics which have attracted significant published criticism (multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals or other reliable sources) may be included in Wikipedia even if the topic would ordinarily fail the verifiability and original research policies by itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sure Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Surely any subject published in a peer reviewed journal, is verifiable, and noted in a reliable source? --Iantresman 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If ALL the published material is critical of a subject, does that allow the editor to also trash the subject? Are there exceptions to NPOV? Tommy Mandel 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The positive material should still be set forth, although it may not be from as reliable a source as might be desired, cattle mutilation, for example. Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, the content of all articles should focus on the notable aspect of the subject. This is especially true of articles about less notable subjects. The introduction of content that gives the impression that the subject is notable for a different reason is against the spirit of NPOV, V, NOR. Wikipedia policy and guideline are not to be interpreted in an over legalistic way that turns the policy on its head. FloNight 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that if the vast majority of published opinion on a topic is critical; it isn't unreasonable for the article to assume a critical tone. Especially if the only published opinion in support is self-published. This is especially true in the sciences, where publication which only criticizes the work of another is unusual. --EngineerScotty 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point. The tone should be neutral for sure but the article must for sure reflect the verifiable fact that the dominant view in the scientific community is that the idea is rejected. Guy 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If indeed it is verifiable that a minority view is rejected. For example, the Wolf effect is a minority view, but I am aware of no papers that reject it. Indeed, the article on the Wolf effect includes peer reviewed sourced suggesting that the Wolf effect as "a new redshift mechanism" has been demonstrated in the laboratory, and is accepted in optics. Yet certain Wikipedia editors personally disagree, and have removed it nearly entirely from the article on Redshift. --Iantresman 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That would rather depend on how the journals whihc habitually discuss redshift have received the Wolf effect. If their reaction has been to ignore it, then it is, for our purposes, rejected; that is, the reliable sources from which an article on redshift may be drawn, do not discuss it, therefore to discuss it in that article is impossible: at worst it is original research and at best the neutrality of coverage cannot be verified. So we wait until there is wider discussion. Right now Wolf effect gives every impression of yet another POV-push by the Big Bang deniers; as the caption on the graph says, "The authors report observing a decrease in frequency for a Wolf Effect, but do not report observing as precise a correspondence as this since the detail conditions for the Wolf Effect to mimic a Doppler redshift are difficult to come by" - in other words, to draw the two lines coincident as they are looks very much like a spectacular failure of WP:NPOV. Guy 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But should the critical tone come from sources or the editor? Tommy Mandel

Um, if it has multiple criticism in peer-reviewed journals, it is verifiable. The problem comes with the theories that have received no coverage at all in peer-reviewed journals because they are simply dismissed. I am extremely wary of weakening verifiability and original research policies in order to include fringe theories on the basis that they have not been accepted for publication in any reputable journal, that seems like an exceptionally bad precedent. As a rule, scientific journals do not include significant commentary on views which are not themselves the subject of coverage in reputable peer-reviewed publications. Guy 17:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No fringe theories unless they have significant independent support

9a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight quotes Jimbo Wales, stating "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Following this principle, scientific theories which have not attracted significant support (in the form of peer-reviewed articles by authors other than the original proponents) should not have their own articles or be mentioned in related articles. It is true that this standard would have excluded many scientific theories that were considered "fringe" when they were first advanced, such as the theory of continental drift. However, Wikipedia is a recorder of things as they are, not a predictor of the way things will be or an advocate for the way things should be.

This would produce a very dull Wikipedia indeed. One a theory is published or noted it is fair game. Continental drift is a good example. A bit of research on when it became notable might be interesting. Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would contradict the idea that minority viewpoints can become significant by the prominence of their advocates, which Wales proposed and is just common sense. Plasma cosmology was a significant viewpoint when it was initally proposed by Hannes Alfven and his collaborators because of Alfven's prominence in the field. (If he had been prominent in another field, that would not be the case.)The same goes for the steady-state viewpoint when Hoyle Gold and Bondi first proposed it. I think there has to be a positive definition of what is to be included.Elerner 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology hardly qualifies as a fringe theory that has only a very few supporters. The reason Plasma cosmology is not a single paradigm is that there are so many aspects of it and plasma researchers, like all other scientists, specialize in their own field. Not all plasma researchers are concerned only with cosmology, or the lack of a cosmology. Tommy Mandel 05:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be interesting to note that the steady state theory, one of the so called fringe ideas related to plasma cosmology, can be found in the big bang. Quoting Gribbins from [[16]]

"But although inflation is generally regarded as a development of Big Bang cosmology, it is better seen as marrying the best features of both the Big Bang and the Steady State scenarios."

There is a cliche going around that all new ideas go through stages, first it is ignored by te mainstream, then it is ridiculed by the mainstream, then the mainstream says they thought of it first. So how come we didn't learn of this "marriage" from Wikipedia?

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is the hard-line counterpoint to proposal 9. There is an argument to made that for any scientific theory to be included in Wikipedia, at least one reputable scientist outside the sphere of influence of the original proponents should be willing to advance and defend it in the scienfitic literature or other reliable sources. (Note that adopting 9a would imply changes in the wording of 10 and 11) Thatcher131 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Too strict Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

* Agree in principle, but with amendments. If a theory once was published but was never referred to by any other reliable source, it may safely be assumed to be not notable enough as well as insufficiently corroborated. However, sometimes a theory is only published by one person but next openly debated in the press and at universities. Such a theory is certainly notable enough for mention in an encyclopdia. As some news agencies and university websites are specificly included as possible "reliable sources", it suffices to replace peer-reviewed articles by reliable sources in the proposal.

Another exception may be required for recent articles: within one year of publication no judgement can be made on the basis of absence of referrals, as it often takes one year for people to think about it, react on it and publish that reaction. Harald88 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is an exception required? Why can't Wikipedia wait long enough for people to study and respond to the publication before using it? It's really not a crime for an encyclopedia not to be on the cutting edge, for us to report generally established theories that get included in textbooks instead of radical new theories that haven't even had the time for non-authors to respond.--Prosfilaes 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We like to be current, and are. The cold fusion press reports would be covered the next day despite any scientific peer review. That is our customary practice. Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking out loud, to open it for discussion - I wrote "may" and now I actually agree with you. :-) Harald88 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Prosfilaes is right here. Scientific subjects which are not addressed by reputable peer-reviewed journals should not be discussed because they fail verifiability. We have no deadline to meet. Guy 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fails to address subjects which get substantial press coverage or which are proposed by notable scientists. Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I will invoke Aetherometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again here. We agonised for a long time about that, but in the end the clinching argument was that, because the theory had been completely ignored by the scientific community, the only sources were either unreliable or uncritical and therefore it was not possible to cover the subject neutrally. So we must surely require at the very least some critical (in the sense of reviewing dispassionately) coverage in sources of some provable authority. I don't too much mind if this is the popular science press or peer-reviewed journals. Guy 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles regarding notable fringe scientific theories

Plasma, of which 99% of the Universe is made of, is not fringe science. It is a fact of life. Plasma cosmology is just one aspect of plasma. To label it as a fringe science demonstrates a lack of knowledge rather than insightful thought. Consider also Gibbins, recommended by Linde,assessment, primary auithor of Inflation theory, that Hoyles HoylesSteady state equations and the big bang equations differ by only one term, and Gibbins conclusion that the big bang incorporates the best features of steady state. This would hardly be evidence that steady state is a fringe science. Tommy Mandel 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying the universe is 99% plasma demonstrates a lack of knowledge rather than insightful thought. It is like saying God exists cause the Bible says so. WAS 4.250 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the figure is closer to 99.5 % I don't get your point. All stars are in a plasma state. Tommy Mandel 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

9c) Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, fringe scientific theories which are referred to in published sources by disinterested parties or criticsnonetheless notable, may have their own articles, provided that articles regarding those theories meet existing policies and guidelines regarding verifiability, restrictions on original research, and notability. However, in order to meet neutral point of view requirements it is essential, at a minimum, that (1) that articles regarding fringe theories clearly identify whether those theories have been subject to peer review and/or have notable expert acceptance; (2) that articles regarding fringe theories clearly identify the leading theory on that subject and the support for the leading theory; and (3) that any reference to fringe theories on other pages be minimal, clearly identify the theories as fringe, and otherwise comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sounds good. Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Plasma cosmology cannot be considered a fringe science except in comparison with the rival big bang theory. Plasma is a fact, not a fringe science. Plasms cosmology is a branch of plasma science, which is far more advanced that the big bang group would admit to.Tommy Mandel

First half of [17] Art LaPella 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to 9a, 9b, and 9c--intended to be "tougher" then 9b but not as tough as 9a. IMHO, if a fringe theory is verifiable and notable, there's no obstacle to creating an appropriate page describing it. Non-notable theories should be explicitly excluded; otherwise anyone can self-publish anything and thereby bypass the intent of WP:NOR. At a minimum, someone else (a reliable source) besides the proponents of a theory should offer public comment on it, in order to demonstrate notability. Note that the alternate cosmologies advanced by Eric Lerner and others probably meet this criterion; OTOH, things like aetherometry (which was deleted from Wikipedia earlier this year) probably do not. I agree with TheronJ that a couple sentences stating the main theory pages stating: "The are a variety of fringe and alternate theories attempting to explain 'foo.' However, none of these theories has gained significant expert acceptance" isn't unreasonable; however, it should be emphasized that fringe theories shouldn't be featured more prominently than that on a mainstream page. Also, creation of multiple pages which all explain portions of a fringe theory (such as intrinsic redshift) is going a bit too far; it is undue weight to give fringe theories which haven't attracted significant attention beyond their proponents more than a single article. (Accordingly, I would suggest merging the mass of articles which are disputed in this RFA into one). Redirects from other terms defined by the fringe theory would be OK.

As a further comment, I would propose use of the word "fringe theory" to describe this phenomenon within Wikipedia; "pseudoscience" and "junk science" are highly pejorative terms which contain connotations of misconduct, rather than just being outside the mainstream. Many advocates of fringe theories are perfectly ethical; they simply haven't demonstrated sufficiently why their ideas have merit. --EngineerScotty 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this proposal is better than the other "9" proposals, which is why I withdrew 9b.[18] IMHO, however, the phrase "which are referred to in published sources by disinterested parties or critics" may be a little too restrictive. Let's suppose that the only sources for Lerner's plasma cosmology theory were his editorials, published in the New York Times and other leading newspapers, and a book or two published by actual publishers, but written by Lerner or other proponents of the theory. I'd leave that up to the reference to notability rather than deciding the issue here. TheronJ 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with that; have amended the proposal above. --EngineerScotty 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving out the specific case of plasma cosmology (ArbCom does not rule on content, and in any case Tommy's argument above is based on the idea that because plasma exists, plasma cosmology is a valid scientific view, which is a non-sequitur), the core principle here is that there must exist sufficient sources, and of sufficient quality, that we can verify both the content and the neutrality of the content: so, has the theory been the principle subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable impartial sources independent of the source? If so, then we can cover it. If not, then we are headed into original research territory. The comment above that (1) that articles regarding fringe theories clearly identify whether those theories have been subject to peer review and/or have notable expert acceptance; (2) that articles regarding fringe theories clearly identify the leading theory on that subject and the support for the leading theory; and (3) that any reference to fringe theories on other pages be minimal seems to me to fit the bill quite nicely. A theory which is a fringe theory but is nonetheless formally verifiable, as are the criticisms of it, can clearly be covered, b ut we absolutely should make certain that we make it explicitly clear in the lead that it is a fringe theory. If, over time, it comes to be mainstream, then we change the article to reflect that. No doubt in Ye Olde Wikipedia dot orgge of AD 50 we would be equally emphatic about the literal truth of the flood. Consensus changes in the real world as our state of knowledge develops. Sometimes that means the fringe becomes mainstream, other times that means science loses interest in the fringe as it becomes increasingly clear that it is at odds with observed fact. Guy 17:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Significant minority viewpoints in science

9d)A “significant minority viewpoint” in a scientific field must be given coverage in Wikipedia articles. Supporters of such minority viewpoints are not to be maligned, harassed or otherwise hindered from editing Wikipedia articles.

A “significant minority viewpoint” in a scientific field is one that has adherents who are prominent in the relevant field; OR that receives coverage as a scientific viewpoint by verifiable sources, such as the popular scientific press or the mass media; OR is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher; OR is supported or examined by major institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sounds good Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This addresses the point that first, there is systmatic harrassmnet of minority veiwpoints by some editors, which should stop. Second it rolls into one definition the ways that a viewpoint should be viewed as significant. I want to emphasize that coverage in the popular pres alone is not a qualification. Creationism is covered, but not AS a scientific viewpoint. It would have to be covered as a scientific viewpoint.Elerner 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that ALL scientific theories were at one time the minority viewpoint.Tommy Mandel 05:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It this were to be instituted, there would be nothing stopping people from inserting time cube into the article about time. --ScienceApologist 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS? Is Time cube peer reviewed? Other papers by other authors? --Iantresman 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Notice the proposal says "OR" and not "AND". --ScienceApologist 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Does a comparison with absurdity prove anything? ScienceApologist is very adept at introducing absurd arguments made by absurd thinkers as evidence that plasma cosmology is also somehow absurd. For example, quantized redshift has two possible explanations, as do most theories, one is that there is no Doppler effect, while the other is assuming that Doppler and quantized redshift are true, that the galaxies are placed at intervals and we are at the center. Apparently Creationists have jumped on this, claiming that there is scientific proof we are at the center of the universe. But that is only ture if Doppler and quantized redshift were true. ScienceApologist has taken the Creationist claims, incorportated them into the Plasma cocmology view by implicaton, and then based on the absurdity, infers that Plasma cosmlogy is a Creationist cosmology. And then he will engage the other editors into an endless argument about creationism or other semantic issues. I think he does this only to distract us.Tommy Mandel 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Very illustrative of my point. While Tommysun considers creationism to be absurdity, I'm sure there are creationists who would dispute this evaluation. We cannot make an exception for one group's POV-pushing and then forbid another group's POV-pushing. To do that would be unfair. The fair thing to do is to exclude all non-mainstream ideas from mainstream articles to the extent that WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:FRINGE, etc. insist. Significant minorities are significant only if the mainstream says they are significant. In science, we're fairly lucky that the mainstream is so wide. In disciplines where the mainstream is narrower, you may have to modify this evaluative technique somewhat to take into consideration where paradigmatic controversies are verifiably significant. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The learned editors talk as if mainstream science actually exists outside Wikipedia? Science is not doctrine rather it is a methodology. Let me ask again for that peer reviewed verifiable reputable published paper that states what is the mainstream view on cosmology. One will be enough.Tommy Mandel 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Plasma is not fringe science, it is a scientific fact and plasma cosmology is not pseudoscience it is a hypothesis, as much as the big bang. Pseudoscience can take place on either side, and here it takes the form of claiming that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, but that claim is an opinion stated as a scientific fact.04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wary of using the mainstream press as a source on science articles. Consider what that would do to evolution articles. Phil Sandifer 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Phil. Also I think it is essential to have experts on the topic involved to help editors less familiar with the subject understand which journals are most likely to publish mainstream articles and which include more controversial topics. These decisions need to be made on each article by editors that care about Wikipedia interests above outside interests. FloNight 18:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is unnecessary instruction creep. Per WP:NPOV we already support the coverage of all significant views fairly and proportionately, this seems to add nothign to that other than the implied insistence that the minority be covered in the article on the majority view, which is surely an editorial judgment to be formed on a case-by-case basis by those with in-depth knowledge of the subject. The stuff on the specifics of plasma cosmology is, of course, an aside, since ArbCom rules on principles of editing, not on content specifics. As a point of principle, though, it is worth ArbCom ruling on whether scientific articles should be judged solely on the merits of coverage in the scientific press. Guy 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, and cold fusion is an excellent example. Something that makes a big splash in the press or is advocated by a prominent person will get coverage of some sort. Fred Bauder 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, looking at this proposal and its source, Eric Lerner is saying that he (personally) should not be hindered from editign Wikipedia articles - even though his point of view is explicitly acknowledged to be on the fringes and opposed to the mainstream. That seems dangerous to me. If we are not allowed to hinder those promoting minority views, how do we control tendentious edits by them, should they arise? How do we enforce neutrality when we are not allowed to hinder one side of a polarised issue? Guy 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We Assume good faith (on both sides!) unless policy is contravened. Exactly the same argument could be made of the mainstream point of view. --Iantresman 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. This is an arbcom case. One side is asking for a ruling that supporters of a minority POV not be hindered in editing. As an admin, that rings alarm bells. What if a supporter of creationism complains that reversion of his edits to evolution is hindering his ability to edit? Or that a block for 3RR is hindering his editing of Wikipedia articles where he supposrts a minority POV? It's special pleading. All sides must endeavour to work with all other sides, and if someone is completely unable to do this due to the strength of their own point of view then they have a problem and should step back. This request reverses that solely for the case of the minority POV editor. That is a very bad idea. Guy 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Content of articles on non-mainstream scientific topics

10) Neutral point of view requires that conflicting views be represented fairly. It will not be uncommon for the only sources regarding a non-mainstream scientific topic to be either (a) published by its proponents, or (b) criticisms published by mainstream scientists. It is acceptable following Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves to use proponents' self-published statements about their theories as sources to accurately describe the theories. Articles should also fairly describe mainstream scientific criticism. Note that in many cases, excluding criticism will remove the only non-self-published, non-original research, reliable sources. Proponents of a non-mainstream theory may be faced with the choice between an article that describes the theory and all significant criticisms, or no article at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted, provided that the subject is notable, self-published materials should not establish notability by themselves. Fred Bauder 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It is not appropriate to use self-published sources to describe theories - the theory is not the one doing the publishing. While self-published documents can be used to describe the publisher, and their views on the theory, they cannot be used to describe the theory. JBKramer 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that an article about plasma cosmology should have within it all the plasma cosmology views fairly represented. How did NPOV come to mean that all other cosmologies must be in te plasma cosmology article? And in particular why should an article be written in relation to some other article? Tommy Mandel 05:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the above was not rhetorical, NPOV demands that we represent the balance of opinion among informed parties. Most informed parties do not support plasma cosmology. To fail to reflect that, and the published criticisms, in the article would be a gross violation of NPOV. Guy 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that, for example, if one was writing an article in 1859 on Darwin's ideas about natural selection, it would be acceptable to quote Darwin's self-published book On the origin of species in order to be able to accurately describe Darwin's theories. In the case of intrinsic redshift, for example, which appears to be the work of a small number of contributors, it is necessary to use those contributors as a source in order to accurately describe the theory. Whether or not to have an article at all about a topic is dealt with separately. If there is going to be an article, it would violate NPOV if the only people who could describe the topic were its opponents. Thatcher131 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Darwin's book was not self-published. Self published sources are not WP:RS in the vast majority of cases. JBKramer 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Forget about Darwin then. It is a conflict with neutral point of view if the only people allowed to say what a theory is are its opponents (or more precisely, if the only articles that editors can quote to describe a theory were written to rebut or discredit the theory). It is not unknown for writers to misstate a theory in order to more easily discredit it. While one hopes that this doesn't happen in science, I don't think Wikipedia can fairly deny that Smith is a reliable source for what Smith's law of cosmology proposes. If there is to be an article on Smith's law of cosmology, both sides should get fair representation, and in the case of fringe theories with few supporters, that will of neccessity mean quoting Smith. Maybe you should focus on principle 9a, which would deprecate the article entirely unless there were other reliable sources besides Smith. Thatcher131 17:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement there. It is a violation of WP:V to use self-published sources in an article about science. If Smith can't get published outside of www.smithspettheory.com, he merits no article. JBKramer 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) In case the disractions allow us to miss the point, here is what Thatcher said:

In the case of intrinsic redshift, for example, which appears to be the work of a small number of contributors, it is necessary to use those contributors as a source in order to accurately describe the theory. Whether or not to have an article at all about a topic is dealt with separately. If there is going to be an article, it would violate NPOV if the only people who could describe the topic were its opponents. Thatcher131 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually if the only sources which discuss it are a small number of proponents, then we should not have an article at all and should not cover the topic in any other article. I do not think that is actually the case, although the theory is quite clearly soundly rejected by mainstream cosmologists. Guy 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-mainstream scientific theories in articles about mainstream topics

11) Scientific theories which fail the principle of verifiability (i.e. no peer-reviewed publications by proponents and no significant independent criticism) and which therefore should not have their own articles should not be mentioned in other, related articles. Non-mainstream theories that meet the standard of verifiability through reliable sources may be mentioned in related articles, provided the "undue weight" clause is followed. In most cases, this will entail a brief description of the topic (and its relation to the main article), a brief description of criticisms of the topic, and a link to the main article on the topic. For example, Intrinsic redshift may be mentioned as a possible mechanism for the redshift effect in the article Redshift, with a brief description of the concept, a brief consideration of criticism, and a link to the main article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sounds good Fred Bauder 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What, ArbCom ruling on an editorial judgment in respect of whether a given minority view must be included in the high-level article? Some new meaning of the word good is in play here :-) Guy 10:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That "may be mentioned" is provactive. Whose to say when we should mention it or not, or in what amount and in what fashion? For example, Ian would probably say that the article on redshift doesn't mention intrinsic redshift. I would disagree. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge the article includes mention of "Instrinsic redshift", but does not say what it is, and it's mention is nowhere near, nor referenced, in the section on redshift mechanims. Likewise Wolf Effect. --Iantresman 14:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the entire intrinsic redshift article is written as if there is no intrinsic redshift.Tommy Mandel 05:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

May I remind everyone, that the article Plasma Cosmology is about plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology is not about the big bang, nor is it a comparison of the big bang and Plasma cosmology. The Plasma cosmology article is not about "cosmology" an article which would be required to present all cosmologies in the appropriate way. The article plasma cosmology is not about all cosmologies, it is about plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology is the primary subject, the dominant theory, in the plasma cosmology article.

Tommy Mandel 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald's reworking is very problematic because it places imperatives on what should be mentioned in mainstream articles. This is ridiculous. Fringe alternatives that get almost no weight in scientific consensus do not deserve weight on Wikipedia regardless of how or where the ideas about them are published and who champions them. Wikipedia is not a place where the fringe should be glorified beyond their marginalization in the wider world. --ScienceApologist 19:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. This principle, if adopted, will provide some guidance as to which topics may be mentioned in related articles, but does not settle every dispute. The arbitrators are extremely unlikely to rule on content issues, and most likely to focus on principles to guide good editing, with enforceable remedies against bad behavior, if necessary. Thatcher131 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be helpful and it is even promising: from the above comments by both main parties it appears that they could work out a compromise that is both precise and acceptable to them. As they present two extreme editor POV's, I'm optimistic that, if a slightly reworked version of it becomes a guideline, most other editors will also abide by that.

For example, I would suggest based on the above:

Scientific theories which fail the principle of verifiability (i.e. no peer-reviewed publications by proponents and no significant independent criticism) and which therefore should not have their own articles should not be mentioned in other, related articles. Non-mainstream theories that meet the standard of verifiability through reliable sources may be mentioned in related articles, provided the "undue weight" clause is followed. In many cases, this will entail a brief description of the topic (and its relation to the main article), a brief description of criticisms of the topic, and a link to the main article on the topic. A theory that is pertinent to the subject but held by a very small minority will usually only be mentioned once in the most appropriate section with an embedded link to its main article.

Harald88 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: ScienceApologist's objection that "Wikipedia is not a place where the fringe should be glorified beyond their marginalization in the wider world" is rather in agreement with my amended proposal to give minimal weight to fringe theories. His claim that theories that have " almost no weight in scientific consensus do not deserve weight on Wikipedia" (emphasis mine) is even against the WP:NPOV's policy of fairness and due weight. What is currently problematic is the lack of a precise guideline on this matter, as edit wars show. Harald88 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My impression, as unwelcme as it is, is that there is no problem in principle mentioning plasma cosmology in the article cosmology. The problem is the obvious editing of the plasma cosmology article in terms of the big bang theory. IT would be like editing the article on magnetics from the POV of gravity.

This is a reversal. The potential problem in principle with mentioning plasma cosmology in cosmology is that it is not regarded as significant by comparison with mainstream (Big Bang) cosmology. The problem with not mentioning Big Bang in plasma cosmology is that plasma cosmology is contradicted by the dominant Big Bang theory accepted almost universally by informed opinion. So: we mention the fact that earth is not flat in the article on flat earth, but we don't need to discuss flat-earth theory in the article on the planet. Guy 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We need more concrete guidance on the "Inclusion of non-mainstream scientific theories in articles about mainstream topics". I believe there is rough consensus that the bar for inclusion in the main article, which unavoidably gives a certain weight to an idea, should be higher than that for creating a separate article, where we can afford to be relatively generous. The usual approach of a scientist is to look at the literature, but this is very difficult in practice. It's not the mechanics, the problem is having the background to able to make sense out of the multitude. For example, some journals have a reputation for filtering out all but the most substantial developments, while others are willing to publish far-out ideas just for fun. It is also difficult to know when a single paper, or work done by a single group, is significant. Is 20 papers in the last ten years a substantial minority view, or the normal level of noise? My suggestion is to rely more heavily on textbooks and review articles. Both of these are verifiable and reliable, but what is important in this context is that they have the intention to summarize the POV of the scientific establishment and are in a position to do so, much better than any of us are. (To forstall misunderstanding, I am not advocating that Wikipeadia endorse the established POV, just describe it.) If a topic is mentioned in most or all textbooks on a subject, then it should be included in Wikipedia's main article on that subject; if it is mentioned in no or very few textbooks, then we should leave it out. I think this is a feasible way to cut down the bickering on the content of major articles (where "major" is defined as a topic covered in undergraduate- or graduate-level textbooks or in a review in an important journal). --Art Carlson 12:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This makes good sense and is in line with policy (i.e. it refers the basis of the decision back to reliable sources rather than original research). Guy 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is contrary to that of Guy and Art Carlson insofar as IMHO textbooks usually reflect and limit themselves to the mainstream POV. Consequently they do not tend to fairly represent minority views, if only for the purpose of simplifying matters for students.

Consequently, following the above advice would in many cases constitute an auto-suppression of minority views in main articles in Wikipedia, similar to newspapers in Soviet time following the Pravda's reporting. Such would be a clear infringement of Wikipedia's demand for fair representation of minority views as described in WP:NPOV -- which is, BTW, non-negotiable.

My counter suggestion to both parties is to more strictly apply existing WP:NPOV policy. For this matter, I would add to my above reformulation the following (existing!) guideline: Base the amount of due weight on representation in articles in peer reviewed science journals. That should avoid tunnelvision and prevent giving WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to fringe ideas. Harald88 14:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think that articles on mainstream subjects and minority subjects already treat the issues different. A minority subject article can include as much text as is verifiable. A mainstream article, in most cases, just needs to mention the minority view, which is where Undue weight comes in. This could be anything from a subsection, to a couple paragraphs, to a couple of sentences, to a See also link. --Iantresman 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald's point is well taken. Let's see what we have in common: We agree that textbooks are good at reflecting what the mainstream view is, and this it is pedagogically useful to limit an introduction to a subject to a single view. Can we also agree on the observation that most major print encyclopedias limit themselves in this way? Finally, we agree in principle that all we need to do is properly apply WP:NPOV.

Where do we disagree on the mechanics? First, my experience is that editors have a broad range of interpretation of WP:NPOV, leading to exhausting disputes. Please don't retreat to existing policy just yet, but help me look for more concrete guidelines to apply in cases of conflict. I have touched above on the reasons that I think that appealing to peer-reviewed articles, while attractive in principle, often fails in practice.

Where do we disagree on principles? You argue that the limitation of textbooks, reviews, and print encyclopedias to the mainstream view is unfair to minority views, and that Wikipedia has a mandate to be fairer than they are. Others take the position that Wikipedia should reflect the world of human knowledge as it is and not try to right the wrongs found there. I personally don't think that arguing about fairness is going to help here. The concept is just too subjective. (WP:NPOV talks a lot about fairness, but nowhere defines it.)

I would rather talk about being helpful. What can we do so that as many readers as possible find what they are looking for when they come to Wikipedia? Aside from being accurate, I see two principles: (1) simplify as much as possible so a non-expert reader can quickly grasp the basics, and (2) provide a network of links in several directions so the reader who wants to learn more can find the information. Using the textbook inclusion criterion is a good way to satisfy the first criterion. Providing links in the text and in See also is a good way to satisfy the second. The links can and should be so constructed that they lead directly to the most important supplemental material and only there. It may take two or three links to arrive at all related information. I think a good example is the Redshift article, which links to the Scattering article rather than including a list of scattering processes directly. The main article remains as simple and clean as possible, but anyone wanting to learn about additional processes can easily find their articles. Can my idea of a "helpful" Wikipedia be reconciled with your idea of a "fair" Wikipedia?

--Art Carlson 14:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of that, which in part is due to the structure of an article. Of course we describe the majority view first and minority views second, and I think this is in line with Jimbo Wales view,[19]. Your Redshift and scattering comment is a fair example, where scattering produces reddening; however, I believe there are papers where scattering is proposed as a cause of redshift "proper", which I feel is relevant to the article. --Iantresman 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all on the role of textbooks and review articles: It seems to me that if textbooks regularly touch on a alternate theory, then Wikipedia should too. Otherwise, if it is regularly mentioned in some detail in mainstream review articles, that is another indication that some mention in Wikipedia is proper.

Secondly, Wikipedia is not here to right the "wrongs" in human knowledge, since any person with alternate views can feel wronged by the mainsteam, and often such people are quite wrong in their views. See User_talk:StevenCrum for a current example. On the other hand, it is possible for a view to gain publicity of the normal scientific journal process and become notable because of this. The Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion episode is one such example. So if something is somewhat well-known either within the scientific community or in the general public, it deserves mentioning.

If something cannot pass either of these tests, then I see little need to cover it, except possibly in an article such as Alternatives to general relativity. Even then, a theory/viewpoint should be published and have a history of related articles being written on it, and/or be mentioned in in-depth review articles.

Overall, I think that the best questions to ask are:

• Is it reasonable to assume that people will come to Wikipedia seeking data on a given theory? and
• Is it reasonable to assume that the readers of a given article will be interested in hearing about a given theory?

--EMS | Talk 22:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Art Carlson on this one. There really is no excuse for including minority opinions that aren't found in standard textbooks or suffer from significant marginalization by the mainstream. This is the heart of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I believe it goes as far as to demand exclusion of topics. For example, tired light is a topic that receives a moderate amount of coverage in certain astronomy texts as an example of a falsified theory. Therefore, it is right to mention that in the mainstream articles on the subject in the context of tired light being a falsified theory. There are verifiable sources (e.g. Peebles) that state it as such and these sources should not be subject to rebuke by the non-mainstream cranks and fringe scientists who dispute the standard textbook treatment. Wikipedia is not here to right the wrongs of the mainstream or to correct the perceived slights. It is most accurate to exclude even verified and perfectly mainstream topics (such as Wolf Effect) from articles which are about subjects that are disconnected in standard textbooks and literature. For example, excluding the Wolf Effect as a redshift mechanism is fine in the article about redshift because the number of textbooks that list it as a redshift mechanism is precisely zero. Textbooks are an excellent way to go for knowing whether marginalized information should be included in articles regarding introductory material. This will help make Wikipedia a reference free of fringe-science cruft. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would you defer to an astronomy book to decide whether the Wolf effect is significant in an article on Redshift (described in the very first sentences as a phenomenon in physics and astronomy), when turning to a textbook on Optics shows that it is well-known and described? Astronomers don't "own" redshift, even if you think "we need to eliminate geometrical and physical optics"[20]. I also pointed out in the Redshift discussion page that there are astronomy books that discuss the Wolf effect too,[21][22][23][24](page 136);[25](pp103) --Iantresman 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So here's the beauty of Art's proposal: Ian's complaining is exposed for the POV-pushing it is. Note that Ian has not found a standard introductory astronomy or physics text book which defines the Wolf Effect as an alternative redshift mechanism. QED. The fact that these books that Ian cites are not standard introductory texts but rather are either argumentative books about nonstandard cosmologies or are texts devoted to other goals means that we need not, indeed SHOULD NOT, include citations from them on pages that are on standard introductory subjects. Standard introductory articles should summarize the standard introductions given in standard introductory textbooks. We can discuss the other interations of subjects on other pages. For example, we can discuss them on the page devoted to the Wolf Effect. That's the way Wikipedia should operate. --ScienceApologist 23:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Try a standard textbook on optics, Handbook of Optics by Michael Bass (Optical Society of America) Vol I., 4:24-25. --Iantresman 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus about administrative actions

12) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Controversial actions like blocking a logged in user with many good edits should not usually be done without prior discussion and consensus among the community. See WP:CON and WP:BLOCK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is it Wikipolicy to allow administrators to threaten a block when an editor refuses to agree with him?

Tommy Mandel 05:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. On wiki discussion to building consensus prior to blocking an important concept. --FloNight 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would worry about this. Mistakes are sometimes made, admittedly, but I don't like the idea that established users are "untouchable" by individual admins. Metamagician3000 03:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the blocking policy supports this proposal. Of course admins can block if the need for admin action is clear, but then it would not be a controversial block, right. My point is to usually discuss first if you are blocking an editor that makes many good edits. Not to block first then ask for a review of your admin action. If your block is against community consensus the damage is already done to the user and yourself. FloNight 06:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] You're correct.

I think this is peripheral to the case, as I don't think this case should be about an honest mistake made by Shell - a relatively small issue in the scheme of difficult issues that the case raises. Also, although I've made a lot of comments supportive of ScienceApologist, he has erred, IMHO, in wanting to introduce an overly debunking tone and balance into the Eric Lerner article and being quite aggressive about it. Shell's response to this was not entirely unreasonable, and I think any criticism of it should be very mild indeed. I'd prefer that arbcom either not criticise Shell at all or put it down to possible excessive zeal.

Although you are correct, there is another side to it. I'm still concerned that the (good) practice you describe will lead to difficulty in imposing even justified blocks. It is one thing that we should consult before making potentially controversial blocks; perhaps we should all accept that and be more conscientious about it in future. But it is another thing that some admins may then, in the resulting discussion, oppose such blocks because, in effect, they want to give a "free pass" to well-established users. All discussion should take place against the background that there are no untouchable users or free passes to incivility and personal attacks. This case is not an appropriate forum to re-agitate that particular issue (which was prominent in the Giano debacle), so I just signal that I, for one, continue to be concerned about it. Metamagician3000 02:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Soon after Shell responded on this page to my proposals, I emailed Shell my thoughts on the block and do not intend to analyze it in more detail in this forum. I agree that it is not a primary issue here. And not identical to Giano case. IMO though that Shell was added as a party to the case to bolster one side of the case. (I could be wrong, unfortunately that happens :-) Shell decided to leave a statement and evidence. Where it goes next is out of the parties hands and up to the arbitrators. FloNight 03:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, the more I look at this case the more I can't figure out why I got added here. About the best I can say is that in one particular circumstance, both sides behaved badly. I pity the ArbCom having to wade through the rest of this muck. Shell ^babelfish 11:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus about articles

13) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Discussions about articles primarily occur on the talk page of articles. Some ways to build consensus through discussion include consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. See WP:CON

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Discussion is key to building consensus. Wikipedia policy lays out specific methods to resolve disagreements about content. FloNight 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Guy 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight to be clarified

14) Since disagreement among editors over Undue weight may be contentious, and partly subjective, more objective criteria should be considered. For example, (a) Jimbo Wales' post of Sept 2003 is significantly different from the paraphrased version. (b) "Undue" is not the opposite of "proportional"[26] (c) Borderline (in)significant minority should tend to exclude? include? --Iantresman 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The topic is worthy, viewpoints held by tiny minorities should generally receive minimal coverage, while viewpoints held by substantial minorities should generally receive substantial coverage, and outright crank theories, no coverage at all. Fred Bauder 22:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not a principle. JBKramer 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed - I really don't think this belongs here. Guettarda 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes undue weight is an editorial judgment to be formed on a case by case basis; quantify "significant" - in relation to what? You cannot legislate this. Guy 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the undue weight guideline as being fine as-is. At the least, this is always going to be mostly subjective, with its aplpication in any given situation being best decided by a consensus of the editors. Any elaboration on it should be in terms of factors to be considered, as any strict rules will only create endless debate and demands for exceptions. --EMS | Talk 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV to be clarified

15) Some editors feel that the (mainstream) scientific point of view, is THE "neutral point of view", which I feel misunderstands NPOV. The neutral point of view surely describes verifiable facts from reliable sources, as being either scientific, mainstream, minority, pseudoscientic, philosophical, religious (etc) points of view. --Iantresman 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Even Earth has its link to flat earth. Fred Bauder 21:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It states that it is dismissed as ludicrous. The problem here seems to me not to be inclusion per se but whether the theory should be asserted as having some kind of parity of validity, or whether we should briefly acknowledge its existence and comment that it is generally dismissed. In a high level article any minority view may be linked but the article must reflect the scientific consensus where one exists. The question of inclusion is an editorial call and should be made on a case by case basis, absent some magic formula to establish the relative significance of mainstream and dissenting views, but as a principle it may be worth re-stating that treatment of a subject should reflect external consensus. As I understand it, this is accepted under other heads in this workshop. Guy 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Poorly phrased. JBKramer 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't see how this is a principle either. Guettarda 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. --EngineerScotty 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not helpful to simply take it to another talk page. NPOV is the problem here IMO. The problem here is that NPOV tells us to edit without introducing our own bias into the copy. Theer should be no Wikiangle in other words. But there are ways of circumventing this, and that is what the big bang group does. They find ways of demeaning plasma cosmology at every turn. It is obvious, read the article and you will come to the conclusion that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience and discredited by all of science. Clearly policy states that the reader is left to make that decision. Tommy Mandel 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The reader should not be left to make that decision. After reading a Wikipedia article, it should be entirely clear what the prevailing opinions are on the subject, and how science, as the collective form of the word scientist, feels on the matter.--Prosfilaes 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an illusion. Often the scientific community feelings about matters are divided, simply because science is not a cult in which mind control is practiced. Every scientists is entitled to his/her own opinon, and the only thing that matters (or should matter!)is what the merits as well as problems are of certain theories. According to WP:NPOV, merits and problems should be fairly described, and that happens to be the scientific approach as well. Harald88 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not have the information to judge the merits and problems of certain theories; the most useful thing to me is the opinion of experts. Often the scientific community is divided on an issue, but in many cases, there is clearly a dominant, frequently massively dominant, theory, and even if there isn't, there's usually prominent theories that are considered probable and theories that most scientists consider wrong or improbable. That's useful and important information, and information that is demanded by WP:NPOV: "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular."--Prosfilaes 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Put like that, I fully agree. As long as an article doesn't insinuate that the most popular opinion must be "right" because of its popularity and, consequently, other opinions "wrong" simply because they are less popular. Harald88 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that WP:NPOV is clear enough, giving sufficient guidance to the arbitration committee to examine the evidence of violation of that policy. Harald88 07:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way is reflecting the consensus view among informed professionals not neutral? This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not the place to fix the fact that the scientific community largely dismisses a particular theory. Guy 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

16) Per WP:DE, users who edit the encyclopedia disruptively may suffer sanctions up to and including banning. While an ArbCom ruling is not necessary per WP:DE; the ArbCom is entitled to enforce this guideline.

17) ArbCom endorses the guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and the process of community-based management of content disputes, including community-based article restrictions, while retaining the role of ArbCom as the final arbiter in such cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, provided attention is paid to the definition of disruptive editing. Obvious cases of serious disruption should not require Arbitration Committee action. Fred Bauder 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is only recently a formally-accepted guideline; and so its application to this case might be ex post facto. However, many admins involved in the formulation of this policy expressed the opinion that it was a restatement of existing policy in one place; and one of the arbitrators was involved in the development of WP:DE. --EngineerScotty 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can put up a guideline. A guideline isn't policy and thus it is unallowable to "enforce" it. Harald88 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You might go re-read WP:POLICY. Guidelines frequently document community practice. One common community practice is the blocking of disruptive editors. --EngineerScotty 16:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; Done. It's indeed not clear-cut. However, the essence of my statement is correct, as guidelines indeed describe common practice which in itself isn't law. Policy can be enforced; in contrast, common practice isn't something that can be enforced, but it just happens. Guidelines are not for nothing called guidelines. They should be "applied in most cases" [27]. Harald88 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Added the scond item; this should have the effect of changing the dynamic to the point where a problematic or tendentious editor is restricted early from disruptive behaviour, with the right of appeal to ArbCom if they have a good case, instead of the present system where the problem does not stop until after ArbCom has ruled. Guy 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Single stream linking

17) Minority opinions and fringe theories may be excluded from articles that cover general subjects related to the pages per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Links between general articles and minority subjects may adopt the single stream model where the minority subject links to the general article but not vice-versa.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As phrased, this seems to be a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me to remedy the insistence that Ian Tresman makes that if articles link in one direction they should link in the other direction. --ScienceApologist 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They need not Fred Bauder 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Single stream linking is already in place at Wikipedia. For example, time cube links to time but the converse is not true. This isn't to say that this principle should always be used (there are obvious cases when two-stream linking is perfectly acceptable and required), but I would like it to be acknowledged that single-stream linking has its place in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 12:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fringe science has been tossed around so much that it has become easy to believe that plasma cosmology really is fringe science. Keep in mind that it is the opponents, Wikipedioa editors who are stating their POV, that are claiming Plasma cosmology is a fringe science. This is not NPOV. [this unsigned comment by ?? (- not by Harald88)]

The concept of fringe science is an NPOV one; a science is a fringe science if and only if it is accepted as true by a small minority of scientists in its field.--Prosfilaes 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the proposal of linking instead of elaborating. However, that is in practice not what ScienceApostle seems to propose: Instead he seems to propose that minority opinions both advertise and link to the mainstream alternative, while the mainstream POV remains completely silent about the minority POV. If a minority POV is notable enough to have its own article space in Wikipedia, it makes sense that it is also notable enough to be mentioned in a general article. Thus such a generalized, complete suppression of minority views in general articles would definitely lead to large-scale infringements of WP:NPOV.

Simple linking of small minority views without any other mention in the general article would IMO be a good solution. If the links are too many, there could even be a link to a sub page of links to related articles. Cross references form one of the merits of an encyclopedia. Harald88 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If the spirit of this is that one-way referencing is allowable, and two-way referencing is not compulsory, I agree with it. No one should be able to argue that because a reference has gone in one direction (from "fringe" article to "main" article) that there must also be a reference in the other direction. The fringe articles should fairly report the theories concerned, but it is not Wikipedia's aim, as a reference work, to be directing readers to them. We should be making clear to our readers just what is the current state of scientific theory (provisionally) accepted by the consensus of expert opinion. Having good articles on some or all alternative theories is very much a secondary consideration. Metamagician3000 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case I would propose the following revised wording: If a majority view is discussed in the article on a minority view, a reciprocal link may not be necessary. This is an editorial judgment to be made on a case-by-case basis. Guy 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Research which is only self-published is original research

18) For a novel self-published idea or theory to not qualify as original research, it should either be uncontroversial or be demonstrably vetted by a reliable source independent of the author; other than ideas which are explicify qualified as opinion. Self-publication is not a loophole to avoid WP:NOR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Experts as well as cranks may self-publish. I would say that favorable notice of the publication in scientific journals would over the "handicap" as would an established reputation. Fred Bauder 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admittedly, this pushes the envelope. However, the original purpose behind WP:NOR, IIRC, was to keep fringe theories from being advanced as fact (or as mainstream thought)--authors who publish original research in a vanity press or on a personal website don't automatically get to evade WP:NOR. WP:NOR requires publication in a reliable source; self-published works do not qualify. This intendes to reaffirm the principle that self-publication is not a WP:RS, and that self-published research is original research, if not vetted independently. The "uncontroversial" exception, which clearly doesn't apply in this case, is intended to prevent this principle (if adapted) from being used as a firehose on the myriad pop culture, fandom, and other assorted "cruft" which often uses self-published secondary sources, but which are not disputed by those familiar with the subject. --EngineerScotty 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, added "self-published" to the principle above. --EngineerScotty 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See, they talk as if it is taken for granted that plasma cosmology is fringe science. Tommy Mandel 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is "they"? I'm not a party named in the complaint, and nowhere in the above is any of the subjects of issue here equated with "fringe science"; I was speaking in the abstract when I referred to the history of the WP:NOR policy. In the early days of Wikipedia; it wasn't uncommon for people with rather interesting theories to try and publish them as fact. We're not talking about things like plasma cosmology which have more than a few supporters; we're talking about things that were supported by one person--who developed the theory, often in his head, and then tried to publish it on Wikipedia. WP:NOR was largely intended to shut this down. I advance this as a general principle. If this principle applies--or doesn't apply--to plasma cosmology, etc., then so be it. --EngineerScotty 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is already accepted WP:NOR policy. Thus the subject is superfluous. Harald88 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. Metamagician3000 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This principle would be DISASTROUS for a number of fields. It's a great principle for science. It's a terrible principle elsewhere. Phil Sandifer 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Which fields? As people have been saying, it's policy under WP:NOR, and while most of us don't stress too much about it in articles about Pokemon, more serious subjects really need non-self published cites for reliablity, and fortunately, there's ten thousand academic journals and several hundred university presses ready to publish anything of academic content, and quite a few non-academic presses find you actually make money from publishing books on all sorts of subjects. I don't see anything Wikipedia worthy where this would be a great issue.--Prosfilaes 07:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is reasonable. Self-published research which is mentioned and covered elsewhere comes out from under this principle, which is what is wanted. It is to be expected that significant self-published works will garner immediate attention elsewhere, as befits a significant work. --EMS | Talk 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Terms like pseudoscience, quackery, suppression, etc. are inappropriate in some contexts

19) Terms like "pseudoscience", "quackery", "crackpottery", and others (along with noun forms like "pseudoscientist" or "quack") are needlessly pejorative and add fuel to the fire. They are acceptable when quoting a reliable source; e.g. an opinion from medical authorities that homeopathy is quackery. However, their use to denigrate theories, ideas, or persons in discussions, when not backed up by a reliable source, is frequently incivil, as these terms carry connotations of misconduct, incompetence, mental illness, eccentricity, and/or deceit; none of which are not necessary considerations for whether a theory has merit for publication in Wikipedia. Accordingly, the preferred term for articles/subjects such as those considered by this RFA is fringe theory; which only notes the level of acceptance a theory has among mainstream scholars and professionals in the relevant field, and does not cast aspersions on a theory's advocates.

Likewise, accusations among proponents of fringe theories that mainstream science is conspiring to suppress their work, are seldom based on any firm evidence of such misconduct, and should also be avoided--particulrly when referring to Wikipedia editors.

These terms may be used in conjunction with theories and or persons when reliable sources make such claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We need to be straight with our readers. If there is significant opinion that something is bogus our readers need to have that information. Fred Bauder 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Theory is also problematic: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory --ScienceApologist 19:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Far too much namecalling in these sorts of debate. The only issue that needs to be considered is how well a theory is referenced in indepenent reliable sources. The motives of a theory's advocates or opponents--here on Wikipedia, and outside--is irrelevant. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA need to be observed; this is offered as an example of what should be avoided. As we need to have a way of referring to non-mainstream theories, fringe theories is proposed as a less-pejorative alternative to pseudoscience and other terms. --EngineerScotty 18:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Too broad. Thatcher131 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And too much of a content decision. Not the ArbCom's job. JoshuaZ 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, does NPOV allow such descriptions? Let alone publish them? And isn't this article about plasma cosmology and not about big bang?Tommy Mandel 04:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] Too broad. However, it is true that the continual use of such terms on talk pages to belittle the proposals of other editors can be uncivil and can tend towards disruption of calm, reasonable debate. Metamagician3000 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Content issue. In some contexts they are appropriate, where correctly sourced, in other cases not. ArbCom is unlikely to rule in specific cases. Guy 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This should be made part of the WP:CIVIL guideline, and violations be grounds for listing on WP:PAIN. --EMS | Talk 00:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology to be avoided

18a) Terms like "pseudoscience", "quack science" and others, when applied to scientific topics, may be common in popular culture but have perjorative connotations and should be avoided in articles (unless used in a direct quotation) and on talk pages (needlessly upsetting to some editors). Use of these or similar terms ("crackpot", "pseudoscientist") to refer to individuals is inappropriate and violates the spirit of biographies of living persons, if not the letter, and should likewise be avoided. The application of such terms to fellow editors, especially to disparage their edits or opinions, is uncivil and a violation of no personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If there is reliable sourced information, it should be shared with our readers. Fred Bauder 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, and I assume WP:WEASEL is similar, listing other words and phrases to be avoided. --Iantresman 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV applies to the thought process as well, right? Remember that it is the slant that NPOV does not allow. "Fringe" is a slanted word.

Because in the Plasma cosmology page, it is the big bang that is the fringe theory, wouldn't you say? Tommy Mandel 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No name calling. However, a hard ban is unlikely to accepted (except toward other editors), neither will the arbitrators impose a preferred wording (or so I predict). Thatcher131 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support that. I advanced "fringe" as a safe harbor--we have WP:FRINGE--but if that is beyond the scope of the arbcom's ruling, so be it. --EngineerScotty 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A further thought--should we put back the language concerning accusations of suppression? WP:AGF and all that. --EngineerScotty 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Like many of the discussed proposals this is essentially a content matter; there is no reason the ArbCom should be addressing this. JoshuaZ 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding articles; you've a point. Regarding comments made about other editors, that seems to be within the ArbCom's jurisdiction. BTW, this shouldn't be construed to give license to some of the nasty things that advocates of fringe science have been known to say. --EngineerScotty 00:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred: obviously, but that can be done while avoiding (as much as is practical) needlessly disparaging language. Thatcher131 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also support this. We need to make it clear to those advancing novel positions that those positions are unacceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and must have the right to do so. However, the criticism must be limited to the novel positions, and not aimed at the person advancing them. (Note that many such people see an attack on their position as an attack on themself, but that should not give anyone lisence to engage in an actual personal attack.) --EMS | Talk 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition of pseudoscience

19) {text of proposed principle} A field, practice, or body of knowledge is reasonably called pseudoscience or pseudoscientific when (1) it has presented itself as scientific (i.e., as empirically and experimentally verifiable); and (2) it fails to meet the accepted norms of scientific research, most importantly the use of scientific method. Characterization of a field as pseudoscience must be defended by vierifiable sources that demonstrate the lack of use of scientific method.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed. This is the definiton given in the Wiki article on pseudoscience. We need to stop allowing this word, which does have a meaning, form being slung aroudn as an insult or as a way to substitute for real debate.Elerner 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a ploy employed here by pseudoscientists to discredit their opponents. Tommy Mandel 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It may be useful to make a distinction between "fringe science" and "pseudoscience." (To wit: Astrology could fairly be called a pseudoscience, but intrinsic redshift should be termed fringe science because, while not widely accepted, it is studied using the scientific method.) I don't think the arbitrators are going to touch this sort of content proposal. However, it seems like a useful subject for an essay, for example Wikipedia:Fringe and pseudoscience. If both sides got together to work on such an essay, focusing on terminology to start with, it might help you establish common ground to move forward. Thatcher131 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a proposal at User:MichaelMaggs/Minority science and pseudoscience. --MichaelMaggs 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think this RFAr isn't about Pseudoscience in itself. Neither the article, nor the category. And not all "minority view" articles are in the categoyr or should be there. So, this suggestion seems out of scope. --Pjacobi 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By definition, minority scientific views are scientific views, and I hope that I made that clear in my introduction to the Arbitration case. --Iantresman 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of pseudoscience is subject of a Wikipedia article in which it's already appropriately described - any disagreement should be discussed on its talk page and not here. Harald88 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I need to think about this, but I find the discussion at User:MichaelMaggs/Minority science and pseudoscience very useful and suggest that others give thought to it. Metamagician3000 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We should be clear that this case is about the handling of articles where there is a mainstream position widely accepted by the relevant scientific community and also one or more minority positions that are not really pseudoscience, in that they are the products of genuine scientific investigation and theorising, but may correctly be described as fringe science, as rejected by the mainstream, or whatever. The title of this case, "pseudoscience", is therefore somewhat misleading. There may be issues about how Wikipedia should handle pseudoscience, or about the scope of that concept, or whether it is itself just one thing (do astrology and Creation Science actually belong in the same category, for example?), but those questions don't arise in this case. Elerner is correct that it is unhelpful to refer to minority or fringe science "pseudoscience" in debates that take place on talk pages and elsewhere. That practice can be done in a way that is provocative and uncivil, and it should be deprecated. Metamagician3000 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment, responsibility and policy

20) We wait until the Arbitrators assess the evidence, and then depending on the nature and severity of any infringements of policy, it is considered whether either (a) Indviduals (including myself) need to take some responsibiltiy (b) Policy requires clairfication to prevent further infringements. --Iantresman 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

In many cases the Arbitration Committee merely attempts to clarify policy, assuming that users proceeded in good faith without fully understanding policy. It may be assumed that after clarification all users will conform to our interpretation. Fred Bauder 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not a remedy. JBKramer 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The purpose of the Workshop is to help with the analysis of the evidence, which includes proposing remedies. And, as JBK pointed out, this isn't a remedy - would the clerk consider moving this to Talk? Guettarda 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a remedy. Moved to principles. Thatcher131 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream experts

21) Input from wikipedians who are mainstream experts is absolutely essential if Wikipedia is to be a reliable resource.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, and evaluation also. Fred Bauder 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Submitted by ScienceApologist 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Specialists in minority scientific fields are equally valuable --Iantresman 22:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Equally valuable as a Wikipedian, not equally valuable as a means to approach a useful and reliable encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to OO: No, "mainstream" is absolutely essential to the point this principle is trying to illustrate. It is vital that the expert be mainstream because otherwise we'll end up with an encyclopedia that isn't useful for mainstream research. Note also that Eric Lerner doesn't have a graduate degree. --ScienceApologist 18:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would suggest modifying this to say "Input from..." - their presence alone doesn't do much good if they don't spend much time on their speciality. Guettarda 18:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a finding of fact. Moved to principles. Thatcher131 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself to be rather well informed about most mainstream opinions as well as about certain fringe opinions. I'd say that input of experts of all relevant POV's is essential for Wikipedia to be a reliable (as well as neutral) source. Harald88 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the modified version. This can be lost sight of, so I commend it to the arbcom. Metamagician3000 03:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remove "mainstream". It is not clear what that means, and it will always be a major source of conflict. Case in point, is Eric Lerner a mainstream expert in physics? I would have to say he is certainly an expert, with a physics PhD and a number of papers published in mainstream journals. Mainstream? Well, you would have to argue either something was wrong with his PhD or the journals he publishes in... to argue that he is not mainstream because of his views would be absurd. Somewhow I suspect the proposer of this did not have him in mind. Unless "mainstream" is removed, I disagree with the proposal. ObsidianOrder 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a sourced significant view violates WP:NPOV policy

1) WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia pages represent significant views fairly and without bias. Accordingly, deleting a sourced significant view from a page without replacing it with an equivalent is a violation of Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Indeed, as NPOV Undue weight suggests that only "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" may not be included in an article at all.

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disputed; there is a logical disonnect between the two clauses of the sentence, assuming as it does that any coverage of a significant view may ot be removed even if there is a consensus that the coverage is excessive or the view is not sufficiently significant in relation to the primary subject. This is an editorial judgment to be made on a case by case basis, there is no objective definition of significant, no reference to the relative significance, and no way of judging in the abstract how much coverage a particular view should receive in an article on the mainstream subject. For example, creationism is undoubtedly a significant view, but not in relation to the global scientific consensus behind evolution. This is too much like an attempt to legislate the inclusion in articles of substantial coverage of every minor viewpoint which has received more than a tiny amount of notice. Guy 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, how can an interdiction to completely delete a significant view legislate the inclusion of substantive coverage of such a view, especially when one takes care that it is fairly (and thus not overly) represented? Harald88 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the formula for deciding what constitutes significant, and how significant, in relation to what level of coverage of the subject as a whole, and the proper amount of text to be included as a result? It's an editorial judgment to be formed on a case-by-case basis. To give an invented example: let us say that a small but significant body of people believe that the earth is flat. This is, therefore, a significant view. But what amount of coverage to we give it in the article on earth? At what point do we decide that it's significant enough, and should be mentioned in a single sentence? In See Also? In a paragraph of its own? In the lead? You cannot legislate on these things in general, and as content issues ArbCom is unlikely to legislate on them in the specific. The most you can say is that it may under some circumstances be a violation of NPOV, just as in others its inclusion may be a violation of NPOV. Guy 18:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I start from an assumption that it is our duty to represent significant views about the subject matter of a page fairly and without bias. Under that duty, it is just my strongly-held opinion, that no consensus of Wikipedia editors should be able to delete a statement of a significant view about the subject matter of the page without leaving behind on that page an equivalently clear statement of that significant view. We understand that some views will be not be significant for the subject matter of some pages, and the representation should be in proportion to the significance. Furthermore, our duty is not to represent in any page the insignificant views about the subject matter of a page. And evidently the views of creationism that you mention are insignificant on any page where the page is discussing only the falsifiable hypotheses and supporting empirical data on evolution--because everything about creationism is irrelevant to falsifiable hypotheses and empirical data. So a fair and unbiased representation of creationism should be in a separate page on--well, let's call it--creationism. And perhaps it would be fair and unbiased to talk about on a page separate from both creationism and evolution the battle between creationism versus evolution that some people perceive. In all pages, it would violate NPOV for any consensus of editors to delete any statement of a significant view about the subject matter of the page without leaving behind on that page an equivalently clear statement of that significant view. This case illustrates that the decision over what is "significant," what is "fair," and what is "biased" must be somehow put in the "hands" of the Wikipedia-wide community--because from the data in this case, the localized consensus faction of well-meaning expert editors does not respect NPOV. --Rednblu 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy that. Your every posting here suggests that when you say without bias, you characterise the mainstream view as bias. Guy 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sufficient criteria for a view to be "significant"

2) A view is "significant" for WP:NPOV policy if all of the following are true of the view: 1) there has been in the last two years a 2) publication of the view in an article (A) abstracted by Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), Citation Indexes / Web of Science, or JSTOR where the article (A) references at least 3) ten years of prior articles arguing for or against the view. The above three criteria are sufficient to make a view "significant"--but are not necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Way too strict. It is enough if some prominent fool publicly advocates it, or there is substantial news coverage, or any number of other events which make it notable. Fred Bauder 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Heck no, sorry. The criteria for inclusion is WP:V and WP:RS, the latter telling us that for the Physical sciences, to "Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications"[28]. This makes sense, as a peer reviewed paper will have already been noted as significant enough for publication by other experts in the field. I think your criteria may enable us to distinguish mainstream scientfic views from minority scientfic views, but nothing more. --Iantresman 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What mainstream or minority scientific view published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication would not be abstracted by one of the three indexing services: 1) Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), 2) Citation Indexes / Web of Science, or 3) JSTOR? I am just looking for a concrete definition of what "significant" means in WP:NPOV. Can you give me either a false positive or a false negative to the above "Sufficient criteria for a view to be significant"? Thanks. --Rednblu 11:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposed criteria discriminate against anything which has had no recent publications. There are some fields in which it may be hard to meet this criterion. Rednblu, if I may suggest an alternative, count up the total number of authors in articles on the topic (regardless of date) in one of the abstract services you mention. If the number is on the order of 20 (50? pick your number), the view is/was significant (although today it may be old/superceded/historical interest only). I would consider this as a rule of thumb and not a hard limit; for example a single Nobel winner who espouses a view is probably enough to make it significant. Let me also second Iantresman's note that the only solid criteria is WP:V and WP:RS. ObsidianOrder 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing from mainstream POV does not by itself violate NPOV

If a scientific field has a mainstream view, editing an article about a non-mainstream theory in that field from the mainstream point of view cannot by itself be a violation of NPOV. Cardamon 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not only is it not a violation; it is required. Fred Bauder 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It depends. Any subject can be described in an NPOV style. But the deliberate removal of minority views, if they exist, violates NPOV. And vice versa. --Iantresman 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing from the mainstream POV within a separate article does not violate NPOV only if it is reporting that a mainstream view has been published in a verifiable reputable source. If the determination is made by the editor, that is, a statement of correctness without a source, the "mainstream view"is a violation of NPOV. Would I be understanding if I asserted that "there should be no Wikitalk in any article"? In other words it should be impossible to tell that there is a Wikiconclusion being presented in the article. This is bad - "A majority of mainstream science believes that..." whereas, Science News reported that most cosmologists agree with ..." this is good. Is my understanding correct?

The fact that the majority of X believes A, is not scientific evidence that A is a fact. The "mainstream view" is a belief, not proof. There are plenty of instances in history where the popular view was wrong. The great advances of science were often in direct contradiction with the mainstream view. Tommy Mandel

But only if the so called mainstream view comes from the mainstream and is not an assumption of an editorTommy Mandel Tommy Mandel 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ambiguous. If a large part of the discussion of the theory is edited from the opposing point of view (but without allowing inclusion of erroneous claims or presenting disputed claims as fact), and an appropriate part of the article is edited from the theory's own POV, in accordance with fairness and due weight, that is OK I'd say. A simple test if an approach is NPOV is to formulate it in a neutral way, as I do here. The approach should be obviously fair no matter where one adds "majority" or "minority".

Of course, editing a whole article from a single non-neutral POV is definitely in strong violation of WP:NPOV and the policy instructs: "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." Harald88 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this proposal, it would be contrary to long-standing NPOV policy. ObsidianOrder 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for this, but will put a somewhat different proposal. Metamagician3000 14:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I cautiously support this, to the extent that the article must accurately reflect the state of acceptance of the theory. As long as this is done unambiguously, and preferably in the lead, te theory can e described in neutral terms without excessive caveats. A section on mainstream reactions may also be appropriate. Guy 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Principle of Identity

1) Principle of Identity. If a subject is worthy of a dedicated article, then the article should be primarily about the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Every which way I turn, I read of a comparison of plasma cosmology and big bang together. But the subject matter of the ariticle in question is not about both of them, it is about the subject named in the title. And it follows, when NPOV, undue weight and the like are considered, the consideration is directed at the primary subject matter, and not toward an external article/subject.

Unreasonable proposal. Subjects do not exist in vacua. They are subject to context, and not necessarily mutual context. --ScienceApologist 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is very simple. As a reader of Wikipedia, I expect to read about plasma cosmology in the article plasma cosmology. Is this difficult to understand? PS, if there are interrelatinships with other systems this will come out in the explanations.Tommy Mandel 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, this is an encyclopdia, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Note that such doesn't exclude a possibly large criticism section which may indeed include the context. Harald88 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Principle of Fairness

1) If an article is a subject which in turn is significant member of a controversial relationship with another article/subject, it is fair to include a section in each of them which states criticisms/contradictions/differences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A single standard for all is easler to cope with than arbitrary standards determined by popularity.

If significance is determined by the community who evaluates the subject and we can allow for expert editors to inform us as to this consensus, then this is a fine principle. The moment people begin to combat the mainstream experts and claim that their fringe proposal is actually significant is where we will run into problems. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we can't state this as a general principle. The size of the discussion might vary from nothing at all if the competing theory is completely off the wall, to half the article if the field is dominated by an informed division of opinion. I haven't seen much evidence that we are under representing fringe theories in articles about their mainstream competitors (quite the opposite) so I see this as instruction creep at best and a weakening of our policy defences against proponents of fringe theories at worst. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Guy 19:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misleading appearance of scientific controversy

1) WP:NPOV is not intended to invite editing that suggests a greater degree of controvery than actually exists within the scientific community relevant to a body of well-established theory. Where a particular body of scientific theory is largely uncontroversial among the experts within the relevant scientific community, articles on that body of theory should not devote disproportionate space to minority theories or critiques. Nor, in such circumstances, should the impression be given that any such minority theories or critiques are currently seen within the relevant community as being genuine competitors for acceptance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sounds good Fred Bauder 21:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Bravo. --ScienceApologist 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, why is an article about plasma cosmology being evaluated in terms of a different article? I take exception to the preseumed conclusion that plasma cosmology is not a genuine competitor to the standard theory. The standard theory has not been proved, even the evidence has not been detected. Granted in an article about big bagn or cosmology, without a dounbt the big bang is the most popular. But that should not mean IMO that in the plasma cosmology article the other more popular theory should be also described.Tommy Mandel 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is very clear about this, The editor should not portray "correctness" into the article. If there is a situation where it is (however) agreed that one is correct and the other is not, then there will be verifiable reputable sources saying so, and then it is fair to quote those sources. Tommy Mandel 22:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This would reflect that Wikipedia is intended to be used in part as a scientific reference work. In scientific areas, the encyclopedia's primary aim should be to provide clear, up-to-date information about the current state of just what is widely-accepted theory. Alternative theories are relevant to this encyclopedic aim only when they genuinely have a significant degree of support within the relevant scientific community, which is therefore divided in its views. Recognising this does not preclude Wikipedia reporting on notable alternative theories in their own articles, but they should never be misleadingly discussed as if they have a significant level of expert support or as if they are currently considered within the relevant scientific community to be serious competitors for acceptance. My contention is that, in such circumstances, the spirit and purpose of WP:NPOV was never to treat widely-accepted and minority scientific theories as on a par (analogous to rival political ideologies or religious worldviews), or requiring symmetry of treatment. I invite the arb com to grapple one way or another with this contention, as the different "sides" to the dispute clearly have different attitudes to whether it, or something like it, is correct. Future disputation will continue as long as each "side" is able to insist on its position on this issue. Metamagician3000 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support this as a principle. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, intended to reflect the current state of knowledge in the outside world. If that state of knoledge is wrong, it is not our job to fix it. Fix it outside first, then we can document the new world view. Guy 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Support - it's a rather good summary of WP:NPOV. Harald88 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Misleading portrayal of plasma as fringe science

Plasma cosmology is often regarded as a "fringe" science by commentators of the Standard theory. But "fringe" is not an accurate protrayal of what is happening, and may even be misleading. The Standard theory is based on Einstein's General Relativity. Thus the considerations of General Relativity are the considerations of the big bang theory. However, General Relativity is gravity based. Indeed, everything in the Standard theory is explained by means of gravity.

Plasma Cosmology has been championed here by its editors as a fringe science, merely a discredited alternative theory to the Standard theory. But that is not the case according to the literature. In J.N.N. Sullivan's book, (Sullivan was touted as one of the four or five greatest interpreters of physics in his time,) The Limitations of Science" Sullivan writes about Einstein's theory.

These examples suffice to show that the experimental evidence for Einstein's theory is very good indeed. Another consideration, which appeals greatly to mathematicians, is the extraordinary inner harmony and elegance of the theory. The results follow so naturally from the premises, and the premises are in themselves so acceptable, that it seems most unlikely that so coherant an argument could be wrong. The later developments of the theory, however, are not so convincing. The ground covered by Einstein's generalized theory is very considerable. It does not. however, account for everything. In particular, electric and magnetic phenomena are left outside his scheme."

Plasma effects are not fringe science, they are just left out of it (the standard theory).

The big bang is a theory which holds as its world view the forces of gravity. But the forces of gravity do not account for much of what we observe. We observe great outpourings of matter/energy from the center of galaxies, but gravity would have the matter moving inward toward the center. That is how gravity formed the glaxies to start with according to the standard theory. So a mechanism was needed to create these outflows, and the one idea they came up with was the accretion disk of a black hole that "reflects" my word, excess incoming matter back out. It can do this even when there is no incoming matter.

It is taught in the classroom by Proga that the black hole is something they came up with, a hypothesis. But by the time it gets down to the Daily News, the speculation becomes hypothesis becomes theory, becomes only theory, becomes fact, becomes truth.

What part does Wikipedia play in this representation?

Comments by others

"Plasma effects are not fringe science, they are just left out of it. " In other words, plasma cosmology is not science. Guy 00:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, out of General Relativity, and the big bang theory. This does not mean they do not exist. The question is to what degree does plasma affect the Universe. Tommy Mandel

Both of you, are all wet.  :)

A "fringe science" is one which isn't accepted by mainstream scientific opinion. Fringe doesn't mean pseudoscience; it simply means an idea which hasn't been accepted by those that study the issue. Maybe "minority science" is a better term, but I don't think we should continually coin neologisms just to avoid hurt feelings, and fringe science is a term which is established.

Plasma cosmology is a fringe science. I don't know enough about it to say whether or not it is pseudoscience, so I won't. But it is a fringe science.

However, to address Guy's wetness :)--attempts to redefine "science" to include only mainstream science, are equally misguided. Many fringe or minority theories are nonetheless developed by practitioners who rigorously employ the scientific method. Again, I won't evaluate plasma cosmology on this score.

In some areas, the distinction doesn't matter as much, as the only limiting factor in the advancement of a theory is the intellectual talent of its proponents. Anyone with a brain can do research in higher mathematics. A good computer helps; but the primary barrier to entry into mathematics is intellectual. Cosmology, OTOH, is largely informed by both physics and astronomy; and leading-edge research in these is constrained by the availability of such things as supercolliders and powerful telescopes. (Even without these, research in these areas is expensive). As a result, proponents of alternate theories often find themselves facing a Catch-22--without being established, they cannot get access to the resources needed to test their hypotheses (including both time on these scarce resources, and financial assistance in general in the form of grants and such); and without being able to test their hypotheses, they have little chance at being recognized as a legitimate theory. Of course, in some cases it may be the case that this is the correct outcome, and that it would be a waste of valuable resources for an observatory to schedule time for everyone with a pet theory to prove. Or, it may be the case that a viable theory is being ignored because of a lack of opportunity to prove itself. Which is the case with plasma cosmology, I do not know. What I do know is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for minority theories to get equal time; we report on the state of the field and should not be used in order to alter it.

Wikipedia should focus on mainstream thought, including mainstream science; with appropriate coverage of dissenting beliefs.

--EngineerScotty 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much dissent from that last point. The whole problem lies in what is accounted "appropriate". I think it's unlikely that ArbCom will hand down an ex cathedra ruling that plasma cosmology is officially minority, rather than fringe, science. Either way, it's a minor dissenting view, and any attempt to portray it as anything else is a fundamental violation of policy. As long as we are open about the fact that it's largely ignored by the mainstream, and ensure that everythign we do say about it is verifiable from neutral secondary sources, I am happy to see it covered. Although Tommysun's endless knocking on about how vastly important it is does occasionally tempt me to go on a rouge deletion spree :o) Guy 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems Guy, that from the very start you have been on my case. And here again. Do you revert me just because it was me who did the edit? The point to be grasped is that if plasma cosmlogy is a fringe science, there will be verifiable reputable sources saying so and it would not be a villation of NPOV to quote them. It is a violation of NPOV is the editor assumes without verificaton that PC is a fringe/minority science, and places his opinion into the article. In short, if the opinion is worth putting into the article, it will have been stated before by a reputable verifiable competant source. Tommy Mandel 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is fringe science by your own admission. It is contradicted by the supermajority support for the dominant view, which endorses big bang and expanding universe. It is fringe in that high level overviews of cosmology in external sources do not mention it, only the mainstream view. You can argue all you like, but until the theory gains more than the current small number of porponents, fringe science is an accurate characterisation. Guy 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors to respect internal and external consensus

1) Editors should respect consensus both within and outside of Wikipedia. Editors supportive of what they know to be a minority point of view should take particular care not to over-represent that point of view, and should ensure that the extent of its support is accurately documented by reference to reliable sources. Wikipedia article space is no place for advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

OK Fred Bauder 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Guy 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal involvement

1) The established principle that editors should normally refrain from directly editing articles in which they have a vested interest (by extension from the autobiography guideline and previous rulings in respect of corporate autobiography) applies to the "intellectual children" of editors. Where an editor, or a minority theory of which they are a key prinicipal exponent, is the subject of an article, then the editor should normally propose changes on Talk rather than making them directly.

2) By the same token, editors involved in an editorial dispute over interpretation of policy should go in the first instance to dispute resolution and not edit policy documents in order to support their interpretation thereof.

3) Editing policy in the furtherance of a content dispute is highly disruptive and may result in blocking or a community ban from poilicy articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Guy 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

At first sight a good idea, and similar things have been proposed before (and rejected, the guideline states for example that "you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts"). But note that "minority theory" implies double standards, removing "minority" would make it fair. The consequence would be that experts such as ScienceApologist and Elerner would not be allowed to effectively edit articles that have interest for their pet theories. That could make life calmer on Wikipedia but it also means missing out on valuable expertise. Moreover it could intitiate a witch hunt for to determine identities and other personal information of co-editors, which is against policy and can even lead to illegal activities. Thus, on second thought, a bad idea. Harald88 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We could remove the word minority. There are very few mainstream theories whose principal exponents will be editing them on Wikipedia anyway, and usually there are so many exponents of a mainstream theory that identifying any given editor as a key exponent is not that likely. Guy 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the actual case: The involvement of User:Afshar at Afshar experiment is not universally welcomed. OTOH User:Tsirel coming back and actually improving Tsirelson's bound] would be uncontroversial. And User:Lumidek's work is cum grano salis fine, if he only would restrict himself to his fields of expertise (and stop making jokes in article space). --Pjacobi 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding policy edits, I would clarify as follows: Making unilateral changes to a policy while in the midst of a dispute which that policy affects, is potentially disruptive behavior. In many cases, those watching the policy page will protest, and if the offender backs off and doesn't repeat the mistake, I wouldn't do anything. OTOH, experienced editors who ought to know better and are trying to pull a fast one, I can see blocking them if this becomes a problem.

Any user in good standing (and possibly those not in good standing, though User:Terryeo is frequently ignored and/or told to buzz off when he comments on policy debates) is certainly entitled to comment or ask questions on a policy/guideline's talk page, including proposing changes. Feedback of "this policy was applied in this way, which I think bad" is useful, even if the response comes back "that's how it's intended to work, so tough".

--EngineerScotty 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, feedback is fine, but directly editing policy to support your agenda (and then quoting it, in some cases!) is highly disruptive, and I think we need to be very firm on that. This applies to any side in a dispute. Guy 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd change 3) then to:

3) Unilateral attempts to change policy documents without discussion and establishment of consensus on the corresponding talk page, in the furtherance of a content dispute, is highly disruptive and may result in blocking or a community ban from poilicy articles. This does not apply to attempts to amend or create new policies via the normal mechanisms as described in WP:POLICY, or requests for clarification.

--EngineerScotty 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose 1, it weould excessively restrict contributions from highly qualified editors. Support 2 and 3. ObsidianOrder 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

1) Category:Pseudoscience as used on Wikipedia, "comprises articles pertaining to pseudoscience, to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects, or subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another. Some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community."

Analyzing: It can be used if critics have so characterized the field of endeavor or body of knowledge. It may be used with respect to a person, "subject", if a major part of their work is faulted as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice.

A category is not a conclusion but a recognition that critics have so characterized the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Probably not relevant to this Arbitration case, but I think there are problems. Which critics? Peer reviewed? William F. Williams (ed.) in his book Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience lists 2000 entries... but doesn't say why each entry is included. Cosmology was once deemed pseudoscience by Stephen Hawking,[29][30][31] and astronomer Herbert Dingle,[32] and others,[33], but unless we can describe this in each articles concerned, the category tag is not going to satisfy the curiosity of the reader. --Iantresman 16:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That which has previously been so described, but where the critics have changed their minds, does not really meet the definition. Guy 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Would this then mean that George W. Bush can be added to Category:War criminals, as critics have alleged such? Or does the war criminals category have a higher standard of inclusion, owing to a much higher associated level of infamy? Many consider the term "pseudoscientist" to be a slur--much like calling a provider of medicine a "quack" or a lawyer a "shyster"; it's a term which is professionally derogatory and might be libellous. At a minimum, any discussion of this WRT living persons, I think, must meet WP:LIVING; I would amend the above to explicitly say so. --EngineerScotty 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That question is very similar to whether psychoanalysis may be properly added to Category:Pseudoscience. It may properly be added, but is not likely to remain without significant resistance from the advocates of psychoanalysis or George W. Bush. That inclusion in a category is not a definitive conclusion is not always understood. And as pointed out it may violate the sober tone required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.Fred Bauder 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Overall, Fred, I would say that this is a good enough working definition, always presuming that reliable enough sources can be found. I am assuming here that, where it is contentious, both the allegation and its dispute by the theory's proponents would be covered within the article. Guy 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Wikipedia policy problems

1) On any TalkPage or WorkshopPage in Wikipedia under the policy of WP:TALK and WP:DE, it is appropriate to discuss the Wikipedia policy "problems" and possible "solutions" that arise from editing as long as that policy discussion stays within discrete sections of the TalkPage or WorkshopPage and does not disrupt other sections.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More or less, but one can always go too far. Fred Bauder 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rednblu 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious encyclopedias and science

1) Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True, but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair treatment of all significant points of view. That may include viewpoints considered marginal by the mainstream scientific community. That view should be disclosed to the reader but should not exclude the material from the encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But significance plays in here - and in scientific topics, absent extraordinary circumstances (Creationism is the only thing that springs to mind here as sufficiently extraordinary), a complete lack of scientific consideration of a viewpoint renders the viewpoint insignificant to a scientific topic. So creationism is considered in evolution, but mentioned in punctuated equilibrium only in absolute passing. Put another way, NPOV is never - not for science, and not for any other topic - an excuse to cram in obscure POVs so that they can all get a platform. It was never meant for that. It was meant as a guideline for how to consider substantive views on a topic. The issue is not that NPOV has an exception for pseudoscience. It's that pseudoscience is not treated as a significant aspect of science by any serious reference work. Phil Sandifer 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Other encyclopedias typically describe only the mainstream POV. Wikipedia is different in that since it is not paper-based, it has plenty of space to described signficant minority POVs too. Unless you pre-suppose that minority POVs are somehow wrong, this does not subvert Wikipedia but enriches it. And as long as the mainstream POV is described as the mainstream view, and minority POVs are described as such, this is perfectly consistent with NPOV. --Iantresman 00:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No - other encyclopedias decline to describe views that are not respected. That is different from only describing the mainstream POV. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

More to the point--there may be multiple points of view which are contested, but all of which have significant support (for example, the interminable debate about programming paradigms within computer science). Or there may be a point of view which is now discredited, but has historical importance, such as the terracentric view of the universie. Or there may be a point of view which is not respected within science, but has significant support from outside science, such as creationism. But Britannica and such generally don't bother to describe at all theories that don't meet any of these critera. Britannica doesn't cover plasma cosmology.

If you are advancing this as a principle, Phil, I'd be clear that this only applies to science (and possibly other academic topics). I wouldn't want to see this applied to pop culture. --EngineerScotty 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - clearly we cover things Britannica doesn't. However, that is not equivalent to "Our coverage of topic X should be radically different from Britannica's." We aim to be better than Britannica. Making a decision that will make us transparently less respectable than Britannica is a misuse of policies. Also, it should be noted, this principle in no way precludes a Plasma cosmology article that ought explain the theory and the mainstream scientific response to it. What the principle does preclude is offering an overview of respected scientific topics in a manner that is not consistent with respected thought. (Not "true" thought. Respected thought. Major difference.) Though Evolution ought mention creationism, Punctuated equilibrium should not. Phil Sandifer 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Undented] Articles on minority scientific views still appear in peer reviewed journals, demonstrating a respect that is not shared by certain Wikipedia editors (and hence this ArbCom). I also have no reliable sources indicating this perceived lack of respect of the minority scientific subjects I've been describing. But I do have sources indicating that some minority scientific subjects are respected by some scientists.[34]. I recognize that some scientists disagree with others and certain theories, but this does not imply a disrespect. --Iantresman 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly - and such respected minority views ought be included. But that's moving into specifics, not the basic principle proposed. Phil Sandifer 21:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This point illustrates my perspective and justification for my editting practices as about as well as I have seen. --ScienceApologist 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Where would one go if one were interested in the historical evolution of cosmology if Wikipedia only presented the modern view?

Clearly, the determination of majority/mainstream/accepted must cme from a verifiable reputable published source. Tommy Mandel 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we cannot describe something as mainstream unless appropriate material explicitly describes it as such? That's one thing in, say, cosmology, maybe, but another entirely for most of the rest of science. In general, any theory whose competition is sufficiently poorly considered is not going to be so described because authors will not see a point in doing so (indeed, there are arguments that doing so would be in fact harmful). To wit, no one -- no one -- says that it is "mainstream" opinion that the Earth isn't flat. Virtually no one says that constant c is "mainstream" either, because the alternatives (tired light, variable c, heterogynous brane model) have such small followings. Serpent's Choice 06:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This seems to me the heart of the matter. Fundamentally, if our NPOV policies are being used to make articles on scientific topics do anything other than the above, our NPOV policies are being subverted to the detriment of Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 23:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Experts

7) Although a perennial subject of discussion, see, for example, the rejected proposal Wikipedia:Expert editors and the brainstorming essay, Wikipedia:Expert retention, experts are accorded no special role or status on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is simply untrue. They are not accorded any special role by policy. Wikipedia, however, is more than its policy, and in practice there is a tendency and tradition of deference to experts, or at the very least serious and careful consideration of what they are saying, often not in proportion to what a "normal" Wikipedian says. I (and I suspect many other Wikipedians would agree) would not want to phrase this as policy - it would be instruction creep at best, and a nightmare at worst. But the fact that it is not suitable for policy neither means it doesn't exist nor that it should be ignored.

Furthermore, the arbcom has in the past considered a user's expertise to be worthy of a finding: [35]. The appearance of the decision is that the comparative leniency toward Connolley compared to the other edit warriors in that case was based on deference to his expert status and sympathy for his position. Phil Sandifer 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute in this case is the editing of a group of articles loosely connected to cosmology and related topics, including Big bang, Plasma cosmology, Intrinsic redshift and others. One involved party is also a leading developer and proponent of one of the topics in question, and has a biography on Wikipedia (Eric Lerner), which is also involved.

One group of editors see themselves as defending Wikipedia from POV-pushing by advocates of unscientific theories, and argues that proponents of these topics are presenting original research and distorting the facts to give their fringe theories more credence than they deserve. They furthermore argue that such theories ought not be found in Wikipedia (at least not alongside the mainstream science articles), and/or clearly tagged as pseudoscience, and failure to do so undermines Wikipedia's authority as an encyclopedia. Some have suggested that Wikipedia adapt a scientific point of view.

Proponents of unorthodox theories argue that neutral point of view requires presentation of their theories and views along side mainstream or orthodox scientific topics and accuse the other group of suppressing their views. Many argue that mainstream science is not the only epistimology which is entitled to be presented.

Some editors occupy a middle ground of sorts--Wikipedia should present notable theories and who supports them with appropriate weight per WP:NPOV, and should repel attempts to give them undue weight, but should also refrain from aggressive attempts to exclude them entirely or tag them with the pseudoscience label.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes in principle "it shouldn't matter what view the author holds" because he will not let his beliefs influence his editing. But what really happens is this, as published by Wikipedia in the article called cosmology --[[36]] ...:::"This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins with the big bang,"

Need I say more? To recap, the article titled "cosmology" states in the beginning of it

"This discipline...begins with the big bang..."

No hypothesis yet to be proved, no theory yet to be confirmed, just an absolute, no doubt, "begins with the big bang." Principles sound good, but what the editors are really up to is what matters in the end. Tommy Mandel 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue is easily cleared up. The sentence cited is not in the introductory paragraph, but in the section titled "Disciplines". The antecedent of the pronoun "this" is not cosmology in general, but only "physical cosmology". This distortion is either terminally sloppy or dishonest to the core, and I would like to offer it as evidence of Tommy Mandel pushing his POV. --Art Carlson 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote: "the article titled :cosmology" states in the beginning of it: This discipline...begins with the big bang. Oh, I see what I did, I forgot to insert Physical cosmology that discipline refers to. Sorry. My points still stands, The article states that the big bang is physical cosmology as if it were a proven accepted fact. Tommy Mandel 04:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the crux of the problem stated in very clear language. Following is a statement by an anonomous editor found on the history page of the cosmology article.

(Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

I am really at a loss for words, but I think what is really being said is perfectly clear. Is this how it works at Wikipedia?

Comment by others:

A little long, but it will give the arbitrators someplace to start. Thatcher131 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good summary to me. Harald88 20:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

2) User:Elerner is Eric Lerner, an advocate of the plasma cosmology theory, and has edited Eric Lerner and Plasma cosmology.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Accepted Fred Bauder 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Correct. ie. He is the subject of the article of the same name, Eric Lerner --Iantresman 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prop Thatcher131 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is necessary to say in the findings somewhere and is not controversial. Metamagician3000 05:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule against editing your own bio where it is to correct errors or remove potential libel. WP:BLP gives subjects quite wide latitude in this, while strongly discouraging authoring your own bio. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a criticism of Elerner editing the article, merely a statement of fact. Criticism of his editing behavior may or may not come later. Thatcher131 16:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Elerner edits disruptively

3) Elerner has edited articles disruptively, including Big Bang, Plasma cosmology, and other articles related to his research. (Edit warring: [37] [38], declaration of intent to revert [39] , disparaging other editors [40] [41], 3RR violations [42] [43]). For other evidence see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner#Evidence of disputed behavior. This behavior has continued recently at Aneutronic fusion with edit warring [44] [45], appeals to original research rather than finding sources (most of the talk page, but especially beginning here, see also [46]), and contentious editing Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Eric's justification for his reversions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just as some editors may argue that they were editing agressively to rid articles of pseudoscience, Eric may argue he was editing agressively because minority scientific views were being mispresented as pseudoscience. --Iantresman 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that I have not done anything that was not provoked by other editors continually reverting without justification and often in violation of Wiki policies. I admit I was unaware of the rule about editing my own page, but stopped as soon as I was told about it. I am baffled as to how the last example can be considered "contnetios editing", what ever that is. I said "this is not worth the time, let's end it." Not very contentious. We reached a resolution immediately after that.Elerner 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen what goes on in this article. I do not believe that we are dealing with honestly here. I still do not understand how a big bang advocate can edit plasma cosmology in such a way that it infers that the big bang theory is the only valid theory within the plasma cosmology article, and then claim he is doing a good job. It isn't that they edit here, it's that they tear the entire plasma cosmology paradigm to pieces by manipulating the evidence such that the big bang is the only correct theory, and they cite all these policy statements which allow them to do it. They cannot do it. They cannot ass a Wiki POV even if they were right. Plasma cosmology is not about the big bang it is about plasma cosmology. perhaps, as was suggested above, the big bang might deserve mention in the plasma cosmologyarticle , but not after every assertion made by plasma cosmologists. Tommy Mandel

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is never good. I'm not done with proposed findings of fact, and you are free to write your own as well. Thatcher131 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman

4) Ian Tresman has become involved with certain science-related articles on Wikipedia with the expressed intent to advance a POV promoting fringe positions in an effort to make them more visible and more mainstream. [47], [48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeidia encourages the description of minority views --Iantresman 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The fact or belief that a particular POV is underrepresented is not a justification for POV-pushing. This was an issue in the various arbitrations concerning User:Ed Poor, who justified POV pushing on the grounds that certain theories were underrepresented on Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Pushing is not acceptable. POV pushing is defined as "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view." (my emphasis). Removing a minority scientific view to leave only the one mainstream view is consequently POV pushing; include minority views, is consistent with NPOV Undue weight. --Iantresman 08:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV states simply that an article cannot have a "wikiangle" to it, an inference placed there by the editor. To say something like "It is generally agreed that ....puts a slant on the article. If this "slant" is justified, the correct way of saying the above would be "So and so believes/proves/suggests that it is generally agreed that..." Tommy Mandel 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing by User:Iantresman

4.1) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Art Carlson

5) Art Carlson has engaged in edit warring and appeals to original research at Aneutronic fusion. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence presented by Art Carlson.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nolo contendere. My behavior on Aneutronic fusion can reasonably be seen as edit warring and arguably as original research. I feel my actions were justified under the circumstances, but would apreciate a ruling on the matter. Independent of the ruling, I recognize that edit warring is always on some level a failure, and I regret that I wasn't able to find a better solution. Some guidance to a better solution for next time would be very much appreciated. --Art Carlson 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We are incredibly lucky that Dr. Carlson is not yet another loss to the disruptive practicies of people with financial/ideological motive to make Wikipedia less informative. JBKramer 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not personally had any problems with Art's editing, and find him straightforward to work with. --Iantresman 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Art appealed to original research at aneutronic fusion. No more than User:Joke137 appealed to "original research" when he pointed out that Eric Lerner was less-than adroit at evaluating general relativity implications of Friedmann models on the Talk:Plasma cosmology page (diffs coming). --ScienceApologist 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to POV pushing below...Maybe in relation to the mainstream article, but in this separate article NPOV ought to apply to the various concepts of plasma cosmology, and not to some external concept. Not saying there shouldn't be a section making that comparison. Tommy Mandel 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The evidence of edit warring is clear. The problem for the arbitrators to adjudicate is whether (from Art's point of view) a strenuous defense of science, to keep incorrect statements and POV pushing out of the encyclopedia, justifies edit warring. Thatcher131 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist edits disruptively

6) ScienceApologist edits disruptively by removing verifiable information that contradicts his POV [49], introducing original research, using personal attacks, introducing unsourced negative comments in a biography, (including statements implying that the subject lies about his credentials and other facts), and edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm using this finding, but do not yet support it. Fred Bauder 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It should be noted that quantity does not mean quality. SA is 100% materialist as described on his own page, this by itself is an outdated world view which if brought into articles would severely limit what is placed there. Not that materialism by itself is limited, but when only materialism is the view, all other views are meaningless to them. Tommy Mandel 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Prosfilaes (below) , In science, a world-view is a critical aspect of theory construction. And to be more specific about it, a materialist world view in science simply means that all theories founded with materialism as a basis would have by design limitations imposed by the materialistic viewpoint. I think you are talking about belief systems which are not a subject studied by science. Are you say9ing that some evidence should not be presented because it create bad feelings? Tommy Mandel 15:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that being a materialist (as ScienceApologitst is) is a good thing. It means that you believe things that are true and don't believe anything that isn't true. Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What? It certainly must be noted that if the above is what "being a materialist" means, no human being could pretend to be one. Thus ScienceApologist cannot be a materialist according to that definition. Harald88 08:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

proposed. See evidence by Eric Lerner, Ian Tresman, and Shell KinneyElerner 23:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't present any evidence, Eric. --ScienceApologist 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the procedure is to reference the "evidence" section, rather than put the citations in the findings of fact. If this is not the case, what is the point of having the evidence section at all? Perhaps an arbitrator can clarify. If the right thing is to put all the citations from the evidence in the finding of facts, I'll be happy to cut and paste.Elerner 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't post any in the evidence section either. --ScienceApologist 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Criticizing someone's worldview is much like criticizing someone's religion; doing so casually has a distinct chance of igniting hostilities and possibly even a flamewar. The very nature of the Internet means that everyone will be dealing with people who hold worldviews that are ridiculous, absurd, and outdated in our eyes, but which worldviews those are will be different to each person. You don't make casual negative comments like that in mixed company. The fact that you would bring up his worldview as a criticism reflects very poorly on you in my eyes, and if it were elsewhere I would have brought it to the attention of the arbitrators.--Prosfilaes 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying, Tommy, that that statement pisses me off. It doesn't matter what he believes, all that matters is what he writes in the article is NPOV. Now, if he doesn't get at least a repermand for not making NPOV edits, I'll be surprised, but that doesn't make his personal beliefs fair game. That irrelevant little swipe is not evidence, and has had me surpressing foul language this entire post. Yes, sometimes you don't say things because it will create bad feelings, because people you've created bad feelings in don't want to work with you anymore. It's called tact, and it's an essential part of surviving life.--Prosfilaes 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you understand? He does not (always) write NPOV. He twists the facts around so that they conform to his POV. He doesn't treat me with respect, either he does not discuss or he demeans me. He does that to everyone. He demeans all of us, for example mentioning more than once that ELerner did not finish graduate school. And did you see what he had to say about Tom Van Flandern? He started this war, not me. And discussing a materialistic world view is not inappropriate in scientific discussions. It is brought up in all discussions. My point on that is that the materialistic view is limited by that view to the material, has nothing to do with him personally as you are supposing. A materialistic viewpoint in scientific discourse IS NOT a personal attribution. You talk about how NPOV is attained by civil discussions, but that doesn't happen here. What SA says goes into the plasma cosmology page is what goes into the page. What he says doesn't go doesn't go. What happens here is "they" are in control of the article, all of them actually, and I am trying to point this out because it is intrinsically unfair. Of course they don't like that, and are probably really pissed off because they cannot find fault with what I have said factually. Because the facts I try to bring in questions their assumptions. So they attack me, and now you too. Tommy Mandel 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any science book or article I've read discussing the worldview of another scientist. I'm not going to touch the rest.--Prosfilaes 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How many sources would you like to see?

"Any theory of wider scope implies a world view...any major development in science changes the world outlook and is "natural philosophy." Ludwig von Bertalanffy Robots, Men and MInds

But- and here is the main point- their reductionistic, materialistic worldview is nevertheless a seriously damaging one both for themselves and, because they are influential, for the world at large. For, to reiterate, our worldview and its comcomitant values largely determine what kind of world we actually develop and have to live in." Anna Lemkow From The WHoleness Principle p10

It is vitally important to a scientist what world-view he holds, for example, a typical materialist accepts only what is in front of him and denys the existence of everything behind him so to speak.

Tommy Mandel 06:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See also my evidence. Tim Smith 23:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer edits disruptively

7)JBKramer edits disruptively by removing verifiabe information that contradicts his POV, introducing original research, using personal attacks, introducing unsourced negative comments in a biography, (including statements implying that the subject lies about his credentials and other facts), and edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See Evidecne by Bkramer, Eric Lerner, MangojuiceElerner 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Garbage. Provide diffs. JBKramer 11:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

FeloniousMonk

8) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pjacobi

9) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tommysun

10) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tommysun primarily edits talk pages, as his edits to main pages are usually promptly reverted by ScienceApologist. If someone has objected to an extreme position Tommysun has expressed in the past, he doesn't agree, he doesn't disagree, he just ignores non-current objections, apparently hoping we'll forget. It doesn't matter how many times or how loudly the objections are repeated; he just keeps repeating the same oft-refuted opinion over and over again, like this issue for instance. Art LaPella 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How am I expected to discuss "rv Tommyson's nonsense? I am smart enough and experienced enough to know that if I edit something and it gets reverted, reverting the revert is not going to work. As noted elsewhere my edits are usually about including evidence that redshift is not Doppler related. Obviously such evidence would be reverted because it is a direct falsification of the whole big bang theory. Does the fact that I repeat it over and over, rephrased differently each time, mean that I am being disruptive? Six months ago, the editors here did not even know about quantized redshift, but they did notice after I placed my quantized edits because they proceeded to create an article which has since been edited to imply that quantized redshift has been discounted when in fact it has not. They did this by removing those papers which confirmed Tifft's findings, and inserted a paper which stated that they did not see quantization. In fact it has been verified many times over, even by those who stated out to falsify it.

And at that beginning time for me, plasma was defined in the article as electricity. Most of the Universe is made of plasma, it is not fringe science. The big bang theory is gravity based and does not take plasma effects into account leading them to hyopothesize all sorts of tricks to make the gravity based theory work. What SA is doing is stating by implication that these adhoc hypothesis are facts. The big bang is a theory, it is not a fact. The beginning of the big bang theory is Inflation. Inflation has not been proved, witness the "bewildering versions" of it nevessary to explain observations.

I am proud to have been reverted by ScienceApologist over a hundred times. And it doesn't surprise me that his supporters support him. Tommy Mandel 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And when Art Carlsen writes that he is fed up with me, in my POV that is a huge "well done." But why me? I'm a nice guy. :=) Was he talking about my ideas? Art, what you and I should really be talking about is whether or not the Scalar field is non-local in the classical sense. Because if it is, then Inflation didn't happen in 100 nanoseconds, it happened instantaneously. Not like a big bang, rather like a phase transition, a flip flop. As you know in non-locality, everyplace is everywhere, so there was no such thing as one place at the beginning. The big bang just doesn't make any sense to me and when I look up into the night sky I don't see gravity sucking everything up, I see bursts of plasma moving outward. But I don't worry about your big bang article, it should reflect the paradigm. I worry about plasma and why it has not been incorporated into mainstream cosmology. As you know, plasma is not a theory, it is an observed fact. What we think plasma does is the theory. It is very misleading to state that because the big bang theory does not take plasma into account (big bang is gravity derived) , therefore plasma theory is irrelevant/discredited/nonsense/fringe science. Finally the real authors of the big bang theories are quick to note that their ideas are conjecture/assumption/theory. It is not science to add conclusions presuming the theory is a fact. Just because it is a fact that most people believe, read think, that the big bang theory is a fact does not prove the theory is fact. Tommy Mandel

continued on talk page Art LaPella 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If I read the above correctly, Tommysun does not engage in edit wars that are initiated by ScienceApologist, but for some reason he is here ciriticised for his non-engagement by Art LaPella - correct? Harald88 23:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I interpret your question to mean you haven't followed the above link labeled "continued on talk page", which clarifies I'm criticizing Tommy's talk page behavior of ignoring previous criticism. Art LaPella 01:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Just because it is a fact that most people believe, read think, that the big bang theory is a fact does not prove the theory is fact. Tommy Mandel". Scientific theories are never facts. Theories explain facts. Bubba73 (talk), 04:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the statement: "physical cosmology begins with the big bang" stated as a fact or as a theory? I may be wrong, but to me it sounds like a statement of fact. Tommy Mandel

Evidence of personal attacks found through Art

Quoting Science Apologist's discussion tactics with me from a long time ago.

SA, in my view, you are obviously anti-plasma : User:Tommysun,

"in my view you are obviously an incompetent editor who knows very little about the subjects on which you are trying to inject a POV based not on verifiable fact or Wikipedia style guide or policies but on your own prejudices. No one here is "anti-plasma". No one here denies plasma exists. You seem to have some warped view over what exactly the controversy is, but I welcome you to explain your edits rather than heaading off on such tangents. By the way, you should keep your paranoid conspiracies regarding the Big Bang gang to yourself. It makes you sound a bit fanatical. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Art!

Tommy Mandel 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: The accusation above isn't my idea. Tommy means only that my other links directed him to an old talk archive. Art LaPella 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Art is right, He was directing me elsewhere, but I have been looking for this cooment SA made a long time ago for weeks. And Art led me right to it. This, SA's comment above, is the welcome I received from this talk page. I thought I was doing a good job. I still think that SA is anti plasma cosmology, pro big bang, works with others to edit the plasma cosmology page, had rewritten nearly all of it to reflect the big bang popularity that he claims, and removing any evidence of the hundreds which do not believe in the big bang. Tommy Mandel 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Incompetant editor", "your own prejudices", "warped view" "paranoid conspiracies" "sound a bit fanatical" is civilized behavoir?Tommy Mandel 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation of your contributions, statement about your POV, offering of my opinion regarding your perspective, rejoinder about your claims of a conspiracy to supress your opinion, and a truthful evaluation of what you appear to advocate here at Wikipedia. I'm sorry if my anaylsis appears uncivilized to you, but I am trying to be truthful about the way you come across. --ScienceApologist 04:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Expert editors have been leaving Wikipedia

11) Many subject-matter experts have left Wikipedia recently. While the reasons vary, and some of them are beyond the scope of this case, in many cases such editors have complained about the need to "defend" mainstream academic topics from advocates of fringe theories; see Wikipedia:Expert Retention and Wikipedia:Expert rebellion for details. (This case is mentioned there, BTW).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is that why they are organizing Citizendium?

Comment by others:

While expert editors should not receive preferential treatment (policy is clear on this); disruptive activities which cause editors to leave are clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia. --EngineerScotty 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; however, it has not been shown that the abovementioned complain is really what caused their leaving. Experts have a natural tendency to impose their personal opinions on articles. That that is not allowed may lead to frustration but can't be helped. Obviously the strongest resistance against POV pushing by such experts is to be expected by similarly strong-minded (possibly expert) editors with opposing views, and vice-versa.

If the demand of experts of fringe theories for enforcement of WP:NPOV causes people to leave, so be it. And if indeed advocates of fringe theories infringed WP:NPOV on such a large scale that it caused other expert editors to leave, then that is certainly deplorable and on-topic. But at least in the case of CH, much frustration was caused by often anonymous cranks who continuously insert their personal POV's in articles. Happily, sensitive articles can nowadays be restricted to registered users. Harald88 00:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The balance of imbalance

11a) In as much as we have a problem with excessive coverage and undue weight in pseudoscience and minority viewpoint articles, it is generally the minority view which is receiving excessive coverage and undue weight, and the impassioned defence of this coverage by its advocates is both disruptive and in the long term damaging to the encyclopaedia due to its documented effect in driving away subject experts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lots of generalizations made. Pseudoscience does not apply to Plasma cosmology. The article in question is about subject A, and it is contended that most of the article A should be about subject A. On the other hand, in an article about subject A and B, subject B should be mentioned appropriately as minority or majority with VRP source.Tommy Mandel 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Guy 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure? The premise "we have a problem with excessive coverage and undue weight in pseudoscience and minority viewpoint articles" seems to fall out of the blue - who determined this?

BTW, for sure also some (but I ignore how many) experts have been driven away by fanatic mainstream advocates, and that is just as regrettable.

It may be possible to roughly estimate how much "undue weight" exists in those articles (and the outcome can go both ways, depending on the article). But if this can't be done or if it depends on intepretation of policy, then that would suggest that the policy needs to be clarified. Harald88 11:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is based on examples such as the drive to include "creation science" in evolution articles, and the observed conflicts leading to the departure of several experts listed here and elsewhere. Mainstream science has no need of us, promoters of fringe theories know that Wikipedia is a great way to increase the visibility of their theory. I see no evidence to suggest that mainstream science is edging fringe theories out of article space, and the history of POV disputes in Category:Pseudoscience articles indicates to me that the problem is as stated. Guy 19:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology is not a pseudoscience, and because it addresses aspects of astronomy that the big bang leaves out, it isn't even a fringe science. Certainly it is a minority science when compared with the big bang. But in an article about plasma cosmology, the subject should also be plasma cosmology. Tommy Mandel 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

...and the reaction of the mianstream community to plasma cosmology, which may or may not include describing it as pseudoscience. ArbCom rules on principles of editing not on specifics of content. Guy 20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy matters

11b) In as much as policy should be changed or clarified, it should be in the direction of increasing, not decreasing, the bar to inclusion of dissenting opinions and theories. Much of the focus of this case has been special pleading asking for relaxation of the requirements in respect of sourcing for such articles. If a minor viewpoint cannot be covered within the restrictions imposed by the [[WP:|verifiability]] and original research policies, then it should not be included period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Likewise a majority viewpoint should also be restricted to verifiabilty, and original research. Unsure who wrote the above, but it seems to confuse the situation where two viewpoints are presented in one article, in which undue weight would apply, and the situation where the article is about one subject, in which undue weight is not applicable.Tommy Mandel 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Guy 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The last part already is policy, and it's a very practicable bar. I strongly support not easing it. Apart of that, the policy cannot be changed in a direction that goes into collision with WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable. Harald88 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Damage from lack of clear and self-consistent NPOV policy

3) In the absence of clear and self-consistent Wikipedia policy text that prohibits deleting sourced significant views from pages, it is a waste of time for any editor to try to fix biased and unfair pages such as intrinsic redshift. Look at the sorry state of this page and look at its sorry history. Compare that current murky intrinsic redshift page with a crisp concise summary of "intrinsic redshift," such as Arp starting at the bottom of page 1 "The Basic Hypothesis." There, Arp clearly distinguishes intrinsic redshift theory from what he calls the "canonical" view of the authoritatively correct Big Bang explanation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rednblu 07:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we all know that intrinsic redshift is wrong. That is, all of us would base our NSF proposal on what Arp calls the "canonical" explanation of Big Bang theory, would we not? But Wikipedia is not a list of NSF proposal canons, is it? Wikipedia is a collection of NPOV summaries of significant views. However to be fair, we should indicate clearly what NSF would consider "canonical," as seems to be done quite well already throughout the various cosmology pages. --Rednblu 07:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner opposing others

1) Eric Lerner has requested blocks, bans, and punative measures against other editors by shopping for sympathetic administrators and trying to get pages protected to his preferred version.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Evidence? Thatcher131 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence is posted on the evidence page. I can provide diffs if you'd like. --ScienceApologist 04:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman opposing others

1) Ian Tresman has requested blocks, bans, and punative measures against other editors by shopping for sympathetic administrators, posting vexatious reports against editors, and trying to rewrite policy to favor his opposition to certain editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• How does one "shop for a sympathetic administrator"? I think that the intervention of William M. Connolley and FeloniousMonk described in my evidence, show otherwise. --Iantresman 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that when you continually post at AN/I you are basically admin shopping. The evidence is clear that as you present your evidence at those places, you rarely let it be known that there is an extensive history in the conflict. This is where Shell got confused (coupled with the fact that she apparently did not discuss with other admins -- or at least has not been able to provide evidence that she talked to other admins about the situation). When you do find administrators that you think lend you a sympathetic ear like here you like to give them a wink and a nudge to attempt to get your agenda through and get me either blocked, banned, or sanctioned. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Evidence? Thatcher131 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence is posted on the evidence page. I can provide diffs if you'd like. --ScienceApologist 04:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is the neutral point of view

16) In matters of science, a clear and evident consensus view with little informed dissent amounts to the neutral point of view. Inclusion of other views should be against that background.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view]]. Consensus by the scientific community is only one point of view, other viewpoints, if notable, must also be represented. Fred Bauder 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who else has a valid and significant view in matters of science? Here we are weighing one scientific view against another. In matters of science one would expect non-exoert opinion to follow mainstream scientific thinking, whereas in these cases we have an apparent attempt to delude the non-specialist into believing that fringe views and mainstream views are equally valid. Guy 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By describing the mainstream view as the mainstream view, and a minority view as that, we give the reader all the information they need to assess the descriptions. Hopefully science is agnostic on any new theory and to judge a "fringe" theory solely because it is a "fringe" theory, sounds quite unscientific to me. --Iantresman 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream view designation must come from the mainstream sources, and must not come from an editor's synthesis. If there is a mainstream view there will be a reputable verifiable source saying so. If there is no source then an editors appraisal is meaningless if not a violation of NOR. Tommy Mandel 04:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Is a NPOV really the dominant view? Or is all views to be presented without implying by some linguistic trickery that one view is more correct than the other? Is there really such a thing as scientific concensus? A scientific opinion? And who makes up this concensus, the original authors? Interested scientists? All scientists? Is "debate" a scientific methodology? Is "debate" in peer reviewed journals even possible given the long lead times ariticles face? What if the dominant view is different from the primary source? What if there are two equal dominant views?

Of course, in the article titled Plasma Cosmology, the dominant scientific concensus then, would be that taken from the various propositions of plasma cosmologists, does this make sense?

After editing in the dominant vieww, who will keep track and change the articles when the dominant view is superceded? Tommy Mandel 07:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors. Just like they keep track of and update the status of living individuals and other subjects which change over time. Guy 17:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Guy 23:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as equivalent to WP:SPOV, which has not been accepted by the community (for better or worse). --EngineerScotty 23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, I think. The point here is that in matters of science, neutrality is achieved very reliably through the process of debate in open fora such as the peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, if in matters of science we reflect the dominant view, we will de facto reflect the neutral point of view. This will not apply to science versus superstition, but will apply to mainstream science versus fringe science. Guy

Discussion regarding Category:Pseudoscience

1) Discussion regarding use of Category:Pseudoscience is not an offense. This edit by JBKramer which raises the question of use of the tag is not an offense. Nor is this edit by Iantresman which requests a source, in this context a reliable source showing that a critic has characterized the work of the man in question as pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To clarify--which is acceptable, and which are not--and under what conditions?

• Discussion as to whether a discipline is pseudoscience?
• Discussion as to whether a dead researcher is a pseudoscientist?
• Discussion as to whether a living researcher is a pseudoscientist?
• Discussion as to whether a living researcher who edits Wikipedia is a pseudoscientist?
• Discussion as to whether a Wikipedia editor, who is not the subject of any Wikipedia article (or otherwise notable), is a pseudoscientist?

--EngineerScotty 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest that, except in cases where the theory and the theorist are indivisible and the term is applied by identifiable and attributabloe sources ot the individual, we should always be wary of applying the label "pseudoscientist". A pseudoscience may be supported by someone who is in every other respect entirely reputable - being wrong is not, after all, an unforgivable offence. Guy 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Electric universe (concept)

1) Electric universe (concept) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been pointed out as an example of Pseudoscience, see "They Sing the Comet Electric" Wired.com where it is described as "absolute balderdash" by a mainstream scientist. The article was created by Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on July 7, 2005 [50].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I can confirm that I created the article. The quote by Dr. David Hughes on one aspect of the Electric Universe is accurate. Although I would personally argue that his understanding of this one part of the Electric Universe is wrong, and consequently his analysis is inaccurate.[51][52][53], I was the one who added the source to the article.[54] --Iantresman 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Art LaPella

1) "a personality type"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ScienceApologist and JBKramer commended and cautioned

1) User:ScienceApologist and User:JBKramer are commended for their actions in attempting to maintain NPOV and avoid OR on articles dealing with fringe science, but are reminded to avoid edit warring at all costs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JBKramer (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

Unclear why these two editors are being noted out of the 13 parties. FloNight 17:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe others deserve special notice, please note them. JBKramer 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that one or more Finding of facts are needed to support sanctions against a party. FloNight 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

great, BKramer is proposing to commend Bkramer--very objectiveElerner 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the edits of JBKramer, but I believe that the edits of ScienceApologist have been very valuable for WP. From what I can recall of JBKramer, he is a good editor too. Bubba73 (talk), 02:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. Metamagician3000 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and JBKramer banned from biography for one year

1) {text of proposed remedy} User:ScienceApologist and User:JBKramer are to be banned for one year from editing any biographies of living persons.Elerner 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would have negative impact on the encyclopedia - see Deborah_Frisch, Derek Smart, Emmalina. JBKramer 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No. But see article probation for Eric Lerner below. Thatcher131 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Excluding Eric Lerner, there is no reason to restrict either editor from arbitrary biographies. In the case of Eric Lerner--possible; but the same should apply to every disruptive editor in this case. --EngineerScotty 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No evidence or Find of facts to support this remedy. FloNight 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is going much too far. Metamagician3000 03:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned

1) Iantresman, Tommysun and Elerner are banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For your consideration. JBKramer 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If I am disruptive for maintaining that the big bang is a theory, that certain evidence does not support the theory, that the theory had been misrepresented as a fact, and sometimes even the factual qualification is tossed out, and the big bang is "presupposed" Then please ban me forever from here. Citi-Zen-dium. . .

The term "disruptive, when taken out of context, is a relative term. For it can easily be proved that anyone rocking the boat is being disruptive. So Disruptive of what? The editors who act as if they own the article? Or the integrity and honesty of Wikepedia? Are those who are forced to fight for the Integrity and honesty of Wikipedia, by definition, being disruptive? I guess so...Tommy Mandel 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Needs strong findings of fact that they are disruptive and that other remedies such as probation and revert parole are unlikely to work. Thatcher131 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

These need to be a separate remedy for each editor based on find of facts. FloNight 15:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, a wholesale ban from Wikipedia is inappropriate. --EngineerScotty 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also going much too far. Metamagician3000 03:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that evidence has not been presented that supports a ban for any of these parties at the time. FloNight 11:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned from editting science-related articles

1) Iantresman, Tommysun and Elerner are banned from editing science-related articles for one year. They may discuss their ideas on the talkpages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For your consideration. ScienceApologist 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IMO, not out of the question but needs a separate remedy for each user based on specific Finding of facts. FloNight 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Elerner should be strongly cautioned against editing the article on himself, and confining himself to the talk page. Even there, however, I'd not want to see a total ban. There might be occasions when it would be justifiable for him to insert uncontroversial material or to delete clearly inappropriate material. I don't think we are going to be able to come up with nice bright-line remedies here. Metamagician3000 03:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this ban is not supported at this time for any party in this case. More appropriate I think is a remedy that triggers bans from science articles. Bans are enforced by blocks. Bans would increase in length for multiple incidences of disruption. They need to be fine-tuned for each party based on their individual history. IMO, an editor whose primary focus is adding controversial material is different than an editor that makes many uncontroversial edits as well. The first exhausts the patience of the community much sooner than the later. FloNight 11:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun banned from editing science-related articles

1) User:Tommysun is banned from editing science-related articles, including articles on non-mainstream theories which claim to be scientific in nature.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tommy has largely given up trying to edit main articles, so does this proposal include talk pages? Art LaPella 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Up to others; talk pages are obviously less in need of protection. --EngineerScotty 03:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Deal with the obvious one. This paragraph bears bad bews which may skirt WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, so I'll tread carefully and try to stay in bounds, but some topics simply are unpleasant to discuss... Ahem. This user's contributions to scientific topics are almost entirely disruptive, and seldom if ever productive, and the user has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of ability to coherently comment on the subjects in question. I don't view this proposed ban as a punitive action--I'm not accusing the user of bad faith. Rather, it simply is something necessary to protect the encyclopedia. --EngineerScotty 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Probation

1) Iantresman, Elerner, Art Carlson, ScienceApologist, JBKramer and Tommysun are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence of a pattern of disruption on my part. JBKramer 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. There has been evidence regarding bad behavior on all sides. As yet, this is unsupported by findings of fact, and as the findings of fact develop, editors may be added or removed from this list. Thatcher131 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More specific remedies will be needed to cover different editors - assuming there are going to be any bans or probations at all, which I am sceptical about. Metamagician3000 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what JBKramer's involvement in this dispute is. But I know a lot about Art Carlson's, and frankly he has always been one of the most civil, patient and knowledgeable editors I have encountered in editing physics articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia already has a problem with driving experts away. If he were to be sanctioned as a result of this RFAr, that would be an awful shame. (Obviously, the same comment applies to the "Revert Parole" section below.) –Joke 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert parole

1) Iantresman, Elerner, Art Carlson, ScienceApologist, JBKramer and Tommysun are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence of my having revert warred on articles in question. JBKramer 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with WP:BRD? I think this works the best in dealing with tendentious editors. As such, this proposal conflicts with my favorite conflict resolution-style. --ScienceApologist 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Same comment as for probation. Thatcher131 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be separated and tweaked for each separate user based on each users indiviual history. FloNight 15:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm working on it. No more until tonight, though. Thatcher131 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] I agree with FloNight. Metamagician3000 03:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Elerner banned

1) Elerner is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology and Aneutronic fusion for 6 months for disruptive editing and conflict of interest violations. He may edit the talk pages of the articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reality check, folks. I have not edited my own page since Sept.12 when I was informed of policy against this. I stated on the talk page that I was not editing it and have not since then, limiting my comments to the talk page. Anyone can check this by looking at the history. This is known to the other parties. So this is entirely unneeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elerner (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

For consideration. Pro-active application of the probation remedy. Not sure if this should be applied now or if he should be given a chance to improve first. Thatcher131 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A good precedent is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. Note that in the Carl Hewitt case; Hewitt was a mainstram scientist who nevertheless got booked for excessivly promoting his own research, in addition for his promotion of the fringe theory that the Actor model (his main contribution to computer science) represents a significant result in physics. Persons who demonstrate an inability to remain impartial on a subject they are connected with, may be banned from that subject, regardless of expertise. --EngineerScotty 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:AUTO Elerner shouldn't really be editing Eric Lerner at all. Guettarda 18:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If he hasn't been editing his own autobiography since being warned not to (well prior to the start of this arbitration), fine. OTOH, his edits to articles related to his work may still run afoul of policies. --EngineerScotty 01:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy against such expert editing, quite to the contrary! See WP:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. However, on this point there is also a guideline: [55]. Harald88 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can see that I have not been editing my own article since I learned of that policy. To restrict my edits on articles on which I have some expertise from my own research would surely contradict the basic idea of Wikipedia. If you are considered to have a conflict of interest because you work in a field and know something about it, the only people allowed to edit articles would be those who know nothing about the topic. Not a good way to run an encyclopedia, IMHOElerner 02:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can't work well with others it doesn't matter how expert you are. As I said this is a suggestion for the arbitrators to consider. I think a general probation is more likely but I was putting all possible arguments on the table. Thatcher131 04:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary. It is sufficient to caution him not to edit his own article and to note that he has already taken this on board (if that's actually so). Metamagician3000 03:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He has also edited disruptively at Aneutronic fusion and Plasma cosmology. Thatcher131 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner article on article probation

1) The article Eric Lerner is placed on article probation. Any editor may be banned from editing this article by an uninvolved administrator for an appropriate period of time for disruptive edits. All editors are reminded to edit Eric Lerner in accordance with the principles of biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I strongly support this regardless of anything else. JBKramer 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I have seen some worrying things here, but I have not yet written a finding of fact. Thatcher131 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: This is a proposed remedy concerning the article Eric Lerner and not User:Elerner, right? Does the ArbCom issue such rulings--especially one which is binding on non-participants? If so, how about issuing the same ruling for the whole encyclopedia?  :) --EngineerScotty 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, articles have been placed on article probation before. There are so many fringe science topics involved in this case that the only practical remedies will likely be those directed at editor behavior (revert parole, probation, or topical bans) but there is precendent for article probation, and in a BLP case it seems to make sense. Thatcher131 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] I support this. It gives uninvolved admins more ability to keep order on an article that needs it. Metamagician3000 03:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresenting editors to be warned or banned

1) Any editor found to be mispresenting (a) pseudoscience (b) minority scientific views (c) mainstream scientific views, to be publicly warned for the first 3(?) noted offenses, and to receive a one month ban for each subsequent noted infringement, to run consecutively. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Issue is not ripe for arbcom. JBKramer 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content based remedies are rarely adopted. And who will be the judge? Thatcher131 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom doesn't issue policy, nor do they issue decisions which are binding on the Wikipedia community as a whole. Only named parties may suffer (or enjoy) arbcom remedies. Note that WP:DE covers disruptive editing. --EngineerScotty 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like m:instruction creep. Obviously, changing policy is outside of the role of the arbcomm, but even if it were, it's too difficult to codify things like this. As long as we don't have the sort of expert board to determine things like this, it's totally unworkable. Guettarda 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Beyond arbcom's remit. Metamagician3000 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors infringing policy to be warned or banned

1) Any editor found to have infringed policy, to be publicly warned for the first 3(?) noted offenses, and to receive a one month ban for each subsequent noted infringement, to run consecutively. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Major changes to wikipedia policies require more than an Arbcom case. JBKramer 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This requires no change to existing policy, just an indication of who hasn't kept to policy. --Iantresman 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As above, it's instruction creep. If someone infringes policy repeatedly we have the option of RFCs and community bans. The basic principle is already permitted. On the other hand, instituting a system of "punishments" would require a modification of policy. Guettarda 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Beyond arbcom's remit. Metamagician3000 03:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Policy advisors" to be set-up

1) Since so many policy transgressions seem to have been alledged, a "fast track" dispute resolution process would be of tremendous help. Any editor may request "policy advice", whereby an advisor comments on whether an edit or discussion is within policy. Advisors would declare their areas of expertise, so that for example, science experts can NOT advise on science subjects (since they may be biased against the content), etc. I do not think that the current Request for Admins works too well. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• [Added] I see the ambiguity. I meant that policy advisors who have an interest in science, would not give advice on policy in science articles. Of course science experts edit science articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Beyond this being beyond the scope of arbcom, it demonstrates the basic problem that exists - "experts cannot advise if they are experts." Also demonstrates Ianttresman still doesn't quite get DR - "Request for Admins?" JBKramer 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Experts on science aren't necessarily experts on policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content based remedies are rarely adopted. On what basis will advisors be chosen? What happens when an editor disagrees with an advisor? Thatcher131 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Advisors volunteer... perhaps they are Admins who declare their interest. If an Editor and Advisor disagree, then two more Advisors give a majority ruling. --Iantresman 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This does not appear to be "policy advice" (science experts can NOT advise on science subjects), since policy is independent of the subject matter. In addition, the idea that experts cannot be involved because of "conflicts of interest" is absurd if we actually are here to write an encyclopaedia. (It does sound like a good suggestion for Uncyclopedia though). Guettarda 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote +1 Uncyclopedia admin! - David Gerard 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. "You can write about something if and only if you are not an expert"? Wikipedia is not anti-expert, but some Wikipedians definitely are - David Gerard 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is called Citizendium...04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"[P]olicy advisors who have an interest in science, would not give advice on policy in science articles" - what "policy on science articles"? Policy is policy - it's the same for science or non-science articles. My original point still holds though - the people who can best speak about the application of policy to science articles are the people who are experts on both topics. There is no more of a conflict of interest there than there is one when policy "experts" speak on the application of policy.

According to Wikipedia:Policy there are four key policies: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Respect other contributors; Don't infringe copyrights; Avoid bias. I don't think that we are talking about the first three here (although, of course, everyone could be more civil in this dispute). The issue of interest is the issue of WP:NPOV - specifically the Undue Weight provision.

If you want people to make judgements on what constitutes due or undue weight, they need to be experts on the subject matter, or they need to become experts in order to make these determinations. If subject experts cannot make these determinations, then we have a situation in which the desired qualities of "policy advisors" are ignorance about the topic and a lack of diligence (because someone who is diligent about making decisions runs the risk of becoming someone who could be mistaken for, heaven forbid, an expert). So I stand by my original conclusion - this is an idea better suited for Uncyclopedia than for Wikipedia. Guettarda 03:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And the mainstream experts say that to them, a minority view fails undue weight, and the minority view experts say that to them, it is significant. It's a bit like asking a bunch of Democrats at a Democratic convention whether Republican views are signficant. --Iantresman 09:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. Your proposal amounts to saying that Democrats at a Democratic convention should not be allowed to comment on what Democratic views are significant. But to use your analogy, Democrats would be better able to comment on significant Republican viewpoints than would people who are totally unaware of either party's positions. To be honest, Democratic activists need to be aware of which Republican views are significant (since they define the climate in which they are to work). Scientists don't necessarily need to know anything about pseudoscientific or fringe ideas, because they don't usually impinge on the practice of science. It's fairly easy for an expert to distinguish fringe ideas from controversial or new ideas. You just need to be familiar with the literature. It's very difficult for a non-expert to tell, because, as non-experts, they are unfamiliar with the literature and ill-equipped to distinguish an idea that has been debunked and rejected from an idea that is well-supported or new and controversial, but still viable.

Look at the talk page histories at evolution. Well-meaning but clueless people pop up all the time and demand that the "flaws" in evolution be included in the article. Asked to provide these flaws and they bring up ideas that were rejected long ago. If you read Well's Icons of Evolution you are presented with a host of "problems" with evolution, and if you don't know the science they sound reasonable. However, if you know the science, you realise that his arguments are, for the most part, speciose. Leaving determination of what belongs in a science article in the hands of people who know little about the subject matter would result in articles much like we had in 2002. Guettarda 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't explain it well enough then. Democrats and Republicans both have views on defense, health, social security, foreign affairs etc. Of course Democrat views are important, and they are the best people to asssess and describe their views. But we wouldn't be surprised if Democrats considered Republican views on the same issues to be insignificant. NPOV demands we describe views from both parties, describing which are Democrat, and which are Republican. Likewise we describe the majority scientifict view as such (probably best described by mainstream sceintists), and we desecribe minority scientific views as such (probably best described by the specialist experts in that subject). And we use verifiable reliable sources to help us describe these views. --Iantresman 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] Well-intentioned but beyond arbcom's remit, and seems like a layer of bureaucracy that could just lead to more confusion and disputation. Metamagician3000 03:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Redux: A fast track process is requested by which supporters of minor theories can recruit people who know nothing about the subject to back their novel interpretations of policy, and thus force those who know better to back down in the face of determined POV pushing. The argument re republican and democrat views on defence is a red herring: these are two views which have near-parity in the real world. The articles at issue are about minor theories which go against a scientific consensus which varies between a strong majority and near-unanimity. Guettarda is much closer to the mark with the opponents of evolution demanding parity. Guy 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV advisors" to be set-up

1) Since so many edits concern NPOV and neutral wording, a "fast track" dispute resolution process would be of tremendous help. Any editor may request "content advice", whereby one or more editors SHOW their reliable sources, and their proposed article discription, and an advisor indicates whether the sources support the wording proposed, and for example, excludes weasel words. Advisors would declare their areas of expertise, so that for example, science experts can NOT advise on science subjects (since they may be biased against the content), etc. I do not think that the current Request for Admins works too well. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not appropriate for arbcom to modify existing policies out of whole cloth. Yet again, attempts to keep expert editors away from where they are experts. JBKramer 16:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(a) An expert on any subject is not necessarily an expert on Wikipedia policy (b) Expert editors do not necessarily need to be experts in the subjects they edit. --Iantresman 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content based remedies are rarely adopted. On what basis will advisors be chosen? What happens when an editor disagrees with an advisor? Thatcher131 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since NPOV is a core policy, this is redundant with the proposal above. Or is this meant as an alternative? Guettarda 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This kind of decision would not be in ArbCom's jurisdiction, of course. But this proposal has the core of a good plan in my opinion, and this is the only place to discuss it right now. We need to take the "policy" and "NPOV" interpretation decisions away from the localized consensus of editors with the greatest tenacity. We need some way to put the decisions on "policy" and "NPOV" interpretation in the "hands" of the wide Wikipedia community. One way to put these decisions in the "hands" of the wide Wikipedia community would be for us to elect "judges" to make these quick controversy-by-controversy decisions for us--subject to review by ArbCom perhaps in some lengthy proceeding like this one. --Rednblu 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonwithstanding this RFArb, you're welcome to propose such. However, I a) don't think it would be adapted, and if it were, b) I don't think you will like the results. --EngineerScotty 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What results do you mean? --Rednblu 23:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion is that such a panel would take a stronger stand against "alternative" theories than Wikipedia does now. --EngineerScotty 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! In your crystal ball, do the advocates of "alternative" theories accept the decisions of such a panel without having to resort to edit wars? --Rednblu 00:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no clue; the panel wasn't my idea :), I'm only suggesting that given the politics of Wikipedia and the WFM, either one of two things is likely: a) there ain't gonna be a panel; or b) it's going to be one that backs "mainstream" science over alternate theories (if it its effect is to be different than what we have now). The WFMWikimedia Foundation and Jimbo are sensitive to comments coming from the outside (from academia in particular) that Wikipedia is unauthoritative and unreliable. Without passing judgment on the current case; I would note that many of those comments come from mainstream scientists who think Wikipedia too tolerant of alternative theories, and wish Wikipedia to be more like Encyclopædia Britannica--which has no article on plasma cosmology, and likely never will. My comment is intended only as a warning to Ian: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. --EngineerScotty 17:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It is difficult enough to get even the top experts in a field to agree on anything (and so, NPOV dictates that such articles accurately reflect the fact that there is a significant disagreement); if you get people who are only experts in a related field... well, it is unlikely to be good. I would propose that if there were such a panel (which I oppose for other reasons) it should consist of 12 ppl and decisions only be binding if they are unanimous. ObsidianOrder 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Well said. So then I guess my question is directed most appropriately to User:Iantresman. Consider with me please the following hypothetical. Suppose we as a Wikipedia community would elect "judges" to decide "fast track" such controversies as UndueWeight, ReliableSource, and NoOriginalResearch on any page, would you accept the decisions of the "judges" as the legitimate expression of the Wikipedia community--even if the "judges" decided that the pages should have the balance that they do now? I also understand that your "opposition" apparently has warped the existing rules and ripped your significant NPOV contributions from pages. So the rules that your "opposition" has applied would have to be clarified to be fair. What do you think? --Rednblu 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I suspect that once it has been resolved, both sides of this arbitration case will want a speedier way to resolve these issues. --Iantresman 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody: Substantial policy changes, such as setting up a "NPOV review board", is BEYOND THE SCOPE of the ArbCom. The ArbCom lacks the authority to impose policy. I'll concede that they may interpret it, and in doing so set precedent for how it may rule in the future (as there are no inferior tribunals presently on Wikipedia--unless one counts WP:AN as a "tribunal"--to speak of binding precedent in the Wikipedia context is meaningless). While such a thing might be useful; here is not the appropriate place to discuss. If someone is serious about such a thing, I suggest reading of WP:POLICY, and/or creating a page to discuss it. I'll even create a red link for you: Wikipedia:NPOV review board. But this is not a matter for the ArbCom to consider. Period. --EngineerScotty 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's examine that little disruption of the discussion for a second. We all understand that the discussion in this section is not binding on ArbCom. This discussion is located totally within this section--and possibly also the preceding section as a variation. So the discussion bounded in this section cannot reasonably be interpreted as "disruptive" of the purpose of the "Workshop" page. This is a Workshop page looking for solutions to problems, after all. And there are some problems in this case having to do with the murky and self-contradictory text in Wikipedia NPOV policy. I don't see anyone here advocating a particular solution to the problems, so it would be too early to move to a WP:POLICY subpage. This discussion in this section so far is only a RequirementsAnalysis activity; what are the causes of the problems? -- what are the possible resolutions of the problems? And this is the appropriate place to have this discussion because we have all the raw data of the "problems" and failed "solutions" here in links on this page. That is just my vote in the matter. What do others think? --Rednblu 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to disrupt anything; except to note that this page is for information needed to assist the ArbCom. Extended discussions of side topics are out of order here. If the clerk (or any of the arbitrators) feel that I'm wrong, please let me know. --EngineerScotty 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop disrupting the workshop page, now. JBKramer 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we saved simultaneously. Am I correct in that the above was addressed to User:Rednblu? --EngineerScotty 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We did. Yes, you are. JBKramer 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This idea is impractical, and seems mainly designed to prevent content experts from contributing in their area of expertise, to the benefit of POV-pushers. As such, I don't suppose it'll make the cut. Guy 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. I do, however, think that Rednblu's comments represent a reasonably arguable viewpoint. Underlying the disputation that led to this arbitration, there does seem to be a clash of opinion about the spirit and purpose of the NPOV policy and its correct application to science articles, and a number of proposals have now sought to address that problem (one way or the other). Metamagician3000 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Write plasma cosmology article about plasma socmology

1) If the article were about "cosmology" then all cosmologies should be included, along with the policies of NPOV and Undue Weight atc. But the Plasma Cosmology article is about plasma cosmology, and there is no apriori reason to reference the big bang, except perhaps in a section called big bang something. Tommy Mandel 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Content issue, too specific. Guy 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell Kinney, other admins, reminded

While some have disputed whether or not the block imposed on User:ScienceApologist by User:Shell Kinney was a proper course of action; there is no evidence that the block constituted an abuse of administrator powers. Thus no sanction is to be meted out against Shell. Shell, and other administrators, are reminded that in many cases it is better to discuss proposed blocks at the administrator's noticeboard; especially when the block doesn't involve issues like vandalism, banned users, enforcement of arbcom or community sanctions, users who have been repeatedly blocked before, and the situation is not such where an immediate block is warranted to avert a potential threat to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

For your consideration. Agreeing with others, Shell shouldn't have been named in this arbitration to begin with. --EngineerScotty 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell insists she discussed blocking me with other administrators but has not (cannot?) referred to any diffs that illustrate this. --ScienceApologist 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for Shell, it's entirely possible the discussions occurred on IRC rather than at WP:AN. But it probably doesn't matter. I know that the block seems to have offended you... but I don't see how that it contravened policy, or represented an abuse of administrator powers--which is the only issue for the ArbCom to decide in regard to Shell. Admins make mistakes. If we stipulate that Shell's block of you was a mistake, it was reverted quickly. I'll make a proposal in the next section that will serve to make you "whole". --EngineerScotty 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] I'm prepared to support this, but I don't believe Shell should have been dragged into this request for arbitration in the first place. Metamagician3000 03:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Block log of ScienceApologist to be erased

Unless the developers indicate this is impossible or difficult, the block log of User:ScienceApologist is to be expunged of any record of the block imposed by User:Shell Kinney and the subsequent unblock by User:FeloniousMonk. (At least to the point that ordinary users, including administrators, cannot see it).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think we ought to wait to see the outcome of this arbitration case, as User:ScienceApologist's block, and User:FeloniousMonk's unblock, are part of the evidence of this case. --Iantresman 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Naturally. Other than preliminary injunctions (which there are none of in this case), remedies are not imposed until after the case is completed. --EngineerScotty 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal

1. Developers don't like block manipulation
2. Receiving some block now and then is only a sign human fallibility (of the blocked user or the blocking admin)
3. Compare [56] as example
4. An admin using isolated inicidents in the block log as a reason for being tough don't fulfill their job duties.

Pjacobi 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

For your consideration. Many Wikipedians consider it a matter of pride that their block log is empty; the log of ScienceApologist is empty other than Shell's block and the subsequent unblock. In addition, users with non-empty block logs are more likely to be blocked for borderline infractions (by admins unaware of the circumstances of the original block) than are those with clean records--much the same as motorists with prior traffic offenses are far less likely to receive a warning when pulled over by a traffic cop. There is precedent for this, (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, though the block log in question in that case contained an accusation in the comments that User:Giano found higly offensive). I invite User:ScienceApologist to comment as to whether or not this would allay his concerns. --EngineerScotty 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me too much because I can explain to anyone that Shell did not do the requisite research to justify the block which was summarily removed. However, I am still interested in looking for evidence that this block was discussed if for no other reasons than to talk to the administrators who agreed with Shell. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of a clearly unwarranted block entry that had caused serious controversy was suggested by me in Workshop of the "Giano" arbitration case now winding up. The ArbCom voted 6-0 that this was an appropriate remedy "subject to the developers cooperating," but the head developer (in a rare appearance on the arbitration pages) posted that block logs are not to be tampered with and the request would absolutely not be implemented. Newyorkbrad 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See this diff. [57] --EngineerScotty 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If SA doesn't care about this issue, then perhaps we can scotch this particular remedy. (I still see no reason that Shell ought to receive any sanction--one single instance of questionable judgment is no reason to punish an admin; that's long established on Wikipedia. The only possible damage which might have been done would be to SA's reputation, and SA appears to think that even this is mitigated; removal of the log entry was my attempt at mitigation). --EngineerScotty 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Unnecessary - and the circumstances of the block were nothing like the circumstances of the controversial (and widely deprecated) block of Giano early this year. Metamagician3000 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Designation of subjects requiring academic expertise

1) If, in the opinion of a user who possesses significant academic expertise or equivalent experience, evaluation of substantive edits to an article requires such expertise, they may place a tag on the page which so designates the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• I think there is a problem ascertaining expertise. One of the editors has claimed to be an expert,[58] and professor,[59], but it is not verified.
• I have gone out of my way to solicit the opinion of a number of experts, including Prof. Daniel James who has contributed directly to Wikipedia discussions, and Prof. Emil Wolf whose response I also posted (see my evidence for details), both of which have been ignored by the same editor.
• Another issue that comes to mind is that different experts in a field may have different opinions, especially with some controversial subjects. For example, most expert cosmologists will differ in opinion from, say, Halton Arp, a well-published expert in cosmology. --Iantresman 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:EXPERT, anyone? This and the next several proposals reflect that (inactive) proposal, and then some. The ArbCom (well, Fred at least) is being quite WP:BOLD here--not that I don't mind.  :) Is it the intent of the ArbCom to drag this encyclopedia, kicking and screaming, to academic respectibility--even if the community (or a vocal subset thereof which has heretofore jealously guarded their "right" to edit Wikipedia however the hell they want to) don't like it? And if the ArbCom moves in this direction--does it have the support of the foundation? Some of what is proposed here is--assuming it gets five votes from arbitrators (or however many is a majority in this case)--ready and revolutionary stuff. Again, not that I don't mind. But I'm surprised (pleasantly) that Fred is proposing remedies here in arbitration that us expert rebels have long believed unattainable via WP:POLICY. It will be interesting to see how the larger community reacts, should these pass. --EngineerScotty 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is not as bold as it seems, we are expected to take "established Wikipedia customs and common practices" into consideration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules. It is only common sense to respectfully consider the opinions of experts. Much of the trouble here has resulted from willfully declining to do so. By making this informal practice explicit I think we can establish a new paradigm. Fred Bauder 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Self designation of academic experts

2) At the top of the talk pages of articles which have been designated as requiring academic expertise for adequate evaluation of substantive edits, any user who feels he has such expertise shall designate himself an expert and state the basis of his expertise. If their expertise is challenged, they may be required to demonstrate such expertise to an administrator, upon pain of being removed from such lists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing of articles designated as requiring academic expertise

3) Articles which have been tagged as requiring academic expertise may be edited by any user; however reasonable deference shall be made to users who have designated themselves experts with respect to the subject. Such experts shall limit their special role with respect to such articles to those aspects of the subject which present substantial technical difficulties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oh dear. Besides instruction creep, I don't think this solves anything and may hurt a lot. Take for example Eric Lerner and his ideas on plasma, redshift, and the big bang theory. He designates himself an expert; ok on his own topics but strongly challenged on mainstream topics like the big bang. Some other editor with a science background wants to edit plasma cosmology to add the perspective of mainstream science, Lerner challenges that, as a non-expert, they must defer to him. I forsee similar crises on intelligent design, cold fusion, etc. etc. This does not fill me with confidence. These proposals would really only be needed if there is a finding that principles like WP:RS and WP:NOR are insufficient to keep Wikipedia reliable. The problem with aneutronic fusion is not that it's impenetrable, it is that the editors were drawing on special personal knowledge and original research. I should be able to write just as good an article (with a biology degree) because I will be reporting what is written about the topic in reliable sources. The edits are only impenetrable because they weren't following WP:RS and WP:NOR.

I think you've lost the thread of the case; users being dicks to each other over editing of science topics. I'd like to make a modest plug for my original principles (8, 9 and 10) which basically boil down to, (a) fringe topics should be treated with respect in their own articles, and (b) mainstream topics should refer to related fringe topics in a limited way. There are two main classes of content problems in this case--fringe theories getting trashed in their own articles (should get balanced treatment), and fringe theories getting inappropriately advanced in mainstream articles (balance here requires minimal coverage). Some reinforcement of basic principle is all that is needed here, plus coming down on editors who are disruptive in one form or another (trying to change core policies, incivility, etc) Thatcher131 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your analysis of aneutronic fusion is spot on. Fred Bauder 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] I do see an element of instruction creep in these proposals from Fred and wonder whether they might not end up getting manipulated and wikilawyered over. I'm wondering whether something less prescriptive could be developed, perhaps as a principle rather than a remedy. I do take the point that it is useful for experts to identify themselves and get at least some deference (but on pain of having to back up the nature of their expertise in some way if it is challenged). Meanwhile, I think the second para of Thatcher131's remarks contains an insightful picture of the overall dispute and the problems it has thrown up. Metamagician3000 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Academic

4) The content of Template:Academic shall be created by those who contemplate using it. It shall briefly explain, in terms understandable to the general user, its purpose and effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Remedies with respect to persons

5) If provisions are made for a special role for academic experts with respect to subjects requiring such expertise, no remedies shall be made regarding users with respect to past behavior involving edits of such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inappropriate use of Template:Academic

1) Template:Academic may only be used on an article by a user who also designates themselves as an expert in the subject at the top of the talk page of the article together with a summary of their qualifications. If challenged, they must be willing to confidentially demonstrate to an administrator their qualifications. Any other use of the template may be summarily removed by any user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Wikipolicy on NPOV

Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. Wikipedia uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense! This doesn't mean that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, the neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. That's a common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. :::The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. [60]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Executive summary

Comment by others:

I don't see this as "evidence". It may serve as pointer to the allegation that ScienceApologist's modus operandi conflicts with WP:NPOV policy as summarized above. Harald88 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of presupposition

(cur) (last) 02:17, 18 August 2006 Astrobayes (Talk | contribs)

(Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

[[61]]

Here we have evidence of POV Pushing in that the big bang is a theory, yet to be proven, and is by no means something that can be presupposed. For example, the authors of Inflation theory call there model a theory, while Gibbins says there are a bewildering arrary of different versions, yet to be determined which is going to be successful. While the comment above is not in the article, it reflects the thinking process of the editor and those who edit plasma cosmology to improve it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Tommysun. Is this the diff for the "Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it" Edit summary? --Rednblu 11:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Tommy Mandel

[De-indent.] It is true that scientific theories are accepted provisionally. However, well-corroborated theory is not the same as mere hypothesis. In some cases, as with the heliocentric model of the solar system and the evolutionary account of the history and diversity of life on Earth, it is now inconceivable that future developments could overthrow the theoretical essentials (i.e. the Earth and other planets do go around the Sun and life did evolve through natural selection). The Big Bang account of cosmological origins may not fall in the latter class, but at the same time it is misleading to say it is "only" a theory and therefore not proved. Metamagician3000 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The disputed edit is simply removal of weasel words. Right now the paragraph says is generally understood to begin with the big bang which is fine. It's not an NPOV failure, it's an editorial judgment regarding the relative weight which should be given in the lead of a high-level overview of the subject, to the existence of some minority dissenting opinions. It is not a problem for an article at this level to state in the lead (i.e. the most condensed overview of the topic) that cosmology begins with the big bang, because as far as the mainstream of cosmology goes that's where it starts. This does not preclude later discussion of dissent. Guy 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

evidence of misrepresentation

The article reads:

Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community[2].

The source for this statement (2) reads

^ Prominent plasma cosmology advocates Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences." and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies." [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tommysun is unwise to open a discussion of misrepresentation - here is an old list of my reactions to his various misrepresentations. Art LaPella 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He may be unwise to do so, but it is for the good of this encyclopedia. Misrepresentation of facts in article by one party cannot serve as excuse for misrepresentaion of facts in an article by another party. Harald88 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I have defended ScienceApologist on this issue here and in the following discussion. Art LaPella 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, TommySun appears to acknowledge above that plasma cosmology is largely ignored by the scientific community, leaving one to wonder what exactly is the supposed nature of the misrepresentation. Seems like an editorial dispute over nuances of phrasing to me. Guy 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of removal of evidence

[[62]]

The article reads in part:

[Redshift|Cosmological redshifts]] are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by Hubble's law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim that this observation indicates an expanding universe, and they point out that Hubble himself did not embrace expansion.

history reads:

(cur) (last) 11:29, 25 September 2006 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (rv Tommysun nonsense.)

(cur) (last) 05:23, 25 September 2006 Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (hubble did not believe in expansion)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Note that the issue here is that this generally is not pointed out by plasma cosmology adherents. It is something pointed out by Alan Sandage who isn't a plasma cosmology adherent. --ScienceApologist 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is one example of what I tried to put in

and they point out that Hubble himself did not embrace expansion.

and what SA subsequently did:

rv Tommysun nonsense.)

Please note that while I tried many times, each edit was phrased differently ranging from a verbatum copy of what Hubble said in detail to this simple phrase above.

Comment by others:

[Placeholder]. I'll refactor the long comment I originally made here, as I slightly misunderstood the context. I'll put it somewhere to work on, but it's obviously in the history as well. Metamagician3000 09:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've put some re-cast thoughts at this subpage for anyone who thinks they might be of value and would care to consult them. Metamagician3000 10:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are countless examples where what is now mainstream was once an emergent field. Prominent individuals in the field dissented, often until their dying day, from the emerging consensus. That doesn't make it any less a consensus, and simply naming the prominent holdouts (or indeed prominent proponents) is an appeal to authority, a form of fallacy, not formal evidence in respect of the theory. The relevance of such an appeal is an editorial judgment and can safely be left to the normal content dispute resolution processes. Guy 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner's ideas do not influence mainstream science

Somewhere in this mess I read a statement to the effect that no one had been able to prove that Lerner's ideas were ignored by mainstream science. I set out to test this proposition.

I have access to a database called ISI Web of Science. It finds journal articles and reports how many times they have been cited by other articles. Unfortunately I can not provide links, because it is a subscription site. In search for publications by Eric Lerner, I found, 6 papers in IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science, 2 papers in Astrophysics and Space Science, one paper in Astrophysical Journal and one paper in Laser and Particle Beams all relating to plasma cosmology. These 10 articles have been cited a total of 40 times, which is respectable. However, 26 of those citations were in other papers by Lerner, meaning the number of times he has been cited by other scientists is 14, or 1.4 per article, which is quite low. Furthermore, nearly all of the articles that cite him themselves have very low citation counts, generally 4 or less. One important article that does cite Lerner is in Nature 352, 769 - 776 (29 August 1991), a major journal. However since the title of this article is "The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology" and the abstract states

The relativistic hot Big Bang model for the expanding Universe has yielded a set of interpretations and successful predictions that substantially outnumber the elements used in devising the theory, with no well-established empirical contradictions. It is reasonable to conclude that this standard cosmology has developed into a mature and believable physical model.

I don't think it puts much stock in the idea that radio absorption by the intergalactic medium is responsible for the measured redshift effect.

While I am sure I did not search all of Lerner's papers, there is no reason to think this is not a representative finding. Thatcher131 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a very good summary of the status of Lerner with regards to the cosmological community. What I'd like to point out is that the opposing "side" in this arbitrartion case has resisted efforts to state this plain fact on pages such as plasma cosmology and Eric Lerner. --ScienceApologist 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This analysis does not reflect a good understanding of how science, or citation, works. Most scientists overwhelmingly cite papers that they agree with, not those they disagree with. So if citation is used as measure of support, not awareness, my citation level can indeed indicate that my views don’t have a great deal of support from mainstream cosmologists.

To say my views are ignored by the “scientific community” is a next-to meaningless statement. 95% of working scientists in the world (very conservatively) have never heard of me. Not only that, 95% of working scientists have never heard of ANY cosmologist, with the probable exception of Steven Hawking, who has become a media personality, and perhaps, Smoot and Mather who just won the Nobel prize. So you can say that, with those possible exceptions, the work of any cosmologist is ignored by most of the scientific community. It would be an equally inane statment.

However, to say that my work is ignored by mainstream cosmologists is simply false. On the one had people like Ned Wright, Arno Penzias and Paul Davies have publically criticized my work, which is not the same as ignoring it. On the other hand, institutions like the European Southern Observatory and Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University and so on have organized seminars in which I have presented my ideas.

SA took a lot of trouble to continually revert edits that included some of this evidence that I was not ignored in my page, so their argument that I am ignored is not only false, but disingenuous. They know it to be false.

Also, my work is part of a minority viewpoint held not only by myself. So if you want to judge plasma cosmology, you would have to look at the response to papers by others, such as Alfven.

By the way, I also want to say that for the purpose of deciding if a minority viewpoint is significant, it is not a necessary criterion that majority scientists pay attention to it. If it has an adherent who is prominent in the field, OR if it is represented by many peer-reviewed papers by several authors OR if it is viewed a significant scientific viewpoint by mass media or the scientific press, it should be included in Wikipedia.Elerner 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The cosmological community is a small subset of "mainstream science", of which an even smaller handful have criticised Lerner's book. Over 50 university-affiliated scientists and engineers have declared that they share some of the views held by Lerner,[63], and Lerner's peers have felt his papers worthy of publication. I have not seen any information to discern whether Lerner's papers are ignored, or whether scientists are just not aware of them. I suspect that the phrase "mainstream science" is deemed a Weasel word,[64] for this very reason. --Iantresman 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What Ian is doing here is a very common tactic of the pseudoscience/fringe science supporters. First of all, they try to marginalize the experts by saying that there aren't very many experts, but they don't try to enumerate this because it totally messes up the next tactic. There are thousands of active researchers in cosmology at this time, judging from abstract searches and journal articles published. Taking Ian's baldfaced number of 50 is pretty tiny-minority (less than 1% of active researchers), but even then it isn't well evaluated. Many of the "university-affiliated" scientists do not actively research or publish cosmology, a few of them are so removed as to be in disciplines such as geology and electrical engineering! A careful examination of the signatories of the cosmologystatement reveals about a dozen or two of the usual suspects who actually publish in cosmology or related fields. These signatories include Halton Arp, Eric Lener, and others we've discussed. In other words, while it is possible to list the number of "dissenters" who signed this ridiculous statement, it is nearly impossible to list the number of "non-dissenters" since there are orders of magnitude more of them. Listing such as this is a tactic employed most famously by creationists like William Dembski, fellow of the Discovery Institute, whose "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a similar "letter" signed by "hundreds" of researchers. For more on how absurd this tactic is, read Project Steve. It would be nice if the fringe researchers who are not necessarily advocating pseudoscience didn't take a page from the creationist handbook and push themselves further away from the way science actually operates, but that's how it goes. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• (a) "Pseudoscience supporter"? (b) "ridiculous statement"? (c) "dissenters"? (d) "nice if the fringe researchers .. didn't take a page from the creationist handbook"?
• Agreed, "50 is a pretty tiny-minority". And half a dozen critical statements?
• I've never disputed that most of the reviews of Lerner's work are critical. I don't disputes that IF most cosmologists read Lerner's work, they too would probably be critical, but Wikipedia is not a place to speculate; It would certainly be no surprise, seeing as Lerner's work is by definition, a minority view.
• And I've never resorted to using the language you've used above, nor characterised any scientists in such a disrespectful nor discrediting manner. --Iantresman 15:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Lerner's work was ignored, I said it did not have influence. I am not embarrassed to say that several of my research publications have also not influenced the field they were in, judging from the number of citations. (Disappointed, perhaps, but not embarrassed. Other of my articles have quite respectable citation counts.) Citation counts are an imperfect measure of influence, but they do collect (a) the number of times someone agrees with your work and finds it relvant to their own, and (b) the number of times a significant finding is mentioned in order to refute it. The fact that Lerner's articles have very little outside (non-self) citation indicates not only that few cosmologists agree with his findings but also that few cosmologists have felt his findings significant enough to warrant mentioning them in order to refute them in any of the hundreds of papers on Big Bang cosmology. Thatcher131 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed, it looks rather clear that mainstream science largely ignores his theory. On a sidenote, I Partly agree with Thatcher about indications, but she overlooked that scientists are human. An "illegal" but excellent reason for non-citation is to disagree but being unable to refute. Greeting with silence is a frequently used and effective tactic (I am a complete outsider on Lerner's work, and thus I have no opinion if it may have played a role here). In any case, ignoring is ignoring, willful or not. Harald88 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit violates WP:NPOV policy

1) This edit violates WP:NPOV policy by removing from a Wikipedia page a significant view in which the authors Bell and McDiarmid extended to the year 2006 the Halton Arp controversy over the empirical data in support of intrinsic redshift.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No, this edit removed an related set of references from an article about a different subject. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we assume then that the proper reference to Bell and McDiarmid was placed in the appropriate place so as to improve the article? Tommy Mandel

It is placed in the appropriate article. --ScienceApologist 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabably needs reformulation, in part because of ScienceAplogist's comments as well as because the 2006 reference is only to an Arxiv paper, if I see it correctly... Harald88 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good comment. Here are the details. The citation to the Bell and McDiarmid 2006 ApJ article, the first article citation that was cut in this edit, was appropriately corrected from publication year 2005 to 2006 when it was moved to the last note on the Redshift quantization page.

However, if you read what Bell and McDiarmid (2006) actually wrote, they report their most recent findings that their "intrinsic redshift" model agrees with the observed redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the SDSS Quasar Catalog including the six peaks at preferred redshift values. And Bell and McDiarmid cite to the 2005 Arp preprint in which he argues that the positioning of the discrete preferred values supports the "interpretation of the redshifts as intrinsic." Hence, it is a severe violation of NPOV to invert the explicit writings of Arp, Bell, and others to say that their arguments are not about "intrinsic redshift." For Arp, Bell, and others explicitly say that even the "discrete preferred values" support the "intrinsic redshift" explanation.

So how would you formulate what is wrong with this edit? To satisfy NPOV, at least the findings of Arp 2005 and Bell 2006 should be cited and summarized on the intrinsic redshift page. Would you agree? --Rednblu 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO you blow this single edit out of proportion; OTOH, it's indeed part of a long pattern of similar fact-hiding edits.

I would agree that there is no reason to limit mention of each paper to only one article in Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia rule (even policy) is to provide sufficient "reliable" references and sources inside each article - IMO that excludes ArXiv papers except if a personal opinion needs to be expressed. In this case, that M. Bell supports an intrinsic redshift hypothesis is shown to be notable as well as taken seriously because of the peer-reviewed paper in the Astrophysical journal: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model". In view of verifiability (WP:V), a reference to such an article of Bell definitely must be linked to the article's statement.

BTW, a similar reference to for example [65] is equally lacking in the article, as such a reference belongs with the statement about Lopez-Corredoira and Gutierrez.

Until inclusion of the Bell reference and again as a result of the removal, the article's discussion and remaining references easily give the false impression that nowadays only Halton Arp publishes about intrinsic redshift, and that no related recent publication appears in any mainstream scientific journal. Thus its removal was IMO not only against WP:V but certainly unfair and consequently against WP:NPOV as well.

Harald88 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:)) Thanks for your useful comment. And thanks for your patience with my redissecting this one edit over and over until I can discern some effective rule that would 1) detect and 2) clearly prohibit what you aptly call the "long pattern of similar fact-hiding edits." Earlier in this page, I tried to cobble together some sufficient but not necessary definition for the 1) "facts" that the rule should prohibit being removed by 2) "fact-hiding edits" as you so aptly called them. That rule, if revising the publication time period to be back 5 years instead of only back two years, it seems to me, would prohibit even a disapproving cosmological expert from removing from the intrinsic redshift page, 1) the Bell & McDiarmid view published in the 2006 ApJ article and 2) López-Corredoira & Gutiérrez view published in the 2002 A&A article as you bring to our attention. In addition, as you wisely note, some of the ArXiv preprints would be helpful "if a personal opinion needs to be expressed"--as you say it--for clearing up the current murky and inaccurate intrinsic redshift text. For example, I think the intrinsic redshift page would benefit greatly from Arp's sparklingly clear statement at the bottom of page 1 after the heading "The Basic Hypothesis" in the ArXiv preprint of his view of the intrinsic redshift explanation based on available empirical evidence as of 2005. But this is not a content debate. Here we are looking for a rule that would prohibit even a well-meaning expert from deleting the significant views that are necessary to give fair and unbiased presentations of a whole range of pages of which intrinsic redshift is only one example. Are we getting anywhere? What is next, do you think? --Rednblu 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

About content, and thus a bit "off-the-record": I do not see the necessity to include an ArXiv paper about someone's personal views in an article about a class of theories; it seems more appropriate in an article about himself. In any case, an eventual inclusion must clearly present such as someone's personal statement.

What would be next? first wait for the comments of others of course!

If a consensus in agreement with the above would be expressed by the arbitrators, a practical next step could be to include it as practical example in the NPOV-tutorial, together with other examples that may come out of this arbitration -- such as an example that advises how to avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories. For example if in the Redshift article, non-standard cosmologies were linked to in one short sentence in the body text. That would IMO be a good (as well as smart) example of how one can give due weight to a number of small minority theories, therewith avoiding allocating too much space for them in the article. Harald88 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit violates WP:NOR policy

2) This edit violates WP:NOR by substituting the 1) Bell and McDiarmid authors' express opinion that they were writing about intrinsic redshift with the 2) editor's opinion that the authors really were talking about redshift quantization and not intrinsic redshift which is the term the authors used in the title and text of their article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There was no substitution going on, therefore the evaluation presented is wholly incorrect. How can it be NOR to remove a list of misbegotten references that belong in another article? --ScienceApologist 12:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's pretty clear to me that User:Rednblu didn't read the paper in question. The authors do not discuss their intrinsic redshift model in the paper, they use it as a starting point to evaluate claims of redshift quantization. Go over to the other article and you find the paper discussed! --ScienceApologist 12:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV fork? This is only removal of a list of papers! I find the summative comments by Rednblu to be a massive amount of hot air. Maybe there should be a "Wikipedia law" against User:Rednblu writing about the dogmatic edits of "BigBangBelievers". Rednblu's choice of language and willful ignorance is wearing very thin -- this kind of advocacy doesn't belong here. --ScienceApologist 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See, this, above, is how ScienceApologuist writes to all of us.

PS the list of papers are the paper confirming quantized redshift which, if true, is caused by an intrinsic property of the light and/or matter interaction. In other words they present observational evidence of intrinsic redshift. Tommy Mandel 06:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they present evidence for redshift quantization and one paper makes a claim about the authors proprietary "intrinsic redshift model" (not intrinsic redshifts in general) being able to explain redshift quantization. Since the subject of intrinsic redshift is not "redshift quantization", and as there is no evaluation these references as to their relevance to the text of the article, and as these references are all included in redshift quantization, they are rightly removed as reference spamming. --ScienceApologist 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The papers confirm the finding of redshift quantization. Intrinsic redshift is redshift that is intrinsic to the photon/medium

and therefore a quantized redshfit is evidence for intrinsic redshift. Removal of evidence for intrinsic redshift on the grounds that it is already in some other article does not improve the article.Tommy Mandel 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be a Wikipedia law against even a well-meaning expert making this edit which imposes a BigBangBeliever POV-fork that severely misrepresents what Bell, Arp, and other scholars have actually written about intrinsic redshift, the subject of the page in question. I quote Arp 2005 himself: "Quasars are always higher redshift than the ejecting galaxy and none show negative redshifts of approaching velocities. The conclusion is that they must have intrinsic redshifts which are much larger than their ejection velocities. Supporting the interpretation of the redshifts as intrinsic it was then found that the redshifts had discrete preferred values in the frame of their parent galaxy. (The Karlsson periodicity formula).The ejection velocities allowable are small compared to these intrinsic redshifts." The resistance of the well-meaning BigBangBelievers against representing significant views fairly and without bias demonstrates the necessity of clear and self-consistent policy text to prohibit edits like this edit. This is not a content dispute. This is merely one example for clarity from the whole extended pattern of well-meaning BigBangBelievers ripping from Wikipedia pages the sourced NPOV that their dogma cannot stand. --Rednblu 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

s/BigBangBeliever/Mainstream scientific viewpoint. Enough said. Guy 19:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BigBangBeliever/Mainstream scientism's viewpoint. Enough said. Tommy Mandel 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, after all, the "Findings of fact" section, is it not? Hence, our methods should be straightforward forensics. So what is your forensic theory of the edit? Why would the well-meaning editor who made that edit rip out what the authors Bell & McDiarmid wrote about the data and insert his own unsourced but well-meaning editor's beliefs about the data in violation of WP:NOR? First of all, what did the well-meaning maker of that edit know when he made the edit? Certainly, the one who made that edit knew that Bell had applied since 2002 Arp's 1997 argument that parent galaxies eject quasars with high "intrinsic redshift," far greater than the parent galaxy, which "intrinsic redshift" has nothing to do with either 1) distance from the earth or 2) velocity of the ejected quasars. Furthermore, the well-meaning editor who made that edit must have known that Bell himself had published in 2002 in the Astrophysical Journal his intrinsic redshift model in which the high intrinsic redshift of new quasars is superimposed on the "Hubble expansion [that is] still expected to apply for normal galaxies"; in the "normal galaxy" all associated quasars, if any, were ejected more than 10^9 years ago, given that the "intrinsic redshift" dies away and becomes undetectable after 10^8 years. Moreover, the well-meaning editor who made that edit must have known that in the cited 2006 article that was cut, Bell & McDiarmid explicitly say in applying Bell's 2002 intrinsic redshift model to the whole SDSS Quasar Catalog of 46,400 quasars: "It is also worth noting again that in the DIR [decreasing intrinsic redshift] model the intrinsic component present in quasar redshifts is superimposed on top of a second redshift component that has been found, at least in the local universe, to be indistinguishable from that of a Hubble flow" (p. 141). And then in the citation that was cut in the edit, Bell & McDiarmid explicitly calculate from the empirical data to distinguish what is 1) intrinsic redshift and what is 2) cosmological redshift (p. 143). Certainly, the well-meaning editor violated WP:NOR in this edit by ripping out the author's argument and inserting his own unsourced POV, but what is your forensic theory of the edit? Why did he do it? --Rednblu 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept ScienceApologist's explanation of his reasoning. You have verifiable evidence of baser motives? And quit with the legal talk, it does not impress. And as stated, those you denigrate as BigBangBelievers are, in fact, in a supermajority within the field. Guy 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is basically a personal attack on myself and it oozes with lack of civility. --ScienceApologist 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit violates WP:TALK and WP:DE policy

1) This edit violates WP:TALK and WP:DE by unnecessarily chilling and disrupting civil discussion that was localized to specific sections of the TalkPage and did not disrupt discussion in other sections of the TalkPage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rednblu 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. It is not "chilling debate" to remove from project space an editors attempts to rewwrite policy in favour of his own position in an edit conflict. Guy 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe

Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe, Gary Moring, ISBN 00286-4242-2, Alpha Books (December 4, 2001), trade paperback, 358 pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Poor resource. --ScienceApologist 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because? --Iantresman 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the author is not reliable being, basically a fringe promoter of holistic pseudoscience. He teaches at University of Phoenix and is pursuing a New Agey degree in "Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness" (big red flag). His degrees are from very out-of-the-way schools and his understanding of physics and science in general is fairly limited: generally "bad science". This may be a fine text for showing what this particular author thinks are interesting ideas about "theories of the universe", but this text is not fine for a scientific introduction to the subject nor is it even very good as a philosophical introduction to the subject. There's no accountability in the publishers of "Idiot's Guides". However, there are good resources out there. For a good layperson's introduction to the scientific study of cosmology I would recommend Hawley and Holcomb's Foundations of Modern Cosmology which covers the scientific ideas fairly well. For a general philosophical and larger-contextual overview, I would recommend Hetherington's Cosmology: Historical, Literay, Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific Perspectives. But please, this Idiot's Guide is not very good. --ScienceApologist 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting, the Editors of Scientific American liked his book on Einstein,[66], and say that "The book's explanations are complete enough to both satisfy the reader and pacify the scientist". I'm sure that Norriss Hetherington's book is good too; I wonder how his academic qualifications compare to Moring's? --Iantresman 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not aspire to become a Wikipedian. I am not a Wiki editor. I am a reader who happened to find numerous flaws if two articles that I was interested in. I really believed that this encyclopedia was free, and that edits would be welcome. BUT what I found was that controversial articles are "owned" by a select group of editors who manage to slant the article one way or the other, usually their way. It really is obvious. I also found that it is almost impossible to correct the situation, for, as one admin stated on the general talk page "Wiki admins can do as they damn well please."

I do not understand how the fact that plasma cosmoogy is not the big bang theory escapes nearly everyone. I do not understand how a big bang advocate can edit plasma cosmology, removing what plasma has to offer, and leave the article in complete disarray, and get away with it? Does everyone think they are doing a good job?

My daughter is working toward her masters in information science. According to the class, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source in academic situations. Believe me, it is not because experts are pushed away by pseudoscientists, it is because, as my colleagues told me several times, of the edit wars. They just don't have the time to play the game. Wikipedia, at least at UofI, is considered a social phenonmenon, and it is not considered by them as a "reliable source of information."

Because I have tried to implement such a project as Wikipedia myself i can appreciate the significance of this project. But there is a cancer at the very core of Wikipedia, and there is no mechanism to ferret it out and make course corrections. Ultimately the truth will be known, so what appears in Wikipedia now will have no lasting effect. But it is a shame that our children who find Wikipedia easy to use, will suffer the consequences

Just for your information, in our work, we use the four domains of philosophy, science, methdology and action. The philosophy are the general principles, the science is application of those principles, methodology, assuming discovery and diagnosis, is the plan for resolution, and all this ends in action. The modeling is recursive.

As a post script, I have met a couple Wiki-walkers, workers who only want to help. So I know they exist.(I am grateful for your help.) On the other hand I have also met Wiki-talkers who are very adept at wiki-talk. They are very adept at telling us they are doing a good job, while they wiki-talk in the article.

Tommy Mandel 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia does not given weight to subjects that run contrary to established knowledge. For example, someone editting wikipedia claiming the sky it polka dot will have their edits reverted. Arbusto 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)