Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Evidence presented by iantresman 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Evidence 1.3 Summary 1.4 Counter evidence 1.5 Comments 2 Evidence presented by ScienceApologist 2.1 Previous attempts at dispute resolution of possible interest 2.2 Regarding working on pseudoscience in general 2.3 Regarding Ian Tresman in particular 2.4 Regarding Eric Lerner in particular 2.5 Problem with Ian Tresman's so-called "evidence" 2.6 Problem with Asmodeus' so-called evidence 3 Comment by William M. Connolley 4 Evidence presented by User:Pjacobi 4.1 Exemplary autopsy of Iantresman's evidence 4.2 Benis case 5 Evidence presented by user:Bubba73 6 Evidence presented by Cyde Weys 6.1 The only neutral POV is a scientific POV 6.2 The Big Bang theory is by far the most accepted theory of the beginning of the universe 7 Evidence presented by {tommysun} 7.1 Evidence of pseudoscience/pseudoskepticism 7.2 Evidence of misrepresentation by ScienceApologist 7.3 Evidence that there is no big bang theory 7.4 Evidence of tipping the scales against Iantresman 7.5 Evidence of personal attacks found through Art 7.6 Evidence of guilt by association tactic 7.7 Science Apologist manipulates the evidence 7.8 ScienceApologist is a big bang advocate 7.9 How ScienceApologist pushes his POV 7.10 Evidence of presupposition by big bang editors 7.11 Evidence of category error by big bang plasma cosmology editors 7.12 Evidence of pushing theory into fact 7.13 On Creationism 7.14 Evidence that Plasma Cosmology is not fringe science 7.15 Evidence that plasma cosmology is about plasma cosmology 7.16 Reference material 7.17 On pseudoscience 7.18 On Art LaPella 7.19 On NPOV and undue weight 7.20 On involved users 7.21 Example of pseudoscience in action today 7.22 WikiTalk and WikiWalk 8 Evidence presented by User:JBKramer 8.1 Eric Lerner (User:Elerner) solicits investors and contributors on the internet 8.2 Ian Tresman (User:Iantresman) is repetively sardonic to the point of incivility 8.3 Ian Tresman does not follow WP:OR to the point of being dishonest 8.4 Ian Tresman routinely venueshops with continued dishonesty 8.5 Contrary to User:Mangojuice's assertion, I am not "here to oppose the work of people like Lerner and their articles" 8.6 Annotated list of every edit I have made to Eric Lerner 8.7 User:Asmodeus is a principal of the Cognative Theoretical Model of the Universe (CTMU) 8.8 User:Asmodeus is incivil 8.9 User has left 9 Evidence presented by User:Art LaPella 10 Evidence presented by User:Rednblu 10.1 Flawed Wikipedia policy and guidelines encourage the localized consensus in destroying NPOV, ... 10.2 Uprooting the NPOV citations that contradict their consensus dogma, ... 10.3 Ripping citations from the topics, such as "intrinsic redshift," that published scholars explicitly use to characterize their own work, ... 10.4 Uprooting community discussions that attempt to develop legitimate measures of NPOV Due weight, ... 11 Evidence presented by Art Carlson 11.1 Eric Lerner has pushed his POV on Aneutronic fusion 11.2 Tommy Mandel has pushed his POV on Big Bang and Plasma cosmology 11.3 Tommy Mandel has pushed his POV on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop 11.4 Tommy Mandel is deliberately uncooperative 12 Evidence presented by Asmodeus 12.1 Apparent incomprehension of the distinction between notable philosophy and non-notable pseudoscience by Pjacobi and Science Apologist 12.2 Questionable use of administrative authority by Pjacobi 12.3 Misleading/prejudicial slanting of biographical information by ScienceApologist 12.4 Additional Clarification 13 Evidence presented by Iamthebob 13.1 Regarding Tommysun 14 Evidence by elerner 15 Evidence presented by User:JzG 15.1 Some specifics 15.2 In respect of the personalities and actions in this case 15.3 The generalities of pseudoscience, and a proposal 16 Evidence presented by User:Mangojuice 17 Evidence presented by User: Gleng 18 Evidence presented by Shell_Kinney 19 Evidence presented by KrishnaVindaloo 08:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC) 20 Evidence by Serpent's Choice 20.1 Response to Asmodeus's concerns 21 Evidence presented by KillerChihuahua 21.1 On KrishnaVindaloo 21.1.1 AGF, NPA, CIVIL: 21.1.2 V, CON, misdirect: 21.1.3 Response to counter-attack 22 Evidence presented by Tim Smith 22.1 Aggressive, uninformed editing and reverting by ScienceApologist 23 Evidence presented by User:QTJ 23.1 Problems with ScienceApologists' Explanation of Change to CML's Biography 23.2 Problems with Serpent's Choice's choice of the word "fringe science" 23.3 Miscellaneous diff-based evidence 24 Evidence presented by User:Jim Butler 24.1 On Category:Pseudoscience and related topics 24.2 Regarding some evidence and comments presented above 25 Evidence presented by {your user name} 25.1 {Write your assertion here} 25.2 {Write your assertion here}

[edit] Evidence presented by iantresman

[edit] Introduction

This case is about the mis-representation of scientific minority views as (a) Insignificant/non-notable, or worse (b) Pseudoscience, resulting in the unbalanced "pushing" of the mainstream scientific point of view (POV).

I agree there is no place in science article for (a) pseudoscience (b) information described in a pseudoscientific manner, ie. failing WP:RS. I agree that that the mainstream view should be described as such.

Other editors may have good examples of removing actual pseudoscience from inappropriate places, but this dispute is not about those.

Editors claiming in their original Statement that I push or promote pseudoscience inappropriately, include (a) ScienceApologist [2] (b) FeloniousMonk [3] [4] [5] (c) Guettarda [6] (d) Joke137 [7] The onus is on them to (a) present evidence from reliable sources identifying pseudoscience (b) Show "Diffs" that I am "pushing" it as defined in POV pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view".)

[edit] Evidence

• Misrepresentation of minority scientific views as pseudoscience (without reliable sources)

• Eric Lerner and/or his work [8] [9] [10] [11] or worse [12]. My request for a reliable source [13]
• Plasma cosmology [14] [15]
• Tired light [16]

• Discrediting with ad hominems, (without reliable sources), noting sensibility of WP:LIVING:

• Eric Lerner (a) Awards removal [17] (b) Discrediting "theories", calling then "ideas" [18] (c) Replacing positive reviews with negative ones [19]
• Dr. László Körtvélyessy, Removing academic credentials "physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences." [20], changing his speciality to "self described"[21]
• Ricardo Carezani, Labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Ricardo Carezani as well-known Woo-Woos" [22]
• Halton Arp, Suggesting his "pathological skepticism" [23]
• Tom van Flandern "out-and-out insane" [24]
• User:Iantresman (me!): my "close-minded ignorance" [25], not to "be a dick" [26], I am "very incompetent in this regard",[27], I am an "avowed Velikovskian"[28][29], I am a "nonscientist layman" [30], I am an "admitted non-expert and non-scientist" [31] (I actually have a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry, and a Masters degree in Computer Sciences; while they are over 20 years old, I'm not unfamiliar with the academia.) And in evidence below, I am (ironically) "narrow-minded"[32]. "dishonest",[33]. "started out at Wikipedia by editting Immanuel Velikovsky"[34] (so what?).
• Calling living authors William C Mitchell, Eric Lerner, John Michell, Dick Teresi, Ludwig Auer and Stuart Clark, all "cranks",[35]

• RfD or blanking article: Intrinsic redshift with no discussion [36], RfD [37] Subsequent blanking a rewriting [38]

• Discrediting individuals or minority scientific views by association with claimed pseudoscience (eg. Creation science, Geocentrism, Velikovsky), with no reliable sources:

• The Electric Universe (book): ".. ideas culled from a variety of sources from those interested in plasma cosmology to Velikovsky"[39]
• Redshift quantization: Association with Creationism and geocentrism, [40]
• Plasma Universe: "the term "Plasma Universe" [includes] fringe and pseudoscientific suggestions. "[41]
• Non-standard cosmology described as "Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science", [42]
• Dusty plasma: Mis-association with "electric universe" and bias against "Plasma universe" book. See section "Inappropriate" [43]

• Use of the Weasel word phrase "The (mainstream) scientific community"[44], with no reliable source indicating any proportion that is even familiar with a subject.

• Redshift quantization: "the consensus in the astronomical community"[45]
• Eric Lerner: "regarded as pseudoscience by the mainstream physics community"[46]
• Plasma universe: "considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified."[47]
• Pseudoscience: "Fields considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" (User:FeloniousMonk) [48], (User:KillerChihuahua) [[49]], (user:Jefffire) [50] [51], (user:Jim62sch) [52]

• POV-pushing (ie. "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view."), in this case the mainstream scientific point of view.

• Redshift: Removal of alternative redshift theories, [53], even from "See also" links, [54] (Only redshift-like optical phenomenon are included)
• Galaxy rotation curve (showing only one alternative POV) [55]

• Mis-using Undue weight against significant minority scientific views.

• Redshift, Near exclusion of Wolf effect (a type of redshift, see article for notability and references) [56] [57], [58] (Wolf's original paper is cited 100+ times.[59], Prof. Daniel James notes over 100 papers on the topic [60]

• Replacing reliable sources with unsubstantiated opinion:

• Wolf effect: ScienceApologist (as Joshuaschroeder) personally disagrees the Wolf effect is a redshift,[61] [62] [63], yet sources describe the Wolf Effect as (A) "a new redshift mechanism" (See article, first sentence), (B) "Doppler like" (ie. like a Doppler redshift, see article, first quote). (C) As a "redshift"... confirmed by author-come-Wiki-editor (Dfvjames) Prof. Dan James,[64] author of peer reviewed papers on the subject,[65] (D) As a "Redshift" (see article refs [66]) by the person who predicted and effect, Prof. Emil Wolf [67] (E) By other peer reviewed researchers see article refs [68])
• Wolf effect: Removing an image based on a peer-reviewed illustration,[69]) claiming: (a) Image removed claimed "because it is inaccurate"[70] (b) Claimed in violation of WP:V [71], or (c) "Claimed the image is included is a bad one"[72] (d) Put up for deletion, without explanation, [73]
• Hannes Alfvén: (whose plasma cosmology was labelled as pseudoscience, above), removed characterising quote from Stephen G. Brush,[74] from a peer reviewed source, written by a University Professor in the History of Science because he doesn't "think that Brush's paper belongs"[75]
• "Redshift quantization: In his evidence below ("Primer"), ScienceApologist has provided much opinion without sources. E.g. He describes "Redshift quantization" from "researchers [who] think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang"[76]; But researcher/discoverer William G. Tifft, is quoted in Discover magazine as saying something different, but ScienceApologist removes the verifiable source.[77]

• Biased editing, no reliable sources:

• Timeline of cosmology, this edit [78] (a) removes two verifiable entries, but described them as "inaccurate" (b) changes one entry to read "now-discounted concept". This is biased because no other entries on the page are described as "now-discounted" (even though some are), and requests for a reliable source confirming (i) the original inaccuracies (ii) confirming the discounted theory, are not forthcoming. See Talk section "Discounted Ambiplasma theory"
• Wolf effect, in the section "Wolf effect and Quasars", this edit [79] removes a quote taken from a reliable source (beginning: ".. the observed spectral shifts may be due to other causes has been a subject of intense controversy .. "), and replaces it with a speculative version (in the introduction, ".. apparently a reference to the controversies"), that has no citations, and presents a mainstream view as fact.
• Redshift: I requested a source for a statement which I believe to be contrived,[80], but I contend that the reference provided (to three books, no page numbers, nor quotes),[81] is too vague. After requests [82] for a quote, none are forthcoming, and my own specific quotes are ignored.

• Suppression, and double standards, all in Redshift quantization:

• Suppression: (a) Quote removal claimed not peer reviewed,[83], (b) removal of positive parts of peer reviewed quote,[84], (c) removal of positive peer reviewed quote (see "Hodge concluded .."), [85]
• Double standards: Material included from self-published sources on Creationism, Geocentrism,[86]
• ... and consequently drawing conclusions after suppression of papers above, see "Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have found no evidence.." (because two papers suggesting evidence were removed), and "consequently most cosmologists dispute .." [87] (which a couple of papers do not support).

• Inappropriate Administrator conduct:

• William M. Connolley: See "Counter evidence" below.
• FeloniousMonk: (a) Acting in an uncivil manner while trying to clarify NPOV, he would not engage in discussion, and unilaterally and without warning, removed my discussion to my talk page, preventing other editors from commenting [88]. (b) Accusations of being a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher"[89][90], without explanation, or on request [91]. (c) Reaction to blocking incident [92] by Shell Kinney described below. (d) Uncivil ignoring of editing question,[93]

[edit] Summary

I've added my own emphases:

• "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source..."(Undue_weight)
• "refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section .. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"(Fairness_of_tone)
• "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"(NPOV on minority views)

• Peer reviewed journals include recent papers on scientific minority subjects, e.g. [94][95][96] and books, [97][98], and manage to exclude pseudoscience, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

So why can't some editors reflect the real world, rather than their perception of it?

[edit] Counter evidence

• William M. Connolley declared a conflict of interest in blocking me, but omitted to declared a conflict of intested when he blocked me from an article he had already edited,[99][100][101] and discussed,[102]; He blocked me for 3RR, which "does not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision"[103], as I described when making the changes.[104]

• User:Pjacobi examines the sentence in the Non-standard cosmology article, "Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science are all terms used to describe ideas that are proposed that are considered by the scientific community "[105], and suggests that this is "A general statement, introducing and wikilinking labels..."[106]. But he didn't include any peer reviewed sources illustrating these terms being used against any of the alternative cosmologies (eg. Steady state theory, plasma cosmology) in the article. The introductory sentence may give the false impression, that for example, the "Steady State Theory" is pseudoscience , when regular science differentiated Big Bang theory from Steady State Theory. --Iantresman 18:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Mangojuice: Your point about WP:V and WP:NPOV is well taken, but I don't think your example concerning an article on fringe theory X is quite right. For example, when Wegener's plate tectonics theory first appeared, a Wikipedia description would have been neutral even before negative criticism eventually appeared, and regardless of it subsequent acceptance. Surely, only if an article on a theory (finge or not) withholds available criticism from a reliable source, does it become non-neutral. But until a theory is criticised, science is agnostic, even if individuals have their own opinions. For example, the article on redshift has no section on criticism, even though it is available from reliable peer reviewed sources. --Iantresman 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

[edit] Previous attempts at dispute resolution of possible interest

• 2005-12-03 RfC, Redshift
• 2006-01-04 Administrators'_noticeboard, Intrinsic redshift
• 2006-01-04 Mediation Cabal, Tired light
• 2006-01-07 Administrators'_noticeboard, Intrinsic redshift
• 2006-01-23 Administrators'_noticeboard, Repeated personal attacks
• 2006-02-11 Mediation Cabal, Electric Universe
• 2006-02-11 Request for Mediation, Plasma Universe
• 2006-03-19 Mediation Cabal, Redshift
• 2006-03-31 Administration noticeboard, Plasma Universe
• 2006-03-31 Administration noticeboard, Galaxy rotation problem
• 2006-05-27 Admin Noticeboard, Disruption of new article Plasma Universe
• |2006-09-11 Personal attack intervention noticeboard and subsequent |Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents block discussion

[edit] Regarding working on pseudoscience in general

Some of the best and most competent expert Wikipedia contributors have left over harassment by pseudoscience supporters:[107] [108] This one is the most shocking.

[edit] Regarding Ian Tresman in particular

• Ian Tresman is a catastrophist who supports Velikovskian pseudoscience [109], [110], [111]
• Ian Tresman believes the peer review process is inherently biased and thinks that this should be made clear in Wikipedia. [112],
• Ian Tresman sees Wikipedia as a chance to promulgate minority views [113], Post at another forum where Ian tried to encourage meat puppetry.
• Ian Tresman believes his support of non-standard cosmologies is fighting dogmatism [114] ,[115], [116]
• Ian Tresman believes that qualifying the support of scientists about controversial fringe/pseudoscience should be limitted [117], [118]
• Ian Tresman routinely uses search-engine results as a replacement for careful research, often not even reading the papers he tries to cite instead resorting to bean-counting references that have a term he searched for in the paper. He routinely fails to evaluate whether or not the use of the term corresponds to the point he is trying to make. [119] [120] an entire section of a talkpage dealing with this
• Ian Tresman duplicitously advocates against factual edits even when he knows they are factual. his dispute about whether the ambiplasma is verifiably discounted evidence Ian knows that ambiplasma is discounted
• Ian Tresman is a vexatious litigator, accusing me falsely of violating NPA inappropriate refactoring [121], lack of good faith, vandalism, and numerous other offenses. He also tried to lend support for the block Ed Poor made of myself with unrelated commentary.
• Ian Tresman has tried, unsuccessfully, to get his opinions about the way Wikipedia should work integrated into Wikipedia policy. [122], [123], Wikipedia:Article point of view vs NPOV,

--ScienceApologist 12:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Eric Lerner in particular

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner

[edit] Problem with Ian Tresman's so-called "evidence"

Much of Ian Tresman's "evidence" is couched around two different motives:

1. Desire to see his pet ideas related to catastrophism, non-standard astronomy, etc. promulgated on Wikipedia
2. Basic ignorance in the fields of astrophysics, physics, mathematics, and the natural sciences in general

Ian is an interesting case because he does selectively research but fails to comprehensively research. So many of his characterizations are inaccurate, misleading, or worse.

We begin: This case is about the mis-representation of scientific minority views

--it is incorrect to call this "scientific minority" in many cases. There are a few scientists who eke out an acceptance on the fringe of the astrophysics community that Ian has tried to include, but many cases these "minority scientists" are so far away from the mainstream as to be ignored. Thus, the "insignificant" and "non-notable" monikers used to explain why these ideas are either excluded or marginalized in articles on mainstream subjects. WP:NPOV#Undue weight is very clear on this matter, and Ian has tried to change the wording on numerous occasions to accomodate his "minority views" more easily in Wikipedia. [124] [125] [126]

What are these subjects Ian writes about?

Ian started out at Wikipedia by editting Immanuel Velikovsky [127]. The pseudoscientific nature of Velikovsky's yammerings were noted by Carl Sagan and others. This popular critique of these ideas has led to many catastrophists (such as Ian) to reposition their advocacy toward less overtly catastrophist positions and in the process have consolidated (mostly on the internet) resources that attack the things they wish to attack from a number of angles. When Wikipedia appeared, many of these people were attracted by the open nature and began nearly spamming the encyclopedia until basic physics and astrophysics articles were almost unrecognizable. When I arrived here, articles like Big Bang and redshift were riddled with innuendo, half-truths, and even patent nonsense. Cleaning it up made a lot of people angry, but I have persisted in my efforts despite the noise.

Ian's basic problem is that he is narrow-minded and hopelessly out-of-date when it comes to evaluating fringe subjects and the mainstream subjects they attack/criticize. This means that he takes a small number of sources from, in many cases, decades ago and waves them around demanding that they be included in his chosen article to edit, whether they are editorially meaningful or not. For example, while there may be a dozen papers over the last 40 years that deal with redshift quantization, there are literally thousands dealing with other more prosaic subjects that we report in the redshift article. Ian wants to see redshift quantization mentioned on redshift. WP:NPOV#Undue weight seems to support my position that it doesn't belong there.

He also has had a problem in the past with spamming unsourced original research into articles. [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]

--ScienceApologist 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Asmodeus' so-called evidence

Below, Asmodeus claims:

ScienceApologist, after participating in an incoherent deletional attack on an article on a notable philosophical theory (as documented above), attacked the biography of its author, attempting to falsely portray him as a member of the ID movement and thereby diminish his credibility: 8

However, close analysis of this edit shows it to be a verifiable fact. Lagan indeed is a fellow of the institute in question which was in fact founded by Jonathan Wells who is indeed a prominent member of the ID movement. The edit does not state that Lagan is a member of the ID movement, nor does it state that this would diminish his credibility. And yet, this verifiable fact is opposed by Asmodeus on the basis of his own strawman. Asmodeus presenting it as evidence here only shows how extremely tendentious editors such as Asmodeus are. They need their wings clipped or they will continue to hound decent mainstream editors until Wikipedia becomes a condified safe haven for fringe theories and pseudoscience.

--ScienceApologist 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by William M. Connolley

Wikipedia has a problem with pseudoscience, minority POV-pushers, and not enough involvement by mainstream scientists (and OK, I have a conflict-of-interest to declare over climate change (oooopsss... and I just realised I blocked Iantresman)). Wiki gives too much weight to pseudo/minority science, which leads to terrible things like Hillman leaving.

I support the comments of SA (above) and Pj and FM (on the RFA page). A couple of people have said things like “Pseudoscience” is a word rarely used by scientists in the peer reviewed literature - a weird strawman. Of course mainstream science simply ignores pseudoscience, what else would you expect?

Given previous history, I doubt the arbcomm will (can?) solve this - but something needs to be done... William M. Connolley 21:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Pjacobi

[edit] Exemplary autopsy of Iantresman's evidence

IMHO things will get rather clear when the evidence presented by Iantresman is carefully read and compared to his description of the evidence.

I'll try to dissect one randomly picked item as an example:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-standard_cosmology&diff=24423736&oldid=24423168
• Iantresmans description of this edit: Non-standard cosmology described as "Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science" (see above)
• What's really in the edit
  • sentence 1: Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science are all terms used to describe ideas that are proposed that are considered by the scientific community to either lack explanatory power or are incomplete compared to the accepted scientific theories.
  • sentence 2: All the ideas discussed in this article may fall under some or all of these categories as each one has major flaws that have caused them to be considered outside the scientific mainstream.
  • sentence 3: Some of the ideas were at one time considered possible explanations but have since been dismissed in favor of the Big Bang.
  • sentence 4: Other ideas have never had wide acceptance.
  • sentence 5: All nonstandard cosmologies rely on a rejection of the major features of the Big Bang which are considered problematic by the proponents of the ideas for a number of reasons ranging from religion to claimed skepticism.
• Sentences 3 to 5 are unproblematic and I assume not related to Iantresman's reading.
• Sentence 1 states, after simplifying the sentence structure:
  • ideas that are proposed that are considered by the scientific community to either lack explanatory power or are incomplete compared to the accepted scientific theories [are described by different terms, including all of] Pseudoscience, fringe science, bad science, and junk science.
    • A general statement, introducing and wikilinking labels used for ideas lacking explanatory power compared to mainstream
• Sentence 2 includes two statements:
  • 2a All the ideas discussed in this article may fall under some or all of these categories
    • This part may be open to misreading, but can easily be read at not giving a summary POV statement where exactly nonstandard cosmology is on the scale of differently bad science
  • 2b as each one has major flaws that have caused them to be considered outside the scientific mainstream.
    • We have to trust the judgement of the scientific mainstream to some extent. Wikipedia can't compete with the effort going into this judgement. Wikipedia isn't the Court of Appeals of the scientific process

Sorry for this diff autopsy which may be considered to be not exactly evidence.

Pjacobi 22:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benis case

Wikipedia is target of pseudoscience promotion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis. --Pjacobi 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by user:Bubba73

The pseudoscience problem is much larger than the conflict between ScienceApologist and Iantresman, and much larger than just the pseudoscience article itself. I'd like to touch on that.

I think that the problem of pseudoscience is the biggest threat to Wikipedia today (vandalism could be handled). There are many editors with pro-pseudoscience viewpoints that are using Wikipedia as a soapbox or a blog to push their point of view, often at the exclusion of the scientific viewpoint. (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, wikipedia is not a blog, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.)

There are many editors that are pushing the pro-pseudoscience agenda and attacking people who are anti-pseudoscience. For instance, this is the way the Philip J. Klass article was on June 6, 2006. Notice the vitriol in the "criticism" section, and the length of that section. Finally the criticism section was removed on July 20, 2006: diff. Yet today, an editor is calling factual information about Klass "praise" and calling for more criticism: diff.

In the article Immanuel Velikovsky, pro-pseudoscience editors delete factual, referenced material. I put in most or all of this factual material, referenced from a reliable source, Philip Plait, here is the diff.

In the article Green Fireballs I entered factual material referenced from a book by Smithsonian Institution aerospace historian Curtis Peebles, which was published by the Smithsonian. Pro-pseudoscience POV-pushers won't let that factual, referenced material stay in the article, here is the diff.

That is only a few samples out of many. The articles Majestic 12 and Roswell UFO Incident contain many more of them (back around late 2005 and early 2006, at least). The article Billy Meier and Natasha Demkina may have had such edits (although I wasn't involved in the last one).

In the CSICOP article, an editor who fails to understand the difference between aura (symptom) and aura (paranormal) diff and then engages in hundreds of disruptive edits to the article and its talk page.

I wholeheartedly agree with ScienceApologist when he said "Some of the best and most competent expert Wikipedia contributors have left over harassment by pseudoscience supporters". I know of two such editors, Hillman mentioned there was one of them.

Myself, I edit mostly chess articles now. I have spent a lot of time, money, and effort to try to improve Wikipedia. I have bought 10 to 20 books simply to read and use as sources for Wikipedia articles. I have calculated that I spend about 30 minutes of time for each two paragraphs I've edited in Wikipedia. I've spent too much time, money, and effort contributing to Wikipedia in a positive way to have it reverted by pro-pseudoscience POV-pushers (the above are only a few examples). I have over 6,000 edits on several topics, and I don't think I have ever been reverted except by pro-pseudoscience editors and by people who believe that the Moon landings were a hoax (see Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations), which is basically the same thing as a pseudoscience.

There are a couple of projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience) and a category "Wikipedians who oppose quackery", but they have not been successful of stemming the tide of pro-pseudoscience POV-pushing. If you look at the articles listed by those projects, there are many articles that are subject to pro-pseudoscience pushing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Cyde Weys

[edit] The only neutral POV is a scientific POV

It's true, science is pretty much the definition of neutral point of view. Science is the only way of looking at the world that is dispassionate, methodical, fact-based, evidence-based, and truly tells us more about the very nature of the things. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, and so we must necessarily take the viewpoint of real science versus pseudoscientific bullshit. In real science there are hypotheses, conjectures, et al (such as string theory), but these are all real science, and we do an excellent job of covering them. Roswell aliens, crystal healing, Moon hoaxes, homeopathy ... these are not real science and need to be covered accordingly. What the pseudoscience POV-pushers are trying to do is create some false equilibrium that makes both viewpoints (real science and bullshit) look equivalent, when clearly they are not. Look at our articles on evolution and intelligent design, for instance. These are excellent articles that deal with topics that are normally the subject of anti-scientific propaganda. Thankfully, we've managed to write them in an encyclopedic tone (though it's taken a lot of work!), and so we should do the same for all science articles. --Cyde Weys 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Big Bang theory is by far the most accepted theory of the beginning of the universe

One of the guys in this case is trying to paint the Big Bang Theory as a "minority viewpoint". How hysterical. As well all know, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This is a simple fact as established by redshift analysis of distant galaxies and quasars; the farther away they are, the faster they are receding; this is even expressed mathematically using Hubble's law. Any steady-state theory of the universe is totally discredited. In additional, the cosmic microwave background (as first measured by COBE and later WMAP) was seen as conclusive proof of the Big Bang almost twenty years ago. There's no real scientific dispute over the Big Bang at all. It's just like the manufactured controversies over evolution, global warming, or whether or not smoking causes cancer. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {tommysun}

I beg your pardon, I have not attempted to paint the big bang theory as the minority (?) I am trying to paint it as a complementary in a greater system which includes rather than excludes the other forces of nature. Einstein's theory of gravitation, General Relativity, is not about electromagnetism. This doesn't mean that electromagnetism doesn't exist. And that the science of electromagnetism in space is a fringe science. Hubble's equations established a relationship between redshift and distance. That redshift also means velocity hence accelerating expansion, was put into the equation by adding "C" the velocity of light. What is called, mathematically, an assumption - to accept as true without proof. When they did that, and Hubble warned them, here we are inventing dark energy we can't detect, dark matter we can't see, black holes that spit out matter, all based on the assumption that the Universe just happened to begin sometime in the past. When we all know that "now"

is all that ever happened.

Tommy Mandel 05:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of pseudoscience/pseudoskepticism

Article - Crop Circles

Evidence of POV Pushing

This is what I placed into the article.

[edit] Scientific investigations of crop circles

A number of practicing scientists have investigated the crop cicle phenomenon including Gerald Hawkins, an astronomer who investigated Stonehedge reported on the geometrical formations; William Levengood, a biophysicist and University professor studied the plant structure, E, Haselhoff, an experimental and theoretical physicist studied the patterns of crop bending. The organization BLT research, utilized the scientific method to analyize soil structure. These investigations involved what has been observed in the field.

The BLT Research Team is a group which states as its objective "the discovery, scientific documentation and evaluation of physical changes induced in plants, soils and other materials at crop circle sites by the energy (or energy system) responsible for creating them and to determine, if possible, from these data the specific nature and source of these energies", The BLT group has claimed that anomalous changes in the soil underlying crop circles have been found that could not be explained by conventional theory.[6]

Dr. Eltjo Hasellhof, a practicing physicist, has rigorously investigated the crop circle phenomenon. His findings are published in his book: "Deepening Complexity of Crop Circles:"

Crop circles have become highly controversial, especially after it was revealed that some of the circles were man-made. "Unfortunately, much of the public information is not very accurate or even is completely wrong, as a result of ignorance, lack of accuracy or objectivity. or simply evil intent. " Haselhoff has investigated the crop circle phenomenon and concluded, "some relativly simple observations seem to defy any trivial explanation. Biophysical anomalies, in terms of node leghtening and germination anomalies, The lack of any indication of human presence or mechanical flattening, The awesome complexity and particularily the hidden geometry in many pictograms at least indicate that this cannot be the result of a simple joke,"

And this is what happened ---

"I have reverted your edits to Crop Circles, as they give the false appearance of reputable science promoting crop circles as something other than pranks. Any future additions of this material, even in part, should be given consensus on the article's talk page and cited to death. Another suggestion: this talk page is for people to leave you messages. It is not a place for you to catalog all of your edits. That is done automatically (the contributions tab). Michaelbusch 02:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)"

The truth of the matter is that those scientists who have investigated the crop circle phenomenon have found objective evidence which they say could not have been created by mechanical means. In the biological realm, cellular structure changes within the plant are unexplained, In the geological sense, changes to the atomic structure of clays cannot be explained, In the geometrical sense, new euclidian theorems have been found that are not explainable by chance. If mainstream science means the commonly held view of those scientists who are actually involved in the research, then the scientific mainstream view is that thay do not know what caused the circles. Tommy Mandel 04:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. The mainstream view is that there are a large number of pranksters out there. The 'objective evidence' cited has been accurately produced in demonstrations of crop circle construction (as discussed in the article). The other problems referenced above (which show a lack of understanding of the corresponding subjects) are not relevant to this discussion. See User:Michaelbusch under Objection 3. This situation is a variant of that case. Michaelbusch 06:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: Tommysun has been waging a one-man crusade on Talk:Crop circle for the above material to be included in the article. I have largely stayed out of the debate, which is heated and has verged from crop circles into other topics. It has not remotely reached consensus, one of the reasons I reverted the additions. The other was the lack of citations. Michaelbusch 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of misrepresentation by ScienceApologist

In the plasma cosmoogy article in the section on redshifts, this statement appears

Cosmological redshifts are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by Hubble's law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. One of the key assumptions of plasma cosmology is that this observation does not indicate an expanding universe.

In short, Hubble's Law is a distance/redshift relationship and by itself has nothing to do with expansion. Expansion is based on the assumption that the redshift is a Doppler effect. Plasma cosmology assumes that the Doppler redshift interpretation is wrong, and therefore redshift is not an indicators of expansion. The way SA lets it read is saying that plasma cosmology assumes a fact is not true

And when I edited it to reflect reality, SA reverted it without improvement.[135]

Second opinion:

I asked a professional astronomer PhD type

ScienceApologist states:

"Redshift quantization -- A real effect that less than a handful of researchers think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang. Basically, if redshift quantization is not due to the trace of large-scale structure, it would invalidate the Copernican principle if redshifts are due to what redshift says they are due to."

Does his second sentence make any sense? What is "trace of large scale structure"?

"No, it does not make sense. He obviously means that, if redshift is caused by the Doppler effect, large-scale structure must be organized in such a way as to be periodic (similar to the way that “walls” and voids are periodic). But he avoids saying those words because they leave him open to easy attack. So he tried to distract you by obfuscation."

Why isn't this "professional astronomer PhD type" speaking for himself/herseld instead of through the Tommysun proxy? Why doesn't Tommysun tell us who this person is? It's an interesting ad-hominem but it's verifiably true that the periodic nature of walls and voids are shown to account for at least some redshift periodicity. However, this alleged astronomer rather cavalierly uses the "Doppler effect" as synonym for the Hubble Law, which is not uncommon but a definite mischaracterization that itself obfuscates the situation (c.f. Tommysun's last edit to the plasma cosmology article). If the person were actually posting here we could ask him or her what they think of the mainstream treatment of redshift distortions and redshift correlations seen in the standard literature. But alas, we have just Tommysun's quoting with which to deal.--ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

why don't you tell us what Doppler redshift means? Certainly that is how it was interpreted in the beginning investigations of cosmology, so why don't you tell us when Doppler redshift became no longer accepted by astronomers? Why don't you tell us that Hubble's law is not about the Doppler redshift? Why don't you tell us how you get from Hubble's law, which is a redshift/distance law, to expansion? Is it true that because the Doppler interpretation is not consistent with quantized redshifts, and may be falsified by quantization if confirmed, it is time to get rid of the Doppler redshift? Are you saying that the Doppler interpretation of redhsift is no longer considered by big bang theory?

PS, the idea of science is to go beyond the speaker straight to the message,a.k.a. objectivity, so, no, I do not have to tell you who is helping me now, and that way you can judge what he says only by what he says and not by who he is. It's just that there are times I really cannot understand what you are saying, so When I ran into one of those times, I decided to find out if what didn't make sense to me really doesn't make sense.

Intrewesting, at least some redshift periodicity is due to structural periodicity. Please don't let the geocentrists hear you say that,

[edit] Evidence that there is no big bang theory

If one were to research the subject deeply, one finds that the big bang theory is actually Inflation theory, and Inflation theory is not one theory but several different versions, none of which have risen to the status as the correct version. The theory isn't even ready for testing yet. Therefore, it cannot be said or even implied that the big bang is the most correct theory. It cannot even be said that the big bang is a correct theory. In reality the big bang is a potential proposal, a hypothesis, and has yet to attain the big bang theory status, let alone be proven a scientific fact. If the editors here are competant in this field, then I also question why these facts have been left out, and why the subject has been treated as if it is widely accepted. There is no complete theory to be accepted yet. Something is very wrong here.Tommy Mandel

[edit] Evidence of tipping the scales against Iantresman

Here is an example of what went on almost a year ago (on the admin notice board,) don't know how to do diffs,

Please Iantresman, can't you see when to stop? You have some content disputes with ScienceApologist. Most people from WikiProject Physics which looked at this issue support ScienceApologist. Reddi who tried to tip the scales against ScienceApologist by aggressive editing finds himself on RfAr:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

Pjacobi 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see. I make a complaint against another editor, and offer to substantiate it. Your throw it back in my face, without addressing ANY of my points, and suggest that I am making "agressive editing", based on someone else. And, as it turns out, ScienceApologist's idea of "editing" is to COMPLETELY replace an entire article [40] without any consultation whatsoever. And you condone this form of "cooperation"? --Iantresman 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I get my blocks expunged too? I got dozens of them... Tommy Mandel 07:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Evidence of guilt by association tactic

To quote ScienceApologist:

"Creationists and modern geocentrists in particular are fond of promoting this out-of-the-way research as being proof that god made us at the center of the universe"

The research, confirmed quantized redshift, he is talking about is really out of the way. What is going on is that there are, as usual, different explanations which could possibly explain the observed periodicity of the redshift. For one, Periodicity could create the effect that we are at the center of the Universe. The other explanation is that redshift is not Doppler related but caused by some yet unknown intrinsic mechanism which causes energy loss without scattering.. ScienceApologist has taken the pseudoscientific explanation which is not seriously considered in science, and is using it in the intrinsic redshift article as an implied association. "Because Creationists and modern geocentrists are fond of promoting this..."" He hopes that the reader will not be discerning and inadvertantly make a connection between periodicity and pseudoscience. Tommy Mandel 00:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science Apologist manipulates the evidence

In his own words -

Redshift quantization -- A real effect that less than a handful of researchers think may hold the key to getting rid of the Big Bang. Basically, if redshift quantization is not due to the trace of large-scale structure, it would invalidate the Copernican principle if redshifts are due to what redshift says they are due to. Creationists and modern geocentrists in particular are fond of promoting this out-of-the-way research as being proof that god made us at the center of the universe.

To begin with, the handful of researchers are those who have confirmed Tifft's findings. Scienceapologist has removed these and replaced them with one alleged detractor And he associates Tifftshift with Creationists and geocentrics because one of the alternative explanations is that a quantized redshift would mean the galaxies are at periodic distances, with the earth at the center, IF the redshift is assumed to be a Doppler effect. In other words, If Tifft is right, and Doppler redshift is right, we are the center of the Universe. It is because we are not at the center, that proves Doppler redshift is not valid. Yet Science Apologist has managed to twist this around and equates the periodicity with creationism.

And, when I attempted to insert verifiable and reputable testimony [[136]] (32nd para) that Hubble did not accept expansion into articles talking about redshift, it was reverted. SA's latest justification was "nonsense".

(cur) (last) 01:11, 26 September 2006 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (rv Tommysun nonsense. Hubble is irrelevant to this article.)

(cur) (last) 23:44, 25 September 2006 Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (added Hubble, source and quotes)

(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) Tommy Mandel

[edit] ScienceApologist is a big bang advocate

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3

Quoting ScienceApologist

"If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. The Big Bang is a paradigmatic formalism in cosmology, similar to the way in which Maxwell's Equations as "the set of four equations, attributed to James Clerk Maxwell, that describe the behavior of both the electric and magnetic fields, as well as their interactions with matter". Even though there are those people who think some parts of Maxwell's Equations are wrong (magnetic monopoles for example, may exist), we still use the definitive article because that is the way science works. You can peruse the science pages here on wikipedia for myriad more examples. True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations. In the case of the Big Bang, it (and nothing else) is the one theory available that describes the observations. This has nothing to do with being "neutral", it has to do with reporting the facts about a scientific theory and its applicability to the natural universe. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

And who is Joshuaschroeder but --User:ScienceApologist

Tommy Mandel

[edit] How ScienceApologist pushes his POV

In the article redshift quantization, ScienceApologist states many times that redshift quantization has been falsified citing a paper which claims that no periodicity was found. He then cites a 2006 paper which the authors conclude "In our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galacies is not well established." And then leaves it at that. What he didn't put into the article was the last sentence of their conclusion which reads

"We think also that after clear and convincing demonstrating of the existence of the effect, theoretical explanations of this phenomenon can be performed"

This is the truth of the matter. Periodicity does exist, how much is yet to be determined accurately. If it is found to be at a high significance level, then it is very likely a falsification of the expansion theory. However, if Doppler redshift is true, and quantized redshift is true, the earth is at the center of the Universe.

PS It is said by the big bang gang that the steady state theory has been dismissed (paraphrasing) but guess what I found?

JOHN GRIBBIN Inflation for Beginners [[137]]

There are similarities between the idea of eternal inflation and a self-reproducing universe and the version of the Steady State hypothesis developed in England by Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, with their C-field playing the part of the scalar field that drives inflation. As Hoyle wryly pointed out at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in London in December 1994, the relevant equations in inflation theory are exactly the same as in his version of the Steady State idea, but with the letter "C" replaced by the Greek "Ø". "This," said Hoyle (tongue firmly in cheek) "makes all the difference in the world".

Modern proponents of the inflationary scenario arrived at these equations entirely independently of Hoyle's approach, and are reluctant to accept this analogy, having cut their cosmological teeth on the Big Bang model. Indeed, when Guth was asked, in 1980, how the then new idea of inflation related to the Steady State theory, he is reported as replying "what is the Steady State theory?" 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.Tommy Mandel

[edit] Evidence of presupposition by big bang editors

[138]

Revision as of 02:17, 18 August 2006 (edit) Astrobayes (Talk | contribs) (Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

[edit] Evidence of category error by big bang plasma cosmology editors

Evidence - repeated discussion about undue weight in comparison to big bang concepts within the singular plasma cosmology article.

When invoking undue weight, the comparison is/should be made within the subject matter of the article. That way Due/Undue Weight applies to Plasma cosmology primarily, and not in comparison to some external article/subject. (Unless, of course, a comparison to big bang is initiated by plasma cosmology.) Material discussed in the Plasma cosmology article does/should not have to be presented proportionately with some/any external discussion. Undue Weight can/should only apply internally, to the material within the field of inquiry.

Only by defaulting to such a policy can the plasma cosmology article ferret out and inform us about the internal inconsistencies of plasma cosmology, rather than hearing of the debate going on in the public domain concerning some other subject matter. For example the magnetic/electric problem/debate the early equations created in plasma research, (magnetics was emphasized while electrics was not,) lead to difficulties resolved by considering both electric and magnetic as in "electromagnetic.")

Plasma cosmology as article of knowledge is severly hampered (disrupted) when it is not presented as an integral unit.

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

[edit] Evidence of pushing theory into fact

[139]

Revision as of 02:17, 18 August 2006 (edit) Astrobayes (Talk | contribs) (Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

In the event that this evidence needs explantion, the reason given for the revert above , while it describes the editors opinion, is not accurate in the scientific sense.

I believe it is safe to say that no competant cosmologist from any school would say that physical cosmology, when treated as a general statement applicable to all physical explanations, "IS" the big bang.

The authors of the contemporary version of the big bang do not claim that their theory had been proven to be fact. The big bang "theory" HAS NOT BEEN PROVED, and the evidence thus far presented is largely based on unproven assumptions. Indeed, Lindee, said to be the principle investigator and author of Inflation theory, admits that there are many versions of Inflation, some of which have been conceived of as "fun", To claim/imply that the big bang is the "correct" theory is making a claim that has not been scientifically proven, and therefore, it could be argued, is an example of pseudoscience.

It is not accurate to portray the big bang as "correct" and especially as the "only" correct theory. The big bang theory is not complete to start with, for it can be mathematically shown (and verified) that the big bang theory has not included electromagnetism (plasma).

This omission does not make plasma a fringe science.

It can also be shown that by leaving plasma out of the picture, the big bang theorists have been forced to invent invisible entities which have not been detected, and in some cases are impossible in our known physics.

Technically it goes like this - The standard cosmological big bang theory is based on standard particle theory and General Relativity. It is from General Relativity that the singularity requirement comes from. To get from a singularity to the Universe is accomplished, big bang theorists claim, by an inflation of the Scalar Field (inside of space). It is from this Scalar Field that energy/matter comes from. This matter/energy assumes the form of a quark/gluon plasma prior to recombination and standard particle physics postulates the formation of protons and electrons from that plasma eventually cooling down and becoming hygrogen atoms. This "plasma", because of quantum fluctuations (differences) is said to be more dense in particular areas and gravity becomes dominant collecting the atoms together into stars and then galaxies. Some of these stars collect too much matter and collaspe as a supernova. From these supernova comes the heavy elements and eventually the planets.

All of the above exists in the literature can be verified.

The following is original research and is presented here only to show that there could be valid and significant alternative explanatins.

The big bang necessarily assumes that the beginning occured at point. It makes this assumption based on yet another arbitrary assumption that redshift is a Doppler effect. (No other effects are included.) But Doppler redshift is not an observation, rather it was formulated by adding velocity to Hubble's earlier redshift/distance equations, and then ASSUMED to show a redshift/distance/velocity relationship. If this relationship were true, then it would indicate an expanding Universe. If the Universe is expanding, then it was smaller in the past, and if this logic were carried out to its end, at some time in the past the Universe would have been a point. So, the problem for big bang is how to get to the Universe as it is now, from this assumed point in the past.

The original "explosion of matter" did not account for the Universe as it exists today. The original big bang theory has been falsified long ago. The standard equations only work if the Universe is already at its present size. So Inflation of space was proposed to get from a point to everywhere.

This expansion has not been proven to exist. Even the search for evidence of expansion has been sparse. And what evidence they do find is indirect (CMBR) or based on assumptions (Doppler redshift). The so called "precision cosmology" is primarily that of what has happenmed after the initial plasma state.

It is not a fact that the big bang is correct.

Tommy Mandel 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Creationism

There is no relationship between plasma cosmology and modern geocentricism/Creationism. The connection is placed there by ScienceApologist. Technically it goes like this. THe quantized or periodic measurements by Tifft can be interpreted in different ways. One way of explaining the periodicity, using only the logic of observation, is to assume the earth is at the center of the Universe, and the galaxies are at periodic distances. This explanation, wholly a product of logic, not seriously considered by science, is nevertheless taken on by the geocentricists as evidence they are correct. This interpretation has nothing to do with plasma cosmology and to bring them into the discussion as if they were related is well, pseudoscientific.

To equate plasma cosmology/intrinsic redshift with creationism/centricism is an example of pseudoscientific claims. (So, a Universe out of nothing, instantaneously, is not creationism?) Tommy Mandel

His comment is false. "True scientific theories, by definition, don't lend themselves to concessions of plurality because there can be only one theory available that describes the observations."

That just ain't so, many observations allow for different interpretations. Tommy Mandel 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence that Plasma Cosmology is not 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. (Notice how a great writer writes about a great theory. Compare his prose with that of Interpreters of the big bang theory today. )

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 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. For example, 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 out of inflows, 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?

[edit] Evidence that plasma cosmology is about plasma cosmology

Title of article -- PLASMA COSMOLOGY

Stepping back, it distinctly sounds like both plasma cosmology and the big bang are the subjects of this article. And thus the majority view must prevail. BUT, this article is about plasma cosmology! Plasma cosmology is about plasma cosmology. In other words, everything in the article should be a derivative of plasma cosmology. Of course it can be argued that the big bang ought to be at least mentioned. But this necessary mention does not mean that everything in the article must be written in terms of the big bang theory. Plasma cosmology is not the big bang theory. The article plasma cosmology is not about a comparison of big bang such as might be found in the cosmology article.

Tommy Mandel 00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

note to ArtCarlson

Thank you for finding all the times I have been reverted for attempting to include the significant POV that Hubble had until his dying day. NPOV states that all significant views are to be fairly presented without any editorializing as to right or wrong. The POV that Hubble did not prove that the Universe is expanding belongs in every place which states that Hubble said/implied/proved that the Universe is expanding. Here is what Sandage wrote:

Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". Tommy Mandel 08:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Cyde Weys: No one "knows" the Universe is expanding, that is a hypothesis, it is not a fact. Redshift Doppler is an assumption. It was created by adding "C" the velocity of light to Hubbles equation, and not put there by observation. None of this falsifies alternative cosmologies. And you state

"Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, and so we must necessarily take the viewpoint of real science versus pseudoscientific bullshit. "

You sound like you are going to determine what is the correct view. "WE' must not take any point of view. I agree with you tho, but it has to be done honestly. Otherwise it is intellectual theft, stealing the freedom of choice from the reader.

[edit] Reference material

[140]

Executive summary

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. It's crucial that we work together to make articles unbiased. It's one of the things that makes Wikipedia work so well. Writing unbiased text is an art that requires practice. The following essay explains this policy in depth, and is the result of much discussion. We strongly encourage you to read it.

Introduction: the basic concept of neutrality and why Wikipedia must be unbiased

A key Wikipedia policy is that articles should be "unbiased," or written from a "neutral point of view." We use these terms in a precise way that is different from the common understanding. It's crucial to grasp what it means to be neutral (in this sense)--a careful reading of this page will help.

Basically, to write without bias (from a neutral point of view) is to write so that articles do not advocate any specific points of view; instead, the different viewpoints in a controversy are all described fairly. This is a simplistic definition and we'll add nuance later. But for now, we can say just that to write articles without bias is to try to describe debates rather than taking one definite stand.

Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But we (humans) disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different theory of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false, and therefore not knowledge. Indeed, Wikipedia, there are many opinionated people who often disagree with each other. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, whilst collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts that not-p?

The solution is that we accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published) theories on all different topics are parts of human knowledge. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" has changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know" in the sense, we often use so-called scare quotes. In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that the Earth was flat. We now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we'd state a series of theories about topic T, and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But again, consider that Wikipedia is an international, collaborative project. Probably, as we grow, nearly every view on every subject will (eventually) be found among our authors and readership. To avoid endless edit wars, we should agree to present each of these views fairly, and not make our articles assert any one of them as correct. And that is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral." To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But since Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we surely cannot expect our collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes human knowledge in a strict sense. We should, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "human knowledge." We must make an effort to present these conflicting theories fairly, without advocating any one of them.

'There is another reason to commit ourselves to a nonbias policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this is conducive to our readers' feeling free to make up their own minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence.

[edit] On pseudoscience

I must have missed when pseudoscience entered the picture here. Pseudoscience is claims of being science without testing, claims but no "objective" evidence. To make the claim that plasma cosmology is a pseudoscience indicates a lack of knowledge of what science does, and/or is an example of how pseudoscientists work. Every single claim of plasma cosmology has a testable, at least in principle, foundation. Whether it is right or wrong does not enter here, and even if found wrong does not place the data into the pseudoscientific category.

Indeed, it could be argued that the big bang theory is founded on pseudoscience in that

A. it postulates a beginning from nothing; There is no objective evidence for this beginning from nothing, only an assummption of expansion played back in reverse which itself is based on the assumption that redshift is Doppler caused.

But Hubble himself did not believe in expansion [[141]] and the big bangers will not allow that "fact" in their articles which include the entire field of cosmology. SA says that the big bang is the only theory which postulates a beginning, and therefore it is the only correct theory. That reminds me of the Bible which some say is the only book of God...and son of gun, it is the only book that uses the english word "God." All the others have their own name. Big bang is the only cosmology professing a beginning of the Universe. But did the Universe really have a beginning? It is impossible to know, and to state that the universe had a beginning (based on those assumptions made above) is a rather good example of what pseudoscience mightclaim. IMO.

B. And when the original hot big bang didn't work according to plan, that is to say observational evidence falsified the original hot big bang, (the explosion of matter)the attempt to fix it depended on a entirely new kind of physics never seen before or since, the Inflation of the Universe to a size larger than it is now, INSTANTANEOUSLY, after which everything came to a stop, and then Plasma emerged. And then the mathematics of the big bang kick in again. And now the big bang works, But hardly ever to mention plasma again, depending almost entirely on gravity as the sole source of evolution leading to strange notions like black holes to explain observations (matter moving OUT) that do not work if only gravity is considered.

C. The pseudoscience of the big bang kicks in, when the admitted "theories" of the big bang paradigm, are interpreted by secondary sources to be facts. For example, the Black hole is a conjecture proposed as "the only mechanism we could think of" which would explain the observed anomalous OUTWARD flowing matter. Yet this conjecture has been interpreted and reinterpreted by commentators until it has been transformed into fact. That translation from theory to fact is pseudoscientific. True, the original proposers did not have a devious intent, but just about everyone since has not acknowledged that the black hole is an unproven theory. Tommy Mandel

[edit] On Art LaPella

Art is SA's advocate, filling in for him when SA has nothing to say. My friend Art, says that everything I say should be discounted. That ploy is their favorite tool, because they use it to say that everything plasma cosmologists say should be discounted because, after all, the big bang theory is the only correct theory in town. (I am paraphrasing him here)

However "only correct theory" is in violation of NPOV which originally said that all views should be included in the article without any implication by the editor whether it is correct or incorrect. Tommy Mandel

[edit] On NPOV and undue weight

Again, NPOV states that ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWS should be included WITHOUT ADDING UNDUE WEIGHT. I can see one side of this dispute trying to add all significant views in compliance with NPOV, while the other side of the dispute are trying to remove undue weight in compliance with NPOV.

The article is about Plasma cosmology. By definition the material should be about plasma cosmology. So does undue weight apply ALSO to comparisons to subject matter outside the plasma cosmology domain? Are we supposed to take into consideration something outside the field when determining undue weight? Seems to me that in the plasma cosmology article undue weight would apply to those aspects of plasma which differ in significance. And big bang considerations, a different article, ought not be considered in the comparison. So exactly where are the boundries of inclusion of determinants of undue weight?

Are editors writing about religion required to include the views of atheists? Are editors writing about atheists required to incude religious views? Are editors writing about democracy required to present the views of socialism? Communism? Is the article on communism required to present the views of Democracy?

As a reader, I may appreciate a critical review, but only if it is done honestly. I would not appreciate mixing the views together especially without telling me. Maybe the answer is to include a "criticisms" section when applicable

Why is all discussion about editors and hardly ever is the reader taken into consideration?

[edit] On involved users

Where did they all come from? As far as I know the actual involved users were ScienceApologist, Joke, Jon, Ian,Elerner Art and me.Tommy Mandel

[edit] Example of pseudoscience in action today

will be found at this place [[142]]

Without any stated reason, JBKramer destroyed, with his revert, verifiable and reputable data which supports the article's subject matter but does not support the point of view of previously named editors.

This[[143]] is how they do it. In shifts no less.

It is this behavoir which is argubably pseudoscientific to the core, and which obviously threatens the integrity of Wikipedia. And I do believe strongly that they do know what they are doing. They are not just mistaken...Listen to what he says here:

"My goal in making these edits is to make Wikipedia useful to people who want to use it as a research source."

And while he says that here, at the article he deletes very interesting evidence[[144]] , evidence that any researcher would love to know about. They know what they are doing...And they know how to talk. Tommy Mandel 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiTalk and WikiWalk

I met a WikiWalker today. AddHoc is a WikiWalker. A Wikiwalker is a person who does the work. A WikiTalker is a person who works at talking. NPOV states simply put, that the article should not have any WikiTalk in it. It should be all WikiWalk, if you know what I mean.

The problem here I think is as RednBlu says, a confusion of what NPOV really means. A proposal was presented at WP NPOV talk, by RednBlu and SlimVirgen, along the lines of clearing this confusion up. The proposal would create two major policy statements, ((ATTRIBUTION)) VERIFICATION and NPOV. I really think that by casting our full attention on NPOV, the point can be made to all editors, new and old. , Attribution, Original Research and Weights can be easily covered by Verification. This would leave NPOV all by itself with no qualifying, read distracting, sub-statements. If one were to think NPOV through to it's logical end, doesn't NPOV really want to say NO (editorial) POV? Tommy Mandel (Note, Attribution was changed to Verification in NPOV talk)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:JBKramer

[edit] Eric Lerner (User:Elerner) solicits investors and contributors on the internet

[145] and [146]. JBKramer 12:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Tresman (User:Iantresman) is repetively sardonic to the point of incivility

[147] and [148] among others. JBKramer 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Continues [149]. JBKramer 15:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Continues [150]. JBKramer 13:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Tresman does not follow WP:OR to the point of being dishonest

[151] promising references on request, [152] requesting references that he promised from others. JBKramer 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[153] attributing the summary of what Lerner believes to the person doing the summarizing. JBKramer 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Tresman routinely venueshops with continued dishonesty

Some examples of him shopping his complaint with SA to innapropriate locales using language to rile up the locals ("deletionist" at AMA, quoting "Using someone's affiliations..." at WP:PAIN, though the guideline that contains such language is not applicable to article-space) :

[154], [155], [156], [157]. As a result of his dishonest venue shopping, he was able to convince one adminstrator to block SA. This block was quickly and soundly overturned. JBKramer 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrary to User:Mangojuice's assertion, I am not "here to oppose the work of people like Lerner and their articles"

Unlike User:Elerner and User:Iantresman, who are here only to espouse their own pseudoscientific views, I have edits across a wide range of the encyclopedia - including, but not limited to correcting fair use violations, reverting random vandalism, dealing with disruptive but well-intentioned users, among hundreds of other edits. In addition, I have demanded strong sourcing on biographies where I wished we could include the unverifiable info to articles where I found the inclusion of the info to be despicable. I have defended NPOV in other junk-science contexts - attacking a probiotic spammer and repelling the constistant attempts to vandalize inflation with fringe minority POV.

My goal in making these edits is to make Wikipedia useful to people who want to use it as a research source. If wikipedia would prefer to be a source for fringe theories to fight with the mainstream, then please, Arbcomm, state so, so the people who care about writing a useful encyclopedia can leave. JBKramer 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, Unlike User:Elerner and User:Iantresman, I have edited the article to make my POV weaker when that was the correct action - [158][159]. This demonstration of good faith is sorely lacking from the pseudoscientists, those who profit from their actions and their supporters. JBKramer 19:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annotated list of every edit I have made to Eric Lerner

1. [160] attributing statements made by Lerner to Lerner. Overreaching regarding his BA. Poor edit.
2. [161] Attributing claims by Lerner to Lerner
3. [162] Attributing claims by Lerner's company to Lerner's company.
4. [163] Minor uncontrovercial.
5. [164] Self-revert of innapropriate tag placed by me. Not requested by others. Admirable edit.
6. [165] Reverting to my prefered intro - first revert of this content
7. [166] Removing disputed content in attempt to reach middle ground. Admirable edit.
8. [167] Removing poorly written attack on notable positive comments regarding Lerner - making my own POV weaker. Admirable edit.
9. [168] Removing blog-sourced Lerner critics. Admirable edit.
10. [169] Reverting to my prefered language - first revert of this content.
11. [170] Overzealous removal of unsourced statements. Innapropriate to question BA. Poor edit.
12. [171] Reverting the same unsourced statements. Possibly overzealous. Poor edit.
13. [172] Removing unsourced statements.
14. [173] Overzealous removal of statements that were unsupported by proposed citations. Poor edit.
15. [174] Violation of WP:POINT. After discussion with Mangojuice, I ban myself from the article for 24 hours.
16. [175] removing blatent NPOV violations ("detailed quantitative theory" vs "theory"). Tagging repeated inclusion of unsourced facts with fact tags instead of reversion.
17. [176] reverting bad-faith edit.
18. [177] reverting same POV violations ("detailed quantitative"), same uncited info. At this point I should have disengaged.
19. [178] noting that his plasma focus theories are also ignored.
20. [179] minor, editing for accuracy, tag over reverting
21. [180] non-controvercial edit of his role as theorist rather than experimentalist per cited source.

I have not edited the article since, nor do I intend to. JBKramer 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asmodeus is a principal of the Cognative Theoretical Model of the Universe (CTMU)

Asked repeatedly if he was a principal of the theory, he repeatedly declined to answer. User:Hillman retained a "dig" page alleging such (since deleted) with substantial editors, which I suspect the arbiters can locate (I cannot). Single purpose editor with focus only on fringe theories and CTMU related articles. JBKramer 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Asmodeus is incivil

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=87027701 "I can only infer the possibility that you may have a certain amount of personal experience with controlled substances" JBKramer 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User has left

Due to credible death threats, I have left wikipedia. JBKramer 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Art LaPella

I told you "I'm reluctant to criticize St. George" (ScienceApologist) "until all the dragons are gone." Tommysun is at the top of the dragon list, and I ask arbitrators to discount evidence from that source in particular. For instance, he told you "If any cosmology could be called pseudoscience, Inflation, and the fact that it can't be tested, is one of them." Cosmic inflation is mainstream science, so he shouldn't call it untestable pseudoscience without an awfully good reason. Actually, the ΛCDM model article states that that model "explains cosmic microwave background observations", therefore it's testable. The same article states "The model assumes [details] ... These are predictions of cosmic inflation", therefore inflation is also testable. Scientists here, please correct my 2 previous sentences if necessary, but I don't think even Ian Tresman would deny them. Art LaPella 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tommysun now disputes everything he says being discounted, by giving us yet another reason to do just that: "as Art would put it, after all the big bang theory is the only correct theory in town." (Update: He just removed the words "As Art would put it".) Could you show us where I said that? Not where I obviously don't get along with Tommysun himself, not where I concluded that nearly all professional scientists support the Big Bang, not where I otherwise supported the Big Bang side, but where I said "the only correct theory in town"? Art LaPella 22:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's harder for a non-scientist like me to determine the extent to which the other alternate cosmology advocates resemble Tommysun, but I have often wondered (last paragraph of [181]). Art LaPella 17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Alternate cosmology advocate Jon/Jonathanischoice has criticized Tommysun (end of this and following), Elerner has mildly criticized him (like this) but IanTresman never has. Art LaPella 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Joke137's link to this paragraph actually seems to mirror this. Art LaPella 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Rednblu

[edit] Flawed Wikipedia policy and guidelines encourage the localized consensus in destroying NPOV, ...

The fault here is the text of WP:NPOV which states that SA and other well-meaning destroyers of NPOV should sally forth to rip from Wikipedia pages the NPOV that is wrong. And because of the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV, SA and other well-meaning destroyers of NPOV uproot Wikipedia's information just because the information is about "pseudoscience", non-standard cosmology, "crank" theories, or some other published NPOV that is wrong. And the potholes of former NPOV forests stretch across the entire Wikipedia landscape. But let us notice that the fault is the murky and self-contradictory text of Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV for example, that actually orders forth these well-meaning destroyers of NPOV to rip out Wikipedia's information that contains NPOV that dares question the consensus of the reasonable editors. --Rednblu 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uprooting the NPOV citations that contradict their consensus dogma, ...

For today's example of well-meaning destroyers of NPOV ripping NPOV from a Wikipedia page, let us examine this edit in which the well-meaning destroyer of NPOV rips from the page well-sourced NPOV citations to mainstream scientific journals, such as the Astrophysical Journal, published by the University of Chicago Press that violate the localized consensus faction's conclusion of what is right and wrong about the subject of the page--here, the ripped-out NPOV citations are to the published experimental evidence from the analysis of observed spectra from 46,400 quasars for intrinsic redshift, the explicit subject of the page. I note at this link the vociferous protest against the well-meaning destroyer of NPOV ripping NPOV from the page. I also note that SA corrects the authors Bell and McDiarmid for not titling their paper as a "quantized redshift" theory, but that is not what they wrote. If SA had a published article categorizing Bell and McDiarmid's theory as a "quantized redshift" theory, then we could cite that. That would be NPOV fair.

This is not a content dispute; this is a flaw in the law. This edit is an example of the atrocities against NPOV that well-meaning editors perpetrate against NPOV if the Wikipedia community leaves it up to the localized consensus faction what NPOV is. There must be a law against what the well-meaning destroyer of NPOV has done in this edit. There has to be a law against uprooting NPOV information--it does not matter whether the subject of the NPOV information is "pseudoscience", non-standard cosmology, "crank" theories, or some other published NPOV that is wrong.

This is not a case of misconduct. SA is a very valuable member of the Wikipedia community. SA and I have had many discussions over heated controversies--such as my assertion that SA's "evolution is a fact" is a mere religious dogma; here are SA's reasoned replies that made me think. SA is a rare master at reasonable heated Wikipedia discussion without resorting to ad hominem fallacy; I admire him for that. And I missed by seconds my lifetime chance to vote for SA's RfA; I missed getting my vote under the wire because the system stalled and took JoshuaZ's closure of the RfA first instead of my vote. And I enthusiastically would vote for SA's RfA again whenever I get the chance.

All of the above notwithstanding, the long campaign of well-meaning destroyers of NPOV ripping NPOV from Wikipedia pages as exemplified in this edit must stop. And there should be a law against that continuing atrocity. We should close this RfAr and reconvene in some WikiProject to rewrite the murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV so that it actually 1) implements our "representing significant views fairly and without bias" rather than 2) encourages as it does now roving bands of destructive localized consensus factions ripping well-sourced NPOV from Wikipedia pages. --Rednblu 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripping citations from the topics, such as "intrinsic redshift," that published scholars explicitly use to characterize their own work, ...

(SA explained on my TalkPage that he removed the NPOV citation "because it was about redshift quantization not intrinsic redshifts and has no real bearing on the [intrinsic redshift] article.")

I am respectfully saying that, as in this edit, some well-meaning destroyers of NPOV are correcting the terminology, classifications, and conclusions of published scholars, including the distinction between "intrinsic redshifts" and "redshift quantization"--which distinction may be crucial to support the Big Bang theory but is only one POV among many. Hence, it is a waste of any neutral editor's time to attempt to insert into the turf battle here what scholars like Russell and others have actually published since 2005 about "non-velocity (intrinsic) redshift". What I am saying generally is that we need a community-wide determination about what NPOV is, a determination that is not subject to the whim of a localized consensus faction that, in this case, believes in BigBang and thereto distorts what scholars have actually written. --Rednblu 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantized redshift is evidence of intrinsic redshift. The game goies like this, post an edit in big bang and they revert it saying it doesn't mbelong here. Post an edit on alternative cosmologies and they revert saying it is already at plasma cosmology. Meanwhile the edit at plasma cosmology is reverted because quantized redshift is not a part of plasma cosmology. The net result is zero mention of quantized redshift. Plese note that now there is information about quantized redshift, BUT all the papers which confirm it do not appear in the article.Instead the article states that quantized redshift does not exist. Sorry to butt in, but SA did it first. --64.12.116.66 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is invited to say what they have to say here in this section. I have no comment about the content dispute; I do complain about significant V, RS, and NPOV being ripped from Wikipedia pages. You may be right about the content. I copied SA's remarks above, but you are also welcome here. --Rednblu 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the "content" is not to be discussed here, then the conclusions of that content ought not be presented as well. To admit as evidence the conclusion that the big bang is the most correct, and then forbid an analysis of what leads up to that conclusion, is, is, clever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommysun (talk • contribs).

I think I understand. The important evidence here is that the "enlightened ones" with the answer repeatedly, as in this edit, find it very difficult to allow NPOV on Wikipedia pages--because the NPOV is wrong. --Rednblu 05:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uprooting community discussions that attempt to develop legitimate measures of NPOV Due weight, ...

In any civilized society, there should be some legitimate means of measuring community-wide consensus on such questions as the Due weight to be allocated to various views in an NPOV encyclopedia. But, following the flawed Wikipedia policy and guidelines, these well-meaning destroyers of NPOV conspire to uproot community-wide discussions, such as ("Per prior requests from ..."); ("yammering then can be removed"); ... ; ... to ensure that the localized consensus factions united in their POV will possess the turf of the pages that are dear to their dogma, namely the troubling intersections of science, politics, and religion. And by preventing any legitimate community-wide measurement of consensus, they force the opposition to resort to the same well-meaning destructive rip-out and revert tactics that the Anti-Pseudoscience Consensus finds necessary to enforce their dogma.

And the flaw is the law, not the editors. There should be Wikipedia laws prohibiting these rip-outs of community problem-solving sessions, such as ("Per prior requests from ..."); ("yammering then can be removed"); ... ; .... --Rednblu 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Art Carlson

[edit] Eric Lerner has pushed his POV on Aneutronic fusion

He has fought to exclude information on the following topics:

• Radiation hazards: [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], ... Well, I think you get the idea. I finally buckled under and accepted a wording that, while technically correct, is misleading. A resolution was difficult because neither one of us was citing a specific source. (Of course, my argument were better. See Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Radiation_dose.) Arguably, leaving out all mention of radioactive hazards would be the best solution in that case, but Eric Lerner did not accept that suggestion either.[203][204] Note in addition the wording Eric Lerner uses to characterize the amount of radioactivity produced (according to his calculation): "the same amount of radioactivity as contained in the bodies of a classroom of children". (I once lost my wiki composure and changed this to "the same amount of radioactivity as contained in the bodies of a prison cell full of child molesters"[205]. Sorry.)
• Triple product requirements: [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211]. This is the most extreme example of POV-pushing. The Lawson criterion is a widely use measure of the overall quality of confinement. Both the nτ form and the nTτ form are commonly used, and there are good arguments why the nTτ form is more useful. So it is essential to the article that both forms (or at least the nTτ form) be reported. It's just a shame that the nTτ form makes aneutronic fusion look ten times worse than it already looks using the nτ form. The only reason I can think of for not reporting the ratio of nTτ is to push the POV that aneutronic fusion is not that hard.
• Power density limits: [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220]. Even if a tokamak, through some miracle, could achieve an energy confinement that would allow aneutronic fuel to burn, it would still be uneconomical by over a factor a thousand because the power density would be too low. I think this is an important fact to report. Eric Lerner erased it 9 times. As with the Lawson criterion, the most plausible reason is that it doesn't jibe with his point of view because it makes aneutronic fusion look so hard. Another reading is that he sees no relevance, because his pet device is the dense plasma focus, a device which he believes can achieve the improved power density required. Since as far as I know he is the only person in the world who believes this, this would also qualify as POV-pushing.

That these are a result of his POV and not simply ignorance or incompetence is strongly suggested by the pattern of his edits and the fact that he has a high stake in presenting the possibility of aneutronic fusion in a positive light, both financially and in terms of his reputation. Although there are no accusations of pseudoscience or pseudoskepticism involved, this is relevant to the current procedure because it is a case of mainstream science, which gave up on aneutronic fusion long ago, versus a small minority that still push the idea, partly out of antipathy to the scientific establishmnet.

In addition, Eric Lerner is incompetent and uncooperative in many ways. I can provide evidence, if it would be helpful, (Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Eric's justification for his reversions would be a start.) but I think the main issue here is the question of balance of mainstream and minority views in scientific articles.

[edit] Tommy Mandel has pushed his POV on Big Bang and Plasma cosmology

Tommy Mandel's sins are many. He has no understanding of science or editing and his religion seems to be plasmas. But his religion is not an issue until he pushes it into an article. I will let one example suffice. He has a long history of inserting the statement that Hubble did not believe in the expansion of the universe. [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227]. I don't have any idea if this is true or not. It might have a place in the article about Edwin Hubble himself, or, at a stretch, in the one about Hubble's law, but it certainly is not relevant to these articles. The data Hubble had to work with were extremely poor by any standards, and vastly inferior to those available today, so his opinion is at most of historical, but not of scientific interest.

Because of his POV, Tommy Mandel tries to insert Hubble's opinion where it doesn't belong, because he thinks it strengthens his position against the Big Bang.

[edit] Tommy Mandel has pushed his POV on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop

Normally I would pass over POV pushing when it is not in an article, but this incident ([228], [229], [230]) is either so dishonest or so sloppy that it further disrupts the already difficult process of resolving the WP:NPOV#Undue weigth issue in science articles. --Art Carlson 09:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To his credit, Tommy has admitted to being sloppy in this case and apologized for it.[231] I am inclined to accept the interpretation that he was not being dishonest. I leave it to the ArbComm to decide whether his sloppiness is "terminal" or not. --Art Carlson 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Mandel is deliberately uncooperative

A large part of this RfA is concerned with Tommy Mandell's disruptive behavior, but he has himself summed up his attitude so clearly that I would like to call it to the attention of the ArbComm:

And when Art Carlsen writes that he is fed up with me, in my POV that is a huge "well done." (diff)

and

I am proud to have been reverted by ScienceApologist over a hundred times. (diff)

In addition, I think it is worth noting that Tommy Mandel very often posts contributions to discussions without indentation or with irregular indentation, and often does not sign them. (Diffs are easy to provide if anyone disputes this.) This is objectively disruptive in that it makes his own and others' arguments hard to follow, and it is indicative of his careless attitude and lack of respect.

Another disruptive practice is posting the same discussion contribution multiple places, making it hard to know where to reply and fragmenting the discussion. He was so enamored with his latest essay that he posted it not one, not two, but three different places. (And didn't sign a single one of them.)

--Art Carlson 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Asmodeus

[edit] Apparent incomprehension of the distinction between notable philosophy and non-notable pseudoscience by Pjacobi and Science Apologist

Users Pjacobi and ScienceApologist participated in the erroneous deletion of an allegedly "pseudoscientific" article whose notable topic was clearly and accurately identified as philosophy by its media sources and in Wikipedia:

1, 2, 3

This, of course, raises a very important question: how can these users coherently oppose "pseudoscience" on Wikipedia when they clearly do not understand what it is, and have no apparent interest in being properly educated regarding it?

[Note that in contravention of accepted standards, Pjacobi has implicitly discounted the mass media as a source for the verification of notability, in effect demanding that notable independent (academically uncredentialed/unaffiliated) scholars disadvantageously submit their work to academic publications in order to claim notability for it.

Note also that in the "evidence" presented above by ScienceApologist, he bitterly laments the departure of Users Hillman and Byrgenwulf, claiming that they were "harassed" by other editors who are "supporters of pseudoscience". However, the other editors in question were actually Hillman's victims, on whom Hillman had previously been disclosing personal information in violation of WP, and Byrgenwulf's victims as well, having been the subjects of repeated personal attacks by Byrgenwulf (who, by the way, originally lured ScienceApologist and his confederates to the CTMU AfD by deliberately misrepresenting the CTMU as "pseudoscience"). In fact, ScienceApologist has knowingly linked to the latest of Byrgenwulf's attacks, managing in the process to again mistake supporters of a particular philosophical theory for "supporters of pseudoscience"! If this fails to qualify as disruptive behavior, it at least demonstrates profound confusion regarding the philosophy-pseudoscience distinction.]

[edit] Questionable use of administrative authority by Pjacobi

Pjacobi engaged in slanted enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:CIV during the AfD linked above, in which he was directly involved:

4, 5

(Here [6, 7] are the egregious prior violations of WP:NPA and WP:LIVING, and attempted unauthorized disclosure of personal information, that were roundly ignored and thus implicitly encouraged by Pjacobi in order to ensure the triumph of his erroneous views regarding "pseudoscience". Read the entire dialogue.)

[edit] Misleading/prejudicial slanting of biographical information by ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist, after participating in an incoherent deletional attack on an article on a notable philosophical theory (as documented above), attacked the biography of its author, attempting to falsely portray him as a member of the ID movement and thereby diminish his credibility:

8, 9 (this edit was just made, evidently for retaliatory purposes)

I believe that this reflects a systematic pattern of disinformation and counterproductive behavior on the parts of Pjacobi, ScienceApologist, and others who share their particular strain of professional and philosophical prejudice, as confirmed by various other users.

(Please see this statement on the RfArb talk page; also see my response in this bogus RfC, which discusses the affair in greater detail.) Asmodeus 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[Note 1: Mangojuice has objected below to my user page, on which I outline a serious problem exemplified by the evidence I've given here, and link a certain straightforward and highly relevant acronym to various Wikipedia entries in an obviously humorous vein. I want it to be clearly understood that this is not intended as "incivility", but as a comment on the fact that a certain militant subset of Wikipedians appear to be taking themselves far too seriously given their actual (low) level of expertise regarding the distinction between pseudoscience and various perfectly legitimate topics and fields of inquiry. In short, the links are just my lighthearted way of asking these people to "lighten up". Although I happen to agree with some aspects of Mangojuice's position in this RfArb, and commend Mangojuice's participation here, I cannot in good conscience bend over backwards to magnify the self-importance of people who have treated me and others unfairly, damaged Wikipedia in the process, and show no sign of mending their ways. (By the way, as Mangojuice already knows, I'm extremely disappointed with the systemic bias displayed by the Wikipedia adminstrators who chose to involve themselves in the CTMU travesty and its consequences; in fact, I regard it as symptomatic of one of Wikipedia's most serious problems.)

[Note 2: Below, Serpent's Choice muddies the water by putting a notable and logically defensible theory of philosophy, the CTMU, on the same footing as an illogical and indefensible pseudoscientific theory called the "Time Cube". (Despite SC's adamant protestations to the contrary, the CTMU was never "put forth as science" by its author or any of the mainstream publications which mentioned it; it was always explicitly classified as philosophy, and is considered to be philosophy by everyone who understands both the theory and the science-philosophy distinction...for example, the editors of Popular Science, whose opinion on such matters clearly outweighs that of any anonymous "expert" presuming to contradict them.) Serpent's Choice thus repeats a mistake made by ScienceApologist and other participants in the CTMU AfD, further illustrating the often-execrable quality of editorial reasoning here at Wikipedia (QED). As explained at length to others who were involved in the CTMU affair, the CTMU is in substantial accord with the known body of scientific and mathematical knowledge, and its notability rests on serious references by larger and more respectable mass media sources than those cited on behalf of the Time Cube. Thus, even if one insists on calling the CTMU a "fringe theory" (of philosophy), it is vastly less "fringe" than the blatantly pseudoscientific Time Cube. Obviously, these two cases are too dissimilar to support parallel policy recommendations.

Addendum: Amazingly, I note some remaining confusion regarding the science-philosophy distinction, and will take a moment to address it for instructive purposes. Wheeler's Participatory Universe is overtly philosophical, while Hawking's imaginary time is a mathematical device for the elimination of theoretical singularities. That they purport to explain one or more deep aspects of reality is insufficient to classify them as "science"; neither admits of decisive observational testing, neither is accessible to the scientific method, and neither can be mistaken for empirical science by anyone who knows better. Rather, they are speculative philosophical or mathematical extensions of scientific theories, and the scientific theories in question are independent of them for purposes of empirical confirmation and application. It makes no difference that they have been widely mislabeled as "science" or "pseudoscience" out of popular confusion; in the final analysis, they are neither, and this will remain the case until they become testable. Thus, the insistence of Serpent's Choice that they do qualify as science (or pseudoscience), and likewise for any theory which has been compared to them, merely underscores his/her incomprehension of the important distinctions between science, philosophy, and mathematics. This sort of confusion does not necessarily make its victims bad people; it does, however, cast considerable doubt on their pseudonymous claims of scientific and/or philosophical expertise, and their aggressive, opinionated editing of articles which have been mistakenly identified as "pseudoscience". If there remained any vestige of doubt that Wikipedia has a severe problem with this confused sort of "anti-pseudoscience" zealotry, I trust that it has now been laid to rest. (Nothing personal here, but if Wikipedia is ever to solve this problem, it needs to be properly identified.)]

[edit] Additional Clarification

A bit more clarification, if I may. Any attempt to form a workable policy regarding exactly what qualifies for its very own Wikipedia article must address the following linked pair of fallacies.

Fallacy 1: "If topic X is discussed by a particular special-interest group S, then X is notable by definition; all of its citiations by S are verifiable sources (S-sources). Conversely, if it is not discussed by S, then it can't be notable, regardless of how many hits it receives on the web, because any web hits which do not link to S-sources do not consititute verification."

For present purposes, let S = the set of academics who consider each other to be experts in the field occupied by X. This is a fallacy because it is pure circular reasoning based on the special status of a limited special interest group which is (a) often spectacularly wrong, and (b) unrepresentative of humanity at large.

Fallacy 2: "Although theory X has received many citations in the mass media, it has been mentioned mainly in connection with its author. Hence, it is really the author who is notable, not the theory."

This is a fallacy because notability is notability, regardless of the reason. In fact, many notable ideas have received popular attention primarily because of their authors. On the other hand, any attempt to show that notability rests on content, as opposed to (e.g.) authorship, either constitutes an illegitimate content/validity judgment, or defaults to Fallacy 1 ("X is notable and verifiable because special interest group S has caught the buzz.")

Once content has been verifiably addressed to any extent whatsoever by any major, dare one say reputable, source, it is irrelevant whether this occurs in conjunction with biographical reportage on the author (just take a look at the dust jacket of almost any book-length scholarly publication). Indeed, given such a conjunction, it may well be the case that the author was deemed notable, at least in part, because of the theory. (In fact, this was certainly the case with Langan and the CTMU.)

Whether Wikipedia likes it or not, the above fallacies (1 and 2) open a can of worms for anyone trying to restrict notability and verifiability to closed, content-oriented discussions among professional academics in academic journals. Basically, it can't be done without implicitly saying something very much like this:

"Professional academics are the True Experts! After all, we academics paid a lot of dough to take all those classes, and we really, really appreciate each others' brilliance! Sure, there's no logical connection between truth and academic credentials, but what does truth have to do with it? And who cares that academics aren't representative of the population at large? As all real academics are well aware, the public is a bunch of pathetic dummies anyhow! Besides, we academics have managed to self-interestedly insert ourselves into virtually every nook and cranny of government and industry! Everybody loves us!"

If this is the way that Wikipedia wants to go, then why doesn't it make its "experts" use their real names, verify their academic credentials, put them on salary, and charge everyone else tuition? That way, it could more easily justify its would-be trend toward academic conformism, and forthrightly distinguish its true ivory tower "experts" from everybody else...that is, from the ignorant workaday guttersnipes collectively known as "the unwashed masses".

[edit] Evidence presented by Iamthebob

Clerk note: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, as this is specific refutation of another's editor's evidence as opposed to general comments. Thatcher131 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Tommysun

Note: I am not sure whether this section should be here or under /Evidence, so I hope someone with more experience can move it if necessary. I hope this doesn't violate WP:NPA. I will try to make this as an argument against the points that Tommysun makes on pseudoscience and not on the way that he conducts arguments, even if though I disagree with the second as much as I disagree with the first.

Summary: refutation of the points that Tommysun makes regarding pseudoscience, speficially the view that the big bang theory is pseudoscience.

Now, there exists some sort of personal matter this section because of the debate on Talk:Crop circle that we had earlier, but I cannot help but comment on this after reading what he wrote in this request for arbitration, /Evidence and Talk:/Evidence. I have lost my respect for this user; it seems clear to me that he has been consistently making personal attacks and lacks general understanding of what is science and what is pseudoscience. Take the contention Big Bang is the real pseudoscience for example:

• "The big bang theory is based on assumptions, abstractions, which observations are then fitted to."

Yes, this is true. But so is the rest of science. Since the idea of science is to explain what we observe, it can only be based off what we know: a theory tries to explain why empirical evidence is true. The same is true with any other theory: we only know what we observe, everything else we guess. The big bang theory tries to explain the observations that we have made about space; if we assume that the universe came from the big bang, the observations that we have made make sense. I do not understand how science can be done without some sort of assumption.

• "Pseudoscience is a claim to be science but not using the scientific method. Technically it is an opinion masquerading as fact."

The second sentence is incorrect, though the first may not be (depending on what definition of pseudoscience is taken). Pseudoscience is not an opinion masquerading around as a fact. It is science that is not performed well.

• "Plasma cosmology may or may not be fraught with errors, but being wrong does not make it pseudoscientific."

Tommysun claims that the big bang theory is wrong, yet he also says that it is pseudoscience. Isn't that a contradiction with what he says here? In addition, no one says that being wrong is pseudoscientific.

• "That fact that an error was found fulfills the scientific requirement."

Science doesn't have to be wrong. It almost always is, but it does not have to be.

• "To label it as pseudoscientific is what a clever pseudoscientist would do."

That may explain why Tommysun says that the big bang theory is pseudoscience.

• "It is based on the assumption that redshift is a Doppler effect, and it is only an opinion that this assumed velocity component indicates expansion."

Yes, the theory states that redshift is a Doppler effect. The theory may be wrong, it may be right. And although a theory may be incorrect, it is not just an "opinion," but is tested with observed data. According to what Tommysun says, science is an opinion, and hence all science is pseudoscientific.

• "These assumptions are the abstractions, then come the observations selected to fit."

I think it is done backwards: observations are first made, then "assumptions" are made that are supported by the observations. Scientists do not just sit in a dark room and think of random assumptions and then search for observations that fit them.

• "But observations didn't fit, and in order to make them fit, the Universe had to be everywhere to start. So how do you get from a point to everywhere? Inflation, not of matter, but of space. Inflation is an abstraction to make the theory fit the observations. (Interestingly, the boundary between Inflation of the physical world as we know it is plasma.) But instead of developing the plasma aspect, the remainder of big bang cosmology is based on gravitational effects. And because it based on gravity, the anomalous galaxy rotation speeds give rise to a strange yet unseen Dark Matter. And the tremendous outflowing matter from galaxies gave rise to a unseen Black hole, which in the popular press is proved whenever there is outflowing matter. And the expanding Universe gives rise to Dark Energy."

Several things about this section. The first is that theory of plasma cosmology is not proven, but is just a theory, and should not be stated like a fact. The second thing is that there is evidence supporting the existence of dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

• "Not only abstractions, but dark, black, invisible abstracting. Seems to me that these are the kinds of things real pseudoscientists claim...Creation from nothing, Inflation faster that anything, expansion via invisible Dark Energy."

Just because something doesn't defies common sense doesn't mean it is false. I'm sure that most people don't understand why velocities don't add under special relativity—even though it goes against common sense.

• "Tom Van Flandern? I wonder if you really can dis Tom Van Flandern as you do above. It seems to me that you are the unsane one here, given your abstract then observe position, I have found Tom to be very sensible, far more sensible than you SA. Can't you get sued for what you said about Tom, SA? I know, you had me blocked twice for threatening you legally, so I am not threatening you again, but if this were the real world you would be sued."

Opinion, legal threat, and personal attack..

• "In any discussion among humans, once you start questioning the veracity of a participant (whether justified or not), rational dialog is likely to cease. You must learn to control your passions and maintain a level of objectivity, or you will have no success at communication with other non-like-minded individuals."

Agreed with this part. Something that everyone should keep track of, and something that I am trying to do. I think it would be wise if others followed it too, on all sides of this debate.

• The essence of respecting another person's intellect is making all communication channels two-way. That means you always listen with interest and leave room for the chance, however small, that you might actually learn something in the exchange. If your only interest is in being right, you will find an ever diminishing audience as you move through life.

Agreed with this part as well. Well written, I am sure that many people who propose theories do not support the people who vehemently defend them instead of considering what points that the opposition makes.

• "Witness his dismissal of Tom Van Flandern by generalizations without any specific evidence."

I don't see specific evidence dismissing the big bang theory as pseudoscience being written about either...

• "I don't know what to say. Everyone says it is much better to be a nice guy. But does that work when only one party is being nice?"

I have no idea which party that is, because it definitely is not Tommysun. And it doesn't seem to be ScienceApologist either.

• "Joshua Schroeder, did I spell your name right, are you being paid by your Institute of Cosmology for editing here? What are your working hours? Just curious..."

Even more unrelated to this topic than than "the opinion that Hubble did not sure" relates to the big bang theory.

[edit] Evidence by elerner

There are three issues in this arbitration:

1) The misuse of the term pseudoscience to denigrate minority scientific views and those who advocate them. 2) The attempt to dismiss minority view points as “insignificant” “fringe’ or “marginal” and therefore ignorable on Wiki. 3) The extremely bad behavior of some Wiki editors, specifically ScienceApologist and BKramer.

I will present evidence on each of these issues. For space, and because I am most familiar with them, I limit the discussion to the two fields I am personally involved in, cosmology and fusion, and the Wiki pages on myself and plasma cosmology.

1) First, what is pseudoscience? We can ask Wikipedia, which says, I think quite accurately, that

“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.”

It is obvious from their edits and from the evidence they present on this page that BKramer and SA do not use this definition of pseudoscience. They have never cited any verifiable sources that argue that plasma cosmology, critiques of the Big Bang, or my work in fusion violates or does not use scientific method. They have never themselves pointed out how they think scientific method is violated.

Instead, they have repeatedly made clear that they equate a minority viewpoint in science with pseudoscience. Their edits are centrally aimed at showing that “most” or “nearly all“ cosmologists think the Big Bang happened and that therefore the opposing views are rightly labeled pseudoscience. While it is indisputable that most cosmologies support the Big Bang theory today, it is a gross distortion both of the word “pseudoscience” and of the scientific process to label minority viewpoint as pseudoscience. Nearly all presently-accepted scientific theories were once minority viewpoints.

How can Wiki editors actually decide that something is verifiably pseudoscience? Our own opinions are not supposed to be the arbitrators. It does not matter if BKramer thinks the work of Hannes Alfven is pseudoscience, or if I and Burton Richter and many other scientists think that string theory does not use the scientific method because it makes no testable predictions.

Verifiable evidence that a field is NOT pseudoscience, would be for example, papers published in peer-reviewed journals, since all such journals require that published papers use the scientific method.

Verifiable evidence that a field IS pseudoscience would be, for example, articles in peer-reviewed journals that label it pseudoscience and give evidence of how scientific method is not used.

I want to emphasize that not using scientific method is entirely different from coming to wrong scientific conclusions using the method.

2) How can we distinguish between minority views and “insignificant minorities”?

The distinction that Wiki makes on this is trickier than pseudoscience. But there are several ways to do this—all of which have been abused by SA and BKramer as will be shown in section 3.

A “significant minority viewpoint” can be characterized by a number of things. Any of them alone can make a minority viewpoint significant.

One is that it has adherents who are prominent in the relevant field. For example, the most prominent exponent of plasma cosmology was Hannes Alfven, who won a Nobel Prize in physics for his contribution to the founding of the modern field of plasma physics. SA and BKramer continuously seek to obscure Alfven’s role and wrongly attribute the origin of the field to myself, obviously far less prominent than Alfven.

A second criterion is that a significant minority viewpoint receives coverage as a scientific viewpoint by verifiable sources, such as the popular scientific press or the mass media. For example, New Scientist has reported on its cover (July 2, 2005) of the criticism of the Big Bang theory. http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18625061.800-did-the-big-bang-really-happen.html My book was reviewed when it came out by the New York Times Book Review, and by the Chicago Tribune.

A third criterion is that a significant minority viewpoint is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher. This is obviously the case for plasma cosmology with many papers from the 1970’s to this year. It is currently true of opposition to the Big Bang. It is also the case for the approach to fusion that I have contributed to—the use of the dense plasma focus and the examination of aneutronic fuels like proton-boron. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers by dozens of researchers on each topic.

A fourth criterion is that the viewpoint is supported in various ways, or at least examined by major institutions. Thus, for example, plasma cosmology has been the subject of invited seminars at major institutions such as the European Southern Observatory and Goddard Space Flight Center. My work, and others, in aneutronic fusion has been supported by Jet Propulsion Laboratory http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/23572/1/96-0007.pdf. and I have had collaborations with Texas A&M University, University of Illinois and the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commissions.

3) Disruptive behavior of ScienceApologist (Joshua Schroeder) and BKramer.

Since this is already long, I will limit this only to their behavior on my own page Eric Lerner.

SA and BKramer have repeatedly introduced unsourced negative comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=80724775&oldid=80722334 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=81404823&oldid=81402854 These have included inserting the words ”he claims” or “he states” about such uncontroversial information as my BA degree and my participation in certain historical events of the ‘60’s. These words plainly imply that I am lying about my credentials or my personal history and are completely unsupported. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=80403840&oldid=80372286 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=78108330&oldid=78107372

SA and BKramer have repeatedly removed verifiable information that indicates that my work, while controversial, is part of a significant minority viewpoint. This indicates the dishonesty of their disruptive behavior. They are aware of the various evidence that shows this work is not pseudoscience or insignificant, but seek to suppress that evidence to pursue their campaign to label me—and ALL minority viewpoints in science—as crackpots. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=81226390&oldid=81223477 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=73944049&oldid=73934993 Elerner 13:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:JzG

[edit] Some specifics

I assert thet there is a general problem with pseudoscience, caused by a number of factors:

• The term pseudoscience is (rightly) seen as pejorative, although its basis is entirely valid and an objective definition exists.
• It is the nature of pseudoscience that it is ignored by the scientific community, therefore credible academic sources for labelling a particular field as pseudoscience are hard to find
• In many cases the term would be widely accepted as applying, per the objective definition, but to do so may violate WP:NOR by virtue of baing a "novel synthesis". This is a problem; we need a ruling on how to categorise those fringe theories which are so patently absurd that there is no other possible term for them, but for which a reliable source using the specific word pseudoscience may not be available.

Examples:

• Aetherometry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), deleted in the end as fundamentally unverifiable.
• Time Cube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which we can't get rid of because it's a "notable meme" but attempts to rephrase the article in those terms are reverted by the cubers.
• Crop circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which describes something in which the scientific community has, by and large, lost interest since it was conclusively proven that the majority of cases were hoaxes by a small group. This leaves only the "cerealogists" who employ the usual conclusions-first reasoning to arrive at "proof" of some sort of paranormal origin. Since only the "cerealogists" are interested, it is their work which dominates any investigation. It's never been rebutted because the science is so poor as to be not worth the trouble.
• Safe Speed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a one-man UK "road safety" campaign claiming that one third of UK road fatalities are caused by speed cameras. Any explanation other than cameras (e.g. the rise in mobile phone use in cars) is dismissed on the grounds that "no, I've thought about it and it's not that" or words to that effect. Impossible to rebut because the only publication that's ever taken this loon seriously enough to investigate his claims is Which? magazine; impossible to delete because he is a skilled self-publicist playing to a popular need to deny that speeding has any negative consequences, so is widely quoted including by those who should know better.
• Evolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) persistently disrupted by creationists.
• AIDS reappraisal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), tagged as {{NPOV}} - see this classic comment from Randoride [232] asserting (correctly) that we must prove that the majority of scientific opinion is in favour of the traditional view of AIDS, and that the so-called "reappraisal" movement is a tiny minority. But we can't do that because to count the vast array of papers supporting HIV -> AIDS and compare them with the tiny number of dissenters is original research.

For examples of what happens to experts supporting the scientific consensus we have:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley and William's user page
• Examples at Wikipedia:Expert retention and especially User:Jnc and User:Jnc/AstronomerAmateur, which summarises in satirical form an exchange of precisely the form we have here.
• As cited elsewhere, Hillman (talk • contribs) being driven off [233]

[edit] In respect of the personalities and actions in this case

There is a long-standing consensus, backed by the WP:NPOV policy and especially the undue weight clause, that Wikipedia should reflect significant points of view proportionately. The existence of, and battles about, these articles on fringe theories, some of which are expounded only by a single individual and lack any peer-reveiewed publicatrion whatsoever, has led to a battle to rephrase that policy in a way which would allow fringe theories to be more easily included, and not just included but included in a way which is flattering to them.

There are countless examples of this in the history of the WP:NPOV policy page, but here are some examples:

• [234] seeks to change the emphasis so that it is editors, not articles, which must display neutrality - this is precisely the wrong way round.
• [235], where Tommysun weakens undue weight by requiring that all views are represented
• [236] Pravknight adds another soapbox

Overall there have been numerous attempts to replace the objective with the subjjective (who judges what is a significant point of view,. in order to require that a dissenting view be included in an article representing what is, for all practical purposes, unanimity within the scientific community). Cyde is right: the profile of Wikipedia is such that every fringe nutter in the world is now highly motivated to come here and push their eccentric theories, and in doing so they drive off knowledgeable contributors.

• Addendum: I note that ScienceApologist is "accused" above of being a Big Bang advocate. This accusation is perfect illustration of the problem. As far as I can tell, every single mainstream cosmologist is a Big Bang advocate. Big Bang and expanding universe have achieved the status of strong consensus in the scientific community. Acceptance of this amounts to a neutral point of view in respect of cosmology.
• Addendum: Tommysun's contributions to the Talk page of crop circle indicate the (mis)use of policy to support the propounding of a trivial minority view, but there is an inconsistency within the NPOV policy. See [237] and look for the bold text None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.; what we have here is the assertion that just because a few on the fringes dissent form the scientific consensus, then the consensus may not be represented as fact. By which token the fact that Earth is ab onblate spheroid is simply one of the ocmpeting theories on earth shape, not a fact at all, because some people believe it is flat; and any scientific fact which contradicts revealed truth per any religious text may not be represented as fact (thus in fossil we may not assert that the fossilisation proces indicates great age, only that some believe this). I thinkt hat's a dangerous loophole.

See also Tommysun's assertion that the scientific view holding crop cicrles to be of mundane origin is "POV" [238], and representing "cerealogy" as the "science" of crop circles: [239]. Tommysun also breasons from the premise that "something strage is going on", therfore it must be paranormal in origin [240].

More recently, User:Gleng removed Time cube from the pseudoscience article because it lacks a citation. Yup, it lacks a citation, because time cube is dismissed as lunacy by everyt reputable scientist, not least because it holds as fact that:

• −1 × −1 = +1 is stupid and evil.
• 3.20 [is] the perfect value of π.
• [Gene Ray has] squared the circle.
• 4 is the supreme number of the universe.

none of which are compatible with mathematics or any other science as we understand them. This is tricky because we may not conduct original research, but there is little else on which to base articles which discuss these lunatic fringe theories in any kind of balance. I guess what we should really do is remove anything which is not formally verifiable from reliable sources idependent of the source and leave something along the lines of "Time cube is a theory which conflicts with conventional physics and mathematics, and is dismissed by mainstream scientists". It would be good to have some firm guidance on how we can treat things where no reputable scientist will tougch them with a barge pole, but they have some kind of notoriety usually through teh Internets. My view is that we should leave that to some other project but the chances of getting an article deleted when Ray has debated at a couple of universities produces an intersting case study in what actually consititues verifiable; we can verify that this is what Ray thinks but we certainly cannot verify the claims themselves. Perhaps the default should be to redirect to the article on the proponent rather than discussing the idea. If someone with a more clear-sighted view of the application of policy could clarify here it would be helpful.

Iantresman at the head of this article discusses this in terms of a problem of misrepresenting "scientific minority views". What is largely happening, though, is that unscientific minority views - that is, views based on no credible peer-reviewed evidence, so not in any way conforming to the definition or comon understanding of the term science - are being misrepresented as scientific minority views of somse standing by comparison with the consensus. There are scientific minority views, and scienctific consensus changes over time, but we are not, I would suggest, in the business of fixing the problem identified by Ray that all scientists have somehow been brainwashed into believeing that which is evidently false as proven by his theories, which are themselves built on the a priori assumption that the theories are right. I will return again to the subject of Aetherometry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs); here we found tat the theory has few if any adherents outside of its proponents and is not addressed in any reputable scientific journals. How exactly can we cover such subjects in the face of the determination of their proponents (and sometimes their debunkers) to have them covered in some way? ArbCom does not rule on content, but that is a question of principle.

[edit] The generalities of pseudoscience, and a proposal

Reversal of the burden of proof, requiring those supporting the dominant world-view to provide a specific citation refuting the minor/crank theory, is a recurrent theme in pseudoscience subjects. Previous rulings make it plain that the burden is on the editor seeking to include content to justify that content, but that can fall apart where we need to find a citation to prove that the scientific community has ignored a concept; how does on prove that the scientific community has ignored Time Cube without original research, posting a Lexis-Nexis search in which Time Cube is shown to have zero academic credibility by virtue of having no peer-reviewed papers discussing it? We need to strengthen, in my view, the burden on those propounding minority views to demonstrate their widespread acceptance. Perhaps, as with {{unaccredited}} used to identify unaccredited schools, we should have a template, an agreed form of words, to add as a caveat to articles on theories whose basis has not been or cannot be tested by, and which do not appear in any reputable peer-reviewed publication.

It is my firm view that the bare minimum for inclusion of any theory representing itself as scientific should be publication and discussion in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Many of the fringe cosmology theories above fail that test. We deleted Aetherometry after a lengthy battle because of precisely this problem: we could not cover the subject neutrally because there were no neutral sources. There seems to me to be a move here to allow the inclusion of theories which blatantly violate core policies in order to provide some kind of supposed "balance" to the scientific mainstream, with a consequent requirement to lower the bar to the point where we can accept sources which are simply not good enough in order to discuss these theories. Any theory which has no acceptance outside of a small closed circle of proponents cannot be covered neutrally so should not be covered at all. If a person who is otherwise notable holds a view widely regarded as a crank view, then we can have an article on that person which discusses that controversy, provided we can source it, but we absolutely must not bend over so far backwards to be fair to minority viewpoints that we end up with our heads up our arses, whicih is what we seem to have done in several places here. The way to deal with a repeatedly pushed fringe theory is to politely but firmly decline unless and until there is discussion of it in the scientific journals. Note that intelligent design is discussed in the journals and we can faithfully document the facts withotu violating policy.

So: the two big problems with the pseudoscience pushers is (a) their tenacity, driving off knowledgable contributors, and (b) their attempts to rewrite policy to support that. We can fix this problem by making it easier for the community to ban tendentious editors from articles or policies. There is already some experimental use of community bans, with ArbCom still available as the final arbiter where these are challenged. This is an opportunity to strengthen that process and to clarify what steps, if any, ArbCom would recommend in forumlating a comunity ban. Where an editor's changes to policy or articles are disruptive, then it is reasonable to ban them from editing there until the conflicts can be resolved and we should not be shy of doing so. The present situation, where they keep editing through RfCs and endless Talk page debates until we finally get an ArbCom case together because they have driven off so many good editors, is clearly not a good one.

Also, it is simply not fair to expect the community to be able to tell the difference between an expert and a crank. Elerner may well be an expert, but Elerner is not the best person to judge that. The usual guidelines on vanity and autobiography must apply to one's children, intellectual as well as biological.

In some of these cases it is possible to make an editorial refactoring "stick", in others it is less easy. Every single factoid supporting a given fringe view is often added by the same editors to a number of inter-related articles. POV forks are a common occurrence, often tolerated simply to get rid of the cranks from the serious articles. Current processes and policies simply do not scale here; the scientific community can safely ignore Wikipedia as having no academic credibility (so there is little incentive for genujine experts to persist in the bruising game of POV war) whereas those promoting fringe theories know that Wikipedia is now among the best places in the world to boost the credibility of their fringe theory. As admins, we can only stop the edit war and lock the article at m:the wrong version. I think we should encourage admins to be more assertive and roll back locked articles to a state which reflects the dominant world-view. The pain and angst caused by deletion debates over nonsense theories and POV forks should not be underestimated. It is not clear to me how to make this less painful.

I have already proposed that RfCs should include a closure process; I see no reason why an RfC should not be closed with a community sanction where this is warranted. It is known that ArbCom does not scale, but as a way of appealing a community sanction it will probably continue to work. Sorry, I seem to be on my soapbox again :-)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Mangojuice

My involvement here is mainly limited to my experience with the Eric Lerner article. I think the issues are somewhat different in that article than in some of the others: the Eric Lerner article is a biography of a living person, and while issues about undue weight aren't totally irrelevant, they are somewhat less important than issues of neutrality and verifiability per WP:BLP. Lerner's theories may be somewhat on the fringe, but they are published and have drawn attention. Placing them in context, however, in Eric Lerner, is a bit secondary. Does Lerner's biography belong on Wikipedia? I think it probably does, he seems notable as an author if not also as a researcher.

It seems to me like the anti-pseudoscience camp feels that Lerner's article has to be put in a larger context, even if that larger context can't be backed up in reliable sources.

Iantresman has generally been respectful of Wikipedia policies but tries to skirt them just enough that his non-neutral approach shows through. See [241], for instance, where Ian espouses the idea that the information he re-added to Eric Lerner could stay until it is verified, in contrast to [242], explaining his revert [243]. Over a series of actions that day, he was blocked for WP:3RR violation; I reviewed and denied the unblock. We had a lengthy discussion about it, and I was surprised that he never was able to see that using WP:LIVING as a stick to force reverts over neutrality of tone is inappropriate, and doesn't give one license to violate the 3RR.

By far, I am more worried about the contributions of the other camp, particularly ScienceApologist and JBKramer. I think the summary of SA's behavior above says everything I would say, but I do want to mention that JBKramer's behavior is less subtle and much more concerning. He has been incivil [244] [245], and many of his other comments also, with a sarcastic, superior tone. I reverted him when he did this [246] and left a message on his talk page about it: he was hammering home the unsourced, almost certainly unverifiable statement that Lerner's work has been ignored by the community, a statement that we had sought sources for before, and not found, as I believe JBKramer was well-aware of. The dialogue that followed clearly lays out that JBKramer is editing Eric Lerner to oppose the work of people like Lerner and their articles, and disturbs me greatly. Here is the sequence: [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254]. Like ScienceApologist, JBKramer is aware of Wikipedia policies but obeys them when it supports the point of view he prefers. Mangojuice^talk 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do want to also point out User:Asmodeus' user page. I recall conversing with this user a few months ago, at which point I pointed out how incivil that user page was, and it still has not been changed. Behavior like that doesn't help things. Mangojuice^talk 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One final point: The two most important content policies on Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think the two generally work well together, but in this case they come into conflict. Material has been written about these fringe scientific theories: enough to have articles with verifiable information in them. However, in some cases, insufficient material has been written for all points of view to have verifiable information that represents them. Take, as an example, a hypothetical theory presented as an alternative to general relativity. If theory X is a fringe theory, the mainstream community may just ignore its proponents, but its proponents write material that supports it. The result: material exists to support the theory, but nothing verifiable exists to present the mainstream view of that theory. So what can we do? If we give a neutral presentation, it would have to include the mainstream viewpoint, which couldn't be verified. If we give a verifiable presentation, it would be nearly impossible to be neutral, as all the sources favor only one of the viewpoints. So which way should we go? I think the only proper decision is to support WP:V over WP:NPOV -- neutrality is important, but as long as we recognize Wikipedia as a project of non-experts, we have to stick, strictly, to previously written material: it's the only way to keep individual opinion from becoming content on Wikipedia. But there could be a case made for deletion: if a subject is impossible to present neutrally while being verifiable, maybe Wikipedia shouldn't cover it at all. Mangojuice^talk 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User: Gleng

I have edited on several “controversial articles as well as my own areas of expertise. I am a scientist, and not anonymous [255]). I think that most editors are sensitive to the need to maintain POV, but have been disappointed to find POV pushing from apparently pro-science editors. These are well meaning, but IMO they are pseodoskeptics whose activities in defence of science are, instead, harmful to it, and intensely harmful to WP.

Personal attacks. WP policy: no personal attacks. ‘’Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.’’

However, it appears to be treated as fair comment to denigrate the motives of editors who e.g. are chiropractors or acupuncturists, and the motives of editors who support particular disputed edits of e.g. chiropractors

Examples: KV declares that he “quite civilly points out editors’ biases when Kenosis objects to KV’s tendentious judgements of himself and other editors [256] When JimButler suggests that claims that most scientists consider a subject as scientific need V RS support (i.e. verifiable, reliable sources; WP:V and WP:RS). In dismissing this, KV comments "I'll not mention your particular bias, as some editors don't seem to like me doing so, but please assume editors have some faculty for reason” [257] see also [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263] [264] [265] [266] (Most recently, here KV accuses User: Fyslee of pro-chiropractic bias [267]. Fyslee is a webmaster of chirobase, a skeptical webite linked to Quackwatch) (Strikethrough made by Fyslee, see below.)

Correction: I am a chiroskeptic and the webmaster of The Quack-files and Confessions of a Quackbuster, where there is plenty of documentation for the rampant quackery and anti-science in modern chiropractic. Just like many other anti-quackery sites, I link them to Quackwatch. -- Fyslee 09:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaches of WP:NPOV and WP:V WP:RS Some editors push POV in ways that are a) hypocritical, b) dishonest and c) intellectually inane. The particular POV in these examples is the belief that “pseudoscience” is a scientifically accepted designation that can be objectively attached to specific fields, in a way that reflects the “majority” opinion. My objection to this is that a) PS is not a scientifically accepted designation, but a pejorative judgement made by individuals according to quite diverse criteria. As pointed out by Hgilbert 03:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)), pseudoscience is very seldom used by scientists in the peer-reviewed literature. It is used more by philosophers of science, mostly in relation to the definition of the scientific method introduced by Popper (which made falsifiabilty a central tenet of science). Popper used only three examples, scientific socialism, psychoanalysis and astrology. Later philosophers found problems, in that any criteria which leads you to judge one “dubious” field as pseudoscientific also leads you to characterise other respectable fields in the same way.

So, with a dearth of academic support, some editors claim that some assertions need no verified support at all, because they are “self-evident” (hence those who disagree are deluded) [268] or they claim support from “the majority” or “mainstream science” etc. They may point to use of the term in popular publications, the media, or on critical websites. As Hgilbert noted here, there is no pretense in any of the cases of actually ‘’showing’’ consensus amongst scientists. He warned that, without good criteria, use of PS on WP would become like “including a variety of names on a list of idiots, based solely upon who has ever been called an idiot” (Hgilbert 03:46, 3 August 2006).

a) hypocrisy All sources are potentially unreliable, but it’s not our job to judge the information, but to report it. We set thresholds for inclusion (V RS), and these vary between articles. (In WP: NPOV: "The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can"). Whatever criteria are agreed, it is unreasonable to include information from one source when it supports an opinion while excluding information from an equivalent source because it supports the contrary opinion. If we exclude for instance, (as sources of fact) websites that promote say psychic dentistry, we must also exclude websites that are similar forums for skeptical views. If we reject a source because of the quality of the journal or an opinion from someone without apparent qualifications as a relevant expert, then this too is something we must apply consistently. Dual standards are widespread, and (IMO [269]) mainly from skeptics whose well intentioned belief is that they speak for a rational majority [270]. IMO, if the facts are sound, they will be in the core literature, if opinions are worth hearing, they will be expressed by notable experts. If you still need to assert that the opinions are majority opinions, then demonstrate that, and be specific about what majority you are referring to. (see also [271])

b) Dishonesty It is not enough to declare a source to be verifiable and reliable (V RS), the source must actually express the statement for which it is cited. IMO, where possible, sources should be chosen that are accessible online. Often, I see statements that I know to be wrongly cited, usually I don’t have time to detail the discrepancies unless on articles I am actively editing. However on these there have been enough gross examples of what appear to be dishonest miscitations made to support the editor’s POV. Examples [272] [273] [274] [275] [276]

c) Inanity. Finally the ignorant derogation of authorities with whom an editor disagrees. The problem with this is that to a non expert editor the status of a source is put in doubt unreasonably, and this prejudices any rational discussion. Examples: 1)The proposal that we shouldn’t take Popper too seriously as he’s an “old dead guy” and others have their fingers more on the pulse. [277] (Popper’s "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", has 2800 citations on Google Scholar. According to Peter Medawar, Nobel laureate in medicine, it is “one of the most important documents of the twentieth century”). One WP editor ([User:RtC], who joined the PS page briefly from German WP as an expert on Popper who reads him in the original German, has I think not been seen on these pages since KV's comment [278])

2) "Aristotle, Pasteur, Hubbard, David Icke etc are all fine to mention here. But weight and balance should be towards the majority scientific view. Rather than writing testimonials from various ill-informed great thinkers, we need to hear the viewpoints of the majority of the field" [279]

(Icke is mentioned in this diff to denigrate vitalists, but why Icke is chosen is not obvious; Icke explains world problems as a consequence of DNA hybridisation between humans and alien reptiles, which might count as a molecular biological explanation, but not really as a vitalist one).

Most are the examples here are from one editor. But the issues here arise with many other editors too. I have mentioned problems with one editor not just to single out an extreme example, but to show how densely, and for how long, this has been allowed to continue on WP. Gleng 16:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Shell_Kinney

I've had very little involvement in scientific articles and can't add much about the debate in question here; I can comment on the behavior I found troubling during my short involvement in the Eric Lerner article problems at the beginning of September. I would like to preface this by pointing out that my concerns over ScienceApologist using poorly or completely unverified information, original research and pointedly negative and dismissive writing styles was because, first and foremost, this is the biography of a living person. Care that should have been taken, wasn't - other people, who, oddly enough all seem to be on this RfAR, didn't think that these kind of infractions were worth a block and went screaming about it all up and down AN/I and my talk page. The fact that they resorted to arguments like "you can't block GOOD EDITORS tm", "you didn't get ENOUGH OPINIONS tm" and "you must be a CLOSET SUPPORTER tm" really makes me wonder if Iantresman and company aren't somewhat correct in thinking there's a cabal here somewhere ;)

I think one of the real questions here is: do we treat the biographies of people with non-mainstream views like other biographies of living people or use the more relaxed rules that govern the non-mainstream articles themselves? In the case of the Eric Lerner article, the latter has prevailed so far.

After a long stint in protection (due to an edit war way back in July between ScienceApologist, Elerner and Iantresman), the article was unprotected September 4th. After a slow start, from September 10-12th there was an ongoing (albeit slow motion) edit war of complete reversions between Science Apologist and Elerner. (Poor Art had a hard time even getting his minor corrections to stay in). My warning to ScienceApologist is here [280] and the warning to Elerner here [281], [282]. The related discussion on AN/I can be found here [283].

Elerner is far too liberal about editing the article. He frequently reverts to his preferred version and has edit warred with various editors causing the article to be protected twice. He does not respond well to suggestions that he take a more active role on the talk page and less on the article itself.[284] He has skirted making legal threats, calling some edits libel. [285]

ScienceApologist reverts "visiting astronomer" to his preferred "asked to visit" phrase; edit summaries indicate he's trying to have the article's subject refute/confirm claims on the talk page and also claims that his version "does not dispute" that Eric Lerner was a visiting astronomer[286], [287]. In regards to this change, ScienceApologist states on the talk page that "being invited to an observatory by a friend doesn't make someone necessarily an astronomer" [288]; he repeats similar statements when reminded that the phrase "visiting astronomer" was used by two references [289], calls the fact that references use the same phrase "dumb logic" [290] and continues to object based on his original research [291], [292]. Eventually ScienceApologist and Iantresman agreed to use visiting astronomer and mention who he was invited by - even then, Elerner again reverted to his preferred version and called ScienceApologist's changes (now supported by consensus) libel. [293]

ScienceApologist removes verifiably positive information or information that he feels lends credibility to Eric Lerner, for instance, he removes a short description of awards and technical writing, calling it cruft [294]. He also removes counter arguments to criticisms of Eric Lerner's book [295] calling it whitewashing, further claiming that Eric has no verifiable supporters and even offering his opinion that "Lerner refutes nothing", something which should be left for readers to decide instead of ScienceApologist using his original research to determine whether the arguments have merit.

ScienceApologist, while trying to make mainstream science the focus, routinely uses phrases with very negative connotations. For instance, instead of saying "this physicist argues that there are errors" he uses, "this physicist chronicles point by point, errors"; the section heading is changed to include the word "Criticism"; he removes non-critical remarks by James Van Allen (of the Van Allen belts) and adds never sourced information about a supposed debate from 1992 in which he claims Lerner "had trouble with simple error analysis" [296]. At one point, the reference given from this statement was a comment on a blog, which surely falls far below any standard of reliable sources [297]. To further discredit the subject, he changes the title of the section from "Criticism of Theories" to "Criticism of Ideas" [298].

ScienceApologist tends to hold others to higher standards than he holds himself. For instance, he removes citations of published papers for not being peer reviewed when Iantresman includes them, but bases some of his edits on his personal knowledge or blogs [299] - while the blog may very well be a reliable source, ScienceApologist makes judgments based on personal opinion instead of using Wikipedia rules to determine inclusion.

ScienceApologist, Iantresman and Elerner frequently completely revert to their preferred version, even while discussions are ongoing. They revert good edits with bad in wholesale changes. For instance, after ScienceApologist makes a factual concise statement that mainstream science contradicts Eric's work [300], Iantresman reverts it along with all other edits since his preferred version [301]. They call each others edits biased, POV, and hypocritical and are generally incivil with each other. [302], [303], [304], [305], [306]. Elerner has called some of ScienceApologist's edits vandalism and displayed article ownership issues. [307].

For a biography of a living person, the article has been handled with a great deal less care than our guidelines suggest it should (some of this started before the guideline was in place). For instance, the subject has been called a total fucking nutter (not by someone involved in this case)[308]. Editors have confused arguments for or against his theories with arguments for or against the article; for instance, discussion of whether or not the subject holds a degree or a high enough degree [309], [310], [311]. Some statements were made that would be considered or skirt the edges of personal attacks, if they were made against another contributor [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319].

I deal with living biographies problems frequently through my involvement with OTRS. Frankly, with the care we take, I was very surprised to see the way this article and talk page had been manhandled and even more surprised at the level of resistance when I suggested this behavior was clearly against policy. Though it does seem to be the same set of players, I don't think I can weigh in on whether this is indicitive of a larger problem or a one-off due to the subject's involvement in Wikipedia. Shell ^babelfish 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by KrishnaVindaloo 08:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In short, I completely sympathize with Bubba 73. The goal here is to present all relevant views on pseudoscience, according to NPOV policy, with no soapboxing and no conflict. In order to fulill the requirement for science over pseudoscience, the related articles have been clarified, and much there has been an attempt to add much nuance to the lines on various fields with PS attributes, yet some proponent groups have exempt themselves from improvement due to their refusal to allow all relevant views. Proponents commonly gang up to revert facts that do not suit their own personal agendas, they commit OR as a group, try to actually reverse criticism to "spin it better", and cause a huge amount of conflict in the process. As a solution, I suggest that groups of proponents require a mediator or two, permanently posted in order to keep them in line with NPOV policies.

Chiropractic proponents refuse to accept the PS cat, even though it has been clearly defined in order for the reader to browse all articles that contain PS issues (including widely accepted science articles such as hemispheric specialization and psychological articles such as confirmation bias)[320], [321][322][323].

Due to my presentation of peer reviewed literature that does not speak positively of certain proponent's interests (chiropractic proponents such as users Gleng, Steth, Kenosis, Jim Butler, KillerChihuahua, Dematt and others) I have been on the receiving end of personal attacks (pathalogical liar[324]) incivility[325], racist slur (mahatma)[326], and other such censorship motivated attacks. It seems to have become the norm (I have fallen due to frustration myself (its no excuse), though I am now re-committed to civility).

Here is an example of my presentation of peer reviewed information. It states clearly that chiropractic is used for reparative therapy (treating homosexuality). A Re-emergence of Reparative Therapy: A peer reviewed article. By: Christianson, Alice. Contemporary Sexuality, Oct2005, Vol. 39 Issue 10, p8-17, 10p; (AN 18639497). That is a pseudoscientific application of chiropractic, which has only minor sci support for the treatment of some back conditions. No messing around with google searches. Academic premier database has Contemporary Sexuality listed as a peer reviewed journal publication, and the sub-title reads "a peer reviewed publication for contemporary sexuality readers". It mentions Ford, (The Pseudoscience of Reparative Therapy). It fits NPOV policy on reliability and verifiability. However, in verifying the fact that my edits were truthful, Gleng has to accept that chiropractic is used to treat homosexuality. So Gleng's accusations of dishonesty continue. [327].

I, did confuse two sources (Ford and Christianson) and posted the former as a source for a statement made by the latter (that chiropractic is used in sexual conversion therapy)[328]. After questioning, I made appropriate adjustments[329]. Ignoring my adjustment,Steth made personal attacks, including calling me a pathalogical liar [330] and stated that I was not to make any more edits concerning chiropractic. Users Steth, Dematt have accused me KrishnaVindaloo of lying, and refused to assume good faith[331]. I have subsequently apologised for confusing the two sources, and suggested that apologies from others may improve the situation further[332]. Users Gleng and •Jim62sch• are trying to obtain votes in order to prevent me from editing the article[333].

In reversion of such proponent's OR, [334] accusations from them at me, of dishonesty continue despite me presenting additional corroborating peer reviewed evidence Beckstead, A L. Morrow S. L. Mormon clients' experiences of conversion therapy: The need for a new treatment approach. Counseling Psychologist. College Park: Sep 2004.Vol.32, Iss. 5; pg. 651. Proponents refuse to accept that the presented information is indeed peer reviewed even though Research Premier Databases list it as such and peer revew is explicitly mentioned in the paper. And from other members of the proponent group [335][336][337].

The proponent group persistently tries to use consensus to trump NPOV policy. User Bishonen expressed the need to check the vitalism article after POV pushing and pushing of consensus over NPOV policy from the proponent group to boost vitalism as a scientific subject [338] more recently ; [339]. The proponent group is extremely biased towards deletion, without even considering compromise.

Dismissive tone concerning valid experts is used [340]

I also recieved a great deal of incivility from KillerChihuahua [341]. He regularly reverts without sufficient discussion or explanation on controversial articles or uses consensus to trump NPOV policy [342]: [343](these facts are obvious, KillerChihuahua sided with the chiropractors and removes NPOV compliant information, calling it vandalism.KrishnaVindaloo 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse towards myself continues [344]. It is geared towards branding me a liar in order that assumption of good faith is refused, and in order to restrict relevant views. [345].[346]

User Levine2112, chiropractic proponent, removing NPOV compliant material claiming that it doesn't pass WPRS [347]

User Kenosis [348] makes sweeping reversions of anything that includes chiropractic in a pseudoscientific light eg[349][350], without any explanation or discussion on the talkpage. Note he reverts cited and referenced facts in favour of argumentative POV.

I have discovered that ScienceApologist is at times reluctant to allow Cosmology or Big Bang theory to be presented as fields once considered PS eg[351]. Considering the above set of proponent group's poor and desperate arguments and ploys, I fully understand ScienceApologist. He is actually extremely reasonable, highly constructive, and easy to get along with compared to the group mentioned above. The term "pseudoskeptic" is indeed a completely inappropriate label under the circumstances. The core problem is groups of proponents wishing to censor relevant views. Suggested solution:mediation.

Corroborating evidence from UserBishonen who indicates that the chiropractic proponents are holding the article hostage to argumentative POV pushing: [352][353][354]

[edit] Evidence by Serpent's Choice

I am unable to directly address the user conduct issues involved with this RFAr. My only contact with its primary participants has been a brief exchange with Science Apologist at the CTMU AFD, in which he accused me of being a sockpuppet and I replied. [355] I was grossly underprepared for the problems involving that AFD and the larger science issues, so I do not consider his accusation out of line.

I admittedly have a background in the sciences, and I believe that traditional science articles must be kept free of unscientific material for this project to have value as an encyclopedia. With that in mind, however, I value process, have tried to be fair and equitable in my dealings, and have even tried to find a place for content I do not personally agree with.

But with those things said, I would hope that this RFAr will examine the broader contexts that have brought WP here: issues regarding WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV as regards "fringe science" (a term that I will use throughout for the sake of consistency).

• Concern: Policy is self-contradictory regarding fringe science.

Policy states that "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." However, the same section implies that Flat Earth might have at least some place in the main Earth article. Of course, way up at the top of the NPOV policy, we are informed that "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

• Question: How are phrases like "extremely small" and "vastly limited" judged in an NPOV manner?
• Question: When is it appropriate to allow a fringe science concept to have its own page? When is it appropriate to allow a fringe science concept to be addressed at all?

But that is contrasted with views for which it "should be easy to name prominent adherents" (which, by inference, should be included). It also seems in conflict with the text bridging to WP:NOT, which observes that "None of this [the undue weight policy] is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."

• Question: How are "prominent adherents" determined in an NPOV manner. Are people like Langan and Ray prominent? What impact do these adherents have on article creation?

Of course, way up at the top of the NPOV policy, we are informed that "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

• Question: At what point may we assert correctness? Can we state the Earth really is round?

Originally, I argued that fringe science, by virtue of the "specifically devoted" clause, should be expunged from traditional science pages but given its own. This is the claim I made in the CTMU AFD. [356] Personally, I still feel this is the best approach in the long run, as it minimizes contamination, but allows discussion -- if properly balanced -- of those concepts.

If CTMU should be precedent, fringe science topics are covered in "ancillary articles," such as those of their creator (Christopher Michael Langan, Gene Ray). I have argued that point more recently [357].

There is a recommended standard for science article citations, but little that determines what articles must meet it (i.e. what is science?). There is value placed on peer review, but no means for "lay editors" to determine what is legitimate peer review.

• Concern: Proponents of fringe science can use the incongruities in policy to push POV, and other contributors lack a clear response.

Some of the diffs below may not be indicitive of "POV pushing" so much as illustrations of the basic problems. Some, however, clearly are.

From the CTMU AFD: Asmodeus [358] [359] [360] [361] [362] DrL [363]

From Time Cube's current AFD: Probably Time Cube Guy [364] wwwwolf [365]

From Talk:Pseudoscience: Iantresman [366] [367] Jim Butler [368] [369] Steth [370]

From Talk:Plasma cosmology: Tommysun [371]

From Talk: Big Bang: The entire section here [372]

And, frankly, much of the other evidence here. Serpent's Choice 06:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Asmodeus's concerns

In general, citing [373]. I am concerned about this (pseudo)science/philosophy false dilemma. As I enumerated in my concerns, there is no bright-line distinction about what we are to hold to the stringent standards for science inclusion.

Wikipedia does not judge truth. That is axiomatic here; it is beyond us and beyond ArbCom. What Wikipedia judges is verifiability.

Both CTMU ([374] [375]) and Time Cube ([376] [377] [378]), for better or worse, can be reasonably considered to have put themselves forward as science. Wikipedia cannot determine whether either of these is true or viable or even appropriate science. That is the duty and purpose of reliable secondary sources, which we -- as an encyclopedia -- then cite to craft an article.

CTMU is documented almost exclusively in the context of its creator. The 20/20 coverage, the Popular Science article, and so forth ... all these things mention the theory because it is the work of the man; they do not mention the man because the theory is his work. The theory itself has appeared in one journal (PCID), but that journal does not appear to be comparable ([379] [380]) to those used to cite other theories in the field.

Time Cube is documented almost exclusively in the context of its creator. The theory has been discussed in forums at MIT and at Georgia Tech, but I do not think anyone here (unless Time Cube Guy drops in) argue that those invitations to academic mockery constitute the kind of formal lecture presentation that would lend verifiability and notability to a concept.

Wikipedia cannot judge based on correctness. I'll grant, without objection, that CTMU is at least a measure more serious, more scientific, than Time Cube ... but my opinion on the matter is independant research, simply irrelevant to the encyclopedia. What is relevent is documentation, verifiability. Fringe or non-mainstream concepts can and at times do meet that standard. See the articles (and their referencing!) on autodynamics, the electric universe, the EmDrive, Heim theory, hydrino theory, scalar wave theory, and Yılmaz's scalar gravity. I feel this is adequate documentation that there is no "systemic bias" against nonstandard or fringe science, only against articles that do not meet Wikipedia standards.

And while my interest in this RFAr focuses most clearly on the desire for bright-line policy clarification, it seems that I, too, must comment regarding the other central issue, that of editor conduct. There are ample diffs in this regard already, but I would note that as of this posting, Asmodeus's user page is still an invective that decries his opponents, literally, as "apes" and as "purblind, torch-bearing anti-pseudoscience fanatics" engaging in "myopic ... pogroms and witch-hunts" and "raping the editorial and administrative procedures of Wikipedia in order to satisfy their ravenous appetite for deletion". [381] In this light, I find the assumption of good faith strained when I am told that my efforts to rely on policy "mudd[y] the waters" of "often-execrable ... editorial reasoning". I assure, both this editor and ArbCom, that I am not on a pogrom nor a witch-hunt, but that I do take umbrage at being counted now, seemingly, as a purblind, torch-bearing ape. Serpent's Choice 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I have no desire to be baited into an argument ("a bit" or otherwise [382]) or a rehashing of a closed AFD while offering evidence for ArbCom. If Asmodeus wishes to further respond, then, he is welcome to the last word.

But claiming that CTMU was never "put forth as science" is an example of the strange dance of standards that has brought this web of related issues to RFAr to begin with. Topics are science enough to earn links from and consideration in mainstream science pages, but not science enough to necessitate the standards of the field.

"A cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe and the Stephen Hawking-James Hartle "imaginary time" theory of cosmology proposed in Hawking’s phenomenal book A Brief History of Time, the CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate." - Christopher Michael Langan

The author compares the theory to scientific contributions. By his own words, it applies to "physical science" and to cosmology. The media quotes, too, have been covered before. [383] Popular Science calls it "what he [has] to say about science" and compares his work to that of "scientists". 20/20, yes, calls it "philosophical" but in the same breath "mathematical".

When an author compares his work to Hawking's, when he proposes to settle cosmological issues and "the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science", when his theory is described as "science" -- or at least as "mathematical" -- by the media whose attention he garners, then, regardless of what unknowable intentions he may have had, his work has been put forth as science. It is of no import if I am an "expert" (scare quotes or otherwise). I am an editor, and as such the only words that matter are those used by the sources before me. Serpent's Choice 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by KillerChihuahua

[edit] On KrishnaVindaloo

(in progress)

[edit] AGF, NPA, CIVIL:

KrishnaVandaloo engages in repeated persistant violations of policies AGF, NPA, CIVIL in an apparent attempt to win his arguments through ad hom methods.

• October 26, 2006:

[384] (threat made) [385] [386] [387]

• October 25, 2006:

[388] [389] [390]

• October 24, 2006:

[391] [392] [393] [394] [395] (threat made) [396]

[edit] V, CON, misdirect:

KrishnaVandaloo fails to provide adequate cites in violation of WP:V and when asked to do so, responds by accusing other editors of NPOV violations, racism, being proponents of pseudoscience, and/or accusing them of claiming that CON trumps NPOV. In short, instead of addressing the issues, he attacks others in a vengeful manner.

• October 26, 2006:

This piece of evidence is so clear that I am wondering if I should even bother going through the contribs for the multitude of attacks and misdirects this user has made - this really highlights the whole issue well. [397](adds me to this evidence page, as a proponent of ps, in response to my adding this section, or as a method of making good on his threat that I will "feel his wrath"[398] - note that no evidence is given that I am a proponent of psuedoscience at all.) This is not conjecture on my part[399] as KV makes clear.

[400], [401]

• October 24, 2006: [402], [403], [404]*, [405], [406], [407], [408] - this is in response to my post above in the diff, asking for cites.

[edit] Response to counter-attack

Regarding this: "He regularly reverts without any type of discussion or explanation on controversial articles." To the best of my knowledge, I have done so only for obvious vandalism. KV has provided two diffs:[409] and [410]. I state clearly my reasoning in the edit summary, and in one summary ask for cites and in the other state I am removing an "incorrectly cited assertion". As I have been asking repeatedly for cites, along with most of the editors on the page, I consider this issue not only discussed but discussed to death on the talk page. This is spurious nonsense.

[edit] Evidence presented by Tim Smith

[edit] Aggressive, uninformed editing and reverting by ScienceApologist

What follows is an account of ScienceApologist's behavior at an article about a philosophical theory which he claimed could be categorized under "pseudoscience". See also Asmodeus's evidence above.

As background, the theory in question—the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU—has received mention from Popular Science, The Times, Newsday, 20/20, and other mainstream media sources. The article I started in September 2005 (currently a redirect to the theory's author, Christopher Michael Langan) proceeded mostly peacefully until July 2006, which was when ScienceApologist first edited it. The article described the history of the theory, overviewed its structure, and summarized its take on various philosophical topics. As well as being substantially referenced, accurate with respect to its subject, and footnoted right down to the page number, the article took care to qualify the claims of the theory to the theorist, presenting Langan's arguments rather than asserting them.

ScienceApologist summarizes his first edit as "cleaning up the article". What he has actually done is to delete nearly all of the content. At this point, he had never edited the article or its talk page; this edit was made out of the blue, with no prior discussion.

He then announces that he has "removed a lot of gibberish that came across as advertising the theory rather than explaining it". Not only does his version omit nearly all of the article's content, reducing it to a series of disconnected snippets and rendering it utterly useless as an explanation of the theory, but it attributes to Langan a position the opposite of what Langan actually believes.

The deleted text is quickly restored by another user, who points out that other editors are working on the material and requests that ScienceApologist refrain from massive, unconstructive deletion.

ScienceApologist's professed "favorite conflict resolution-style" is WP:BRD. Having made a bold change and been reverted, the next step is to reach agreement through discussion; BRD says emphatically: "DO NOT Revert back". Nonetheless, and despite talk-page objections ([411][412]), he reverts back, again erasing the bulk of the article.

He then labels supporters of the longstanding version a "group of MENSA-allies". That version is soon restored, and he is again asked to refrain from massive deletion so that the existing text can be improved.

On the talk page, a user agrees to add some changes from ScienceApologist's preferred version to the longstanding version as a compromise. She begins to do so, but he reverts the effort and again erases the bulk of the article.

He is then notified that the page is under mediation and asked to join that process. Instead of doing so, he once more deletes the bulk of the article over talk-page objections ([413][414]), accusing his opponent of "POV-pushing". (He never joins the mediation process.)

He cannot revert again without breaking WP:3RR, so he waits twenty-four hours. The suggestion is made that while the article is under mediation and up for deletion, it might be appropriate to move slowly and justify major changes to other editors and to the mediator. Responding, ScienceApologist refers to "dragging one's feet in an attempt to get one's way", dismisses mediation as an "external debate" which has "nothing to do with the problematic content of this page", and announces that "Editting a page proceeds whether there is mediation".

Confronted with the fact that his preferred version attributes to Langan a position the opposite of what Langan actually believes, he modifies it. The modification introduces even more problems. When they are explained to him, he reacts with an edit summary of "ridiculous" and declares that "we've proven that we can work with the material I put forth" and that "there haven't been any substantive objections to working from the simpler version".

Twenty-four hours have elapsed, so he reverts again, again (making a false accusation of sockpuppetry), again (calling the previous editor's work "nonsense"), and again (referring to "Lagan's [sic] junk"). He has now broken 3RR, but the article is protected and he escapes a block.

When a user requests, regarding an editing dispute, that ScienceApologist try to read and understand Langan's position, he accuses the user of "evangelism" and replies that "There is no reason to 'read and understand' what Lagan [sic] says about a particular subject."

He then observes that "there are some enthusiasts who want to claim that I'm not "understanding" what Lagan [sic] is saying." Not only is he not understanding what Langan is saying, he's not even spelling the name correctly, repeatedly inserting "Lagan" into the article ([415] [416] [417] ) even after being corrected.

To summarize, ScienceApologist arrived at an article about a philosophical theory, concluded that it could be categorized under "pseudoscience", aggressively tried to erase the bulk of the content over the protests of other editors, repeatedly ascribed to Langan a position the opposite of what Langan actually believes, reverted an attempt at compromise, didn't join the mediation process, didn't gain consensus for his massive deletions, broke 3RR, made wild accusations of evangelism, POV-pushing, and sockpuppetry, derided other users' efforts as "ridiculous" and "nonsense", and yet was so uninformed about the theory that he could not even spell its author's name correctly, let alone accurately edit an encyclopedia article about it. Tim Smith 23:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:QTJ

[edit] Problems with ScienceApologists' Explanation of Change to CML's Biography

Above, ScienceApologist responds to Asmodeus' claim that ScienceApoligist slanted a biography's tone. ScienceApologists' argument rebuttal is restated here:

However, close analysis of this edit shows it to be a verifiable fact. Lagan indeed is a fellow of the institute in question which was in fact founded by Jonathan Wells who is indeed a prominent member of the ID movement. The edit does not state that Lagan is a member of the ID movement, nor does it state that this would diminish his credibility. And yet, this verifiable fact is opposed by Asmodeus on the basis of his own strawman. Asmodeus presenting it as evidence here only shows how extremely tendentious editors such as Asmodeus are. They need their wings clipped or they will continue to hound decent mainstream editors until Wikipedia becomes a condified safe haven for fringe theories and pseudoscience.

Before I begin to express my problems with the above argument statement, propriety asks that I disclose that the subject of that particular biography is a long-time friend. Moreover, Lagan (mispelled ? as there may be historical reasons for this in the back channels here, I'll mispell it the same way) and I co-authored a published and cited paper in context-sensitive parsing of human language. As this presents the appearance of a conflict of interests (given that the biography being altered is someone I know), I get this bit out of the way now. Also, I too am a Fellow of ISCID. All that said, I was not asked to get involved in this discussion. I noted the diff in question because I had cleaned up the formatting of the biography and it is on my watchlist, and I witnessed when the change in question occurred and it stood out to me immediately.

In the matter of allegedly slanting a biography in this way:

Mr Joe Generic is also a Fellow of ISCID. He is, it happens, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Using ScienceApologist's interpretation, Joe Generic's biography should read, in the spirit of the rebuttal:

Generic is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, a think-tank founded by leaders of the intelligent design movement that describes itself as a "cross-disciplinary professional society that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism."[418]. He also is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, whose original Fellows included Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Johnson, and whose present Fellows include Stephen Hawking and Lord Sir Richard Attenborough, which describes itself as having a manifesto to "to embolden enterprise, enlarge science, refine arts, improve our manufactures and extend our commerce."[419]

Given the hypothetical Joe Generic, and given ScienceApologist's rebuttal to Asmodeus' concern about slanting, and given that the above hypothetical biographical line contains only facts about the notable history of the two societies in question of which Generic is a Fellow of both said societies, and given that the names listed are indeed prominent members and past members, is it asserted that every biography of every living Fellow of notable societies must have this information inserted into their biographies and that those who find this questionable should join those who are classed as having a necessity of having their "wings clipped"?

I argue assert that ScienceApologist has accorded undue weight to a society membership and has introduced the name of another living person into a biography -- a name that has no place there to serve to educate the general public about the named subject's notability prima facie. I will not entertain to guess at motive or intent. The overall effect and contextual relevance of the slant is all that matters as pertains to this page.

(As an aside, Joe Generic is not truly a hypothetical case, except that Joe Generic does not have a Wikipedia biography. I simply have not supplied the name of the person who is a Fellow of both these societies, since that is not what is under discussion, and to maintain JGeneric's right to privacy.)

--QTJ 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I further cite GLeng's citation of WP Policy so as to make the basis of my assertion have some global context:

Personal attacks. WP policy: no personal attacks. ‘’Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.’’

-- QTJ 18:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Serpent's Choice's choice of the word "fringe science"

Above, Sertpent's Choice states a concern:

Proponents of fringe science can use the incongruities in policy to push POV, and other contributors lack a clear response. Some of the diffs below may not be indicative of "POV pushing" so much as illustrations of the basic problems. Some, however, clearly are.

and as supporting evidence that the "clearly" exists (and are being pushed), cites this diff, amongst others.

As it happens, that particular diff makes something abundantly clear in my eyes: that very diff begins with the assertion:

...a few holes in your knowledge of philosophy...

(Bolding mine.)

Anything purporting to be a theory of everything cannot, by its own definition, be considered a fringe science, because it is not claiming to be a science at all. It is claiming to be a model of models. Asserting that a candidate ToE is a science is like saying a ballpark is a baseball game, or that an ice rink is a hockey game. Actually, it's like saying that An Architectural Theory of Why Large Places Games are Played Do or Don't Collapse is not a baseball bat, and hoping the terms used don't show that to be the complete apples-to-oranges wrong-category flaw fallacy it is.

Theories of Everything are a meta-model of models, they are not bound by the models they include -- they govern those models in a higher order fashion that may or may not map back to themselves. It is not a strict requirement that a meta-model hold to the rules of the models it proposes to enclose. To use the analogy: Many games can be played in a ball park or stadium (not just baseball), many can be played on an ice rink (not just hockey), and moreover, someone who proclaims to design a theory of such buildings is an architectural theorist, not a baseball player, hockey player, or figure skater. An not-widely-known architect is not a "fringe" baseball pitcher or a "fringe" figure skater.

Theories of Everything attempt to include everything, but they themselves are not what they propose to close under inclusion. A ToE attempts to unify such things as the knowability of a particle of knowledge, and this may include allowances for the soft scientific notion of falsifiability (which is not itself a scientific law, but a philosophical approach to empirical study), but cannot itself be subject to the test of containing within itself a falsifiable prediction. What is Asmodeus, then, "pushing"? "Fringe science"? If he is pushing anything in that diff, it's for a better understanding of the actual classification of the article in question. In my opinion, that diff (I haven't rummaged through most of the rest) falls as support of Serpent Choice's expressed concern. Asmodeus is, as far as I can see, not pushing any kind of science there, fringe or otherwise. He's pushing for proper understanding of the issues at hand, and that during a debate for deletion, not during a calm moment. --QTJ 00:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Minor additional clarification: while some ToE's might not strive to include ontological or epistemological concepts, others do -- and thus, it would really depend on whether or not the ToE in question attempts to also include knowability and being-ness into its framework as to whether it falls into the classification of ToE given here on Wikipedia. I know from my very brutish understanding of the ToE in question that it did attempt to encompass those, and thus, the above puts it into philosophy, not science. -- QTJ 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous diff-based evidence

The assertion(s) this list will fall under I am as yet uncertain (may strike these):

• Introduction of an unnecessary "VANITY" into an edit summary during link removal: in the edit summary of this diff.
  • Comment: I don't wish to become legalistic or venture into semantics, but appears contrary to WP:COI's urging to avoid that word, although only in spirit and not in letter, and tends towards my seeing the above assertion of "Discrediting with ad hominems" as being a supportable assertion per:
    • WP:COI: "Avoid using the word 'vanity' in a deletion discussion " - technically, this is a deletion summary, not discussion, but as stated, seems to be superfluous and potentially antagonistic to the editor who inserted that link in the first place. Given the assumption of good faith, and given that the link provided does not appear to be a notable reliable source, and given that VANITY was capitalized, perhaps the deleting editor meant WP:VAIN rather than VANITY. WP:COI appears to be the currently neutrally named WP namespace for that guideline, however. Six of these, half a dozen of the other.

(I am striking the above because to pursue it would potentially appear to be a conflict-of-interests at this point. I'll leave the following unstruck since I believe it still stands and isn't in need of further elaboration from me. Good luck to everyone with this particular arbitration. -- QTJ 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

• ScienceApologist's willingness to explain his editorial concerns:
  • Questions posed by SA in a discussion on Plasma Cosmology talk page
    • Comment: Discussion/querying/concern-raising such as shown in the above diff to me demonstrate (I do not have the time to hunt down further such calls to discussion in the contribs) support for SA's willingness to solicit a substantial case from any editor by whom he has been called to the floor. Being a fairly recent diff, I assume this is not something so far off as to be of no notability to the general tenor here. His concerns and questions are very specific, to the point of clear references to the connotations and semantics of the use of particular terminology, and do not in any way appear arbitrary within the context of that article and general WP guidelines. Statements such as "You can't find it, it doesn't exist" however are argumentum ad ignorantiam, so unfortunately this particular diff isn't as canonical an example of this the assertion above that likely exists. IMO, when all else fails, the most one can wish for is cogent and open discussion.
  • In the spirit of "never say you don't have the time to find another diff" ahem -- This diff on the same discussion page lends further support to the assertion that SA is open to compromise when concerns he has raised are addressed to the benefit of the article.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Jim Butler

[edit] On Category:Pseudoscience and related topics

There has been dispute over the placement of articles in Category:Pseudoscience and List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Please see archived talk at Talk:Acupuncture and Category Talk:Pseudoscience. Please see also this MedCab case for an extensive presentation of diffs involving the conduct of a former editor and admin, User:Duncharris. Despite that editor's evident breaches of WP:DR, I am certain he believed in good faith that acupuncture is pseudoscientific. But by what standard? Acupuncture is, as the current version of the article indicates[420], plainly considered by a significant number of scientists to be a subject worthy of research, testable, and plausibly efficacious for treating certain conditions. Aspects of acupuncture have been called pseudoscientific by notable sources[421], but according to my reading of WP:CG and WP:NPOVT#Categorisation, that doesn't suffice for categorizing it as such on WP.

[edit] Regarding some evidence and comments presented above

• User:JzG says "The term pseudoscience is (rightly) seen as pejorative, although its basis is entirely valid and an objective definition exists", but, ironically, doesn't say what that definition is!
• User:William M. Connolley says: "A couple of people have said things like “Pseudoscience” is a word rarely used by scientists in the peer reviewed literature - a weird strawman. Of course mainstream science simply ignores pseudoscience, what else would you expect?" Yet if scientists lack an operational definition for the term, how useful is it? Pseudoscience is sometimes concisely defined as something misrepresented as being scientific, yet both the demarcation problem and the issue of misrepresentation-as-science are non-trivial.

Given that there is no evident consensus among scientists and philosophers on the term's meaning, I urge that we approach the definition and categorization of pseudoscience in the same way that we handle other POV topics such as cult and terrorist. We should carefully heed the cautions laid out at WP:NPOVT#Categorisation and the guideline to which it links, Wikipedia:Categorization of people. thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.