From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Clerk note: Due to the length of the page, the proposed principles section has been moved to its own subpage, Workshop/Proposed Principles. Thatcher131 23:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Requesting evidence of pseudoscience 1.2 Requesting confirmation of expertise from ScienceApologist 1.3 Requesting determination of inclusion 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Restrict the Plasma cosmology article to edits about plasma cosmology. 2.2 Restrict big bang editors from editing plasma cosmology. 2.3 Restrict big bang editors to a section 2.4 Iantresman, Rednblu and Tomysun restricted 2.5 Rednblu restricted 3 Questions to the parties 3.1 Science Apologist 3.2 Science Apologist 2 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Template 4.2.2 Locus of dispute 4.2.3 Eric Lerner 4.2.4 Elerner edits disruptively 4.2.5 Ian Tresman 4.2.6 Tendentious policy alteration attempts by Ian Tresman 4.2.7 Editing by User:Iantresman 4.2.8 Template 4.2.9 Art Carlson 4.2.10 ScienceApologist edits disruptively 4.2.11 JBKramer edits disruptively 4.2.12 FeloniousMonk 4.2.13 Pjacobi 4.2.14 Tommysun 4.2.15 Editor Tommysun 4.2.16 Evidence of personal attacks found through Art 4.2.17 Expert editors have been leaving Wikipedia 4.2.17.1 The balance of imbalance 4.2.17.2 Policy matters 4.2.18 Damage from lack of clear and self-consistent NPOV policy 4.2.19 Eric Lerner opposing others 4.2.20 Ian Tresman opposing others 4.2.21 Scientific consensus is the neutral point of view 4.2.22 Discussion regarding Category:Pseudoscience 4.2.23 Electric universe (concept) 4.2.24 Art LaPella 4.2.25 Hypercritical editing by ScienceApologist 4.2.26 Hypercritical editing by JBKramer 4.2.27 Hypercritical editing by Deglr6328 4.2.28 Deprecation by ScienceApologist 4.2.29 ScienceApologist's criticisms of Iantresman 4.2.30 Iantresman's credulity 4.2.31 Ian Tresman has harassed ScienceApologist outside of Wikipedia 4.2.32 Principals of fringe theories 4.2.33 iantresman is "pushing pseudoscience" claims are unfounded 4.2.34 iantresman's views on Velikovsky are not relevant 4.2.35 ScienceApologists claims "Regarding Ian Tresman in particular", not supported by evidence 4.2.36 Significant minority views are defined by policy 4.2.37 Treatment of Significant minority views is defined by policy 4.2.38 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Template 4.3.2 ScienceApologist and JBKramer commended and cautioned 4.3.3 ScienceApologist and JBKramer banned from biography for one year 4.3.4 Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned 4.3.5 Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned from editting science-related articles 4.3.6 Tommysun banned from editing science-related articles 4.3.7 Probation 4.3.8 Revert parole 4.3.9 Elerner banned 4.3.10 Eric Lerner article on article probation 4.3.11 Misrepresenting editors to be warned or banned 4.3.12 Editors infringing policy to be warned or banned 4.3.13 "Policy advisors" to be set-up 4.3.14 "NPOV advisors" to be set-up 4.3.15 Write plasma cosmology article about plasma socmology 4.3.16 Shell Kinney, other admins, reminded 4.3.17 Block log of ScienceApologist to be erased 4.3.18 Designation of subjects requiring academic expertise 4.3.19 Self designation of academic experts 4.3.20 Editing of articles designated as requiring academic expertise 4.3.21 Template:Academic 4.3.22 Remedies with respect to persons 4.3.23 Present the WP:V of WP:RS on pseudoscience topics in a WP:NPOV manner 4.3.24 Template 4.3.25 Template 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Inappropriate use of Template:Academic 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Wikipolicy on NPOV 4.5.2 Evidence of presupposition 4.5.3 Evidence of misrepresentation 4.5.4 Evidence of removal of evidence 4.5.5 Eric Lerner's ideas do not influence mainstream science 4.5.6 This edit violates WP:NPOV policy 4.5.7 This edit violates WP:NOR policy 4.5.8 This edit violates WP:TALK and WP:DE policy 4.5.9 Case study in Ian being tendentious: Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe 4.5.10 Minority scientific theories 4.5.11 Subjects of this arbitration are not minority scientific theories. 4.5.12 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Requesting evidence of pseudoscience

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Requesting confirmation of expertise from ScienceApologist

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Requesting determination of inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Restrict the Plasma cosmology article to edits about plasma cosmology.

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Restrict big bang editors from editing plasma cosmology.

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

Test us!

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Is there any tradition or cultural taboo that says you can't go into user space, use a subpage, collaborate on what looks exactly like what you consider the "ideal" plasma article amongst yourselves (but asking the critics to please not revert, or in any way edit the draft, as a courtesy concession for your agreeing to leave the page in the main namespace alone while you work it out), and then when you have what this proposed item suggests -- negotiate between that and the main namespace article in an orderly fashion? You will, at the very least, have produced and demonstrated (without edit wars, reversions, and interrupts), what you consider the ideal NPOV plasma article -- and have made notes, lists of references on the discussion page, et cetera. Then, when all is said and done -- then hash it out. Once you have your ideal. Without having felt like you had to defend each sentence in the thing on the spot, day in, day out.

You won't end up with your ideal article once you debate what is an acceptable compromise, but you'll have at the very least, started from it. Surely all this debate and back and forth has strengthened your understanding of what is expected, and you can self-police as your write the ideal article, so that maybe, just maybe -- you'll end up with at least an acceptable, non-confrontational compromise. Just a thought. Don't know if this has ever worked in the past. -- QTJ 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's called "writing for the enemy", but it only works if you are prepared to be intellectually honest with yourself about the nature and validity of the theory and its criticisms. I'm afraid that Tommy views this in a religious rather than a scientific way. Guy 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restrict big bang editors to a section

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

[edit] Iantresman, Rednblu and Tomysun restricted

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Correction to your correction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rednblu restricted

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Science Apologist

In this edit you state, "rv -- edit is factually incorrect. Doppler effect is not the cause of the redshift in an expanding universe." Of course it isn't, after all it is an effect, not a cause; but in what way was Tommysun's edit wrong? Fred Bauder 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Doppler Effect does not cause the cosmological redshift. It is the metric expansion of space. See redshift. --ScienceApologist 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science Apologist 2

I see that Ian has repeatedly inserted references to Kristian Birkeland in numerous articles and you have removed them. They look like interesting glimpses into the history of astronomy/cosmology. Can you explain why they are objectionable? Thatcher131 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian engaged in some rather heavy original research insisting that Birkeland was the first person to predict all sorts of things about astrophysics for which he either was manifestly NOT the first person or actually never predicted the things at all. Basically, Ian was rewriting the history of astronomy to trumpet the historical cause of a particular astronomer who many catastrophists and plasma cosmology supporters think holds great insight into "true astrophysics" but is relatively obscure in the actual history of astronomy. One particularly glaring error Ian kept insisting upon was that Birkeland was the first to predict dark matter. Simply not true. --ScienceApologist 12:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

See Workshop/Proposed Principles

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Locus of dispute

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes in principle "it shouldn't matter what view the author holds" because he will not let his beliefs influence his editing. But what really happens is this, as published by Wikipedia in the article called cosmology --[[14]] ...:::"This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins with the big bang,"

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

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

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

Stated elsewhere, but worth repeating here: currently the article states This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, is generally understood to begin with the big bang, an expansion of space from which the Universe itself is thought to have erupted ~13.7 ± 0.2 billion (109) years ago (my emphasis). In the lead of a high level article that is absolutely correct, as it reflects the consensus view in the scientific community and the dominant view in the developed world. Guy 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Eric Lerner

2) User:Elerner is Eric Lerner, an advocate of the plasma cosmology theory, and has edited Eric Lerner and Plasma cosmology. He is engaged in promotion of a "plasma focus device," utilizing a hydrogen-boron nuclear reaction [15] [16].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Elerner edits disruptively

3) Elerner has edited articles disruptively, including Big Bang, Plasma cosmology, and other articles related to his research. (Edit warring: [17] [18], declaration of intent to revert [19] , disparaging other editors [20] [21], 3RR violations [22] [23]). For other evidence see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner#Evidence of disputed behavior. This behavior has continued recently at Aneutronic fusion with edit warring [24] [25], appeals to original research rather than finding sources (most of the talk page, but especially beginning here, see also [26]), and contentious editing Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Eric's justification for his reversions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Ian Tresman

4) Ian Tresman has become involved with certain science-related articles on Wikipedia with the expressed intent to advance a POV promoting fringe positions in an effort to make them more visible and more mainstream. [27], [28]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] Tendentious policy alteration attempts by Ian Tresman

5) Ian Tresman has an extensive history [29] of attempting to alter Wikipedia's core policy WP:NPOV under the pretext of "clarifying the policy" that would have the net effect of weakening its treatment of pseudoscience in relation to established science. Specifically, he has repeatedly sought to weaken the "undue weight" provision of WP:NPOV. When his proposed changes were rejected by the community he ignored calls from multiple editors to either drop the issue or move it to a user talk page when discussion became fruitless. This behavior is consistent with his campaign of promoting his personal views at the expense of more established scientific views. Attempting to weaken the undue weight provision of the WP:NPOV policy: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] Ignoring calls to drop it or move it: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --ScienceApologist 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

These are all edits to TalkPages. Did you make that selection intentionally of only edits to TalkPages with no edits to MainSpace policy pages? --Rednblu 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian's habits are to be overly tendetious on the talkpages. But he has also made alterations to the policy pages which were fast reverted. You can read my evidence section. --ScienceApologist 19:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I welcome anyone to look through the diffs provided, and see whether they support ScienceApologist's criticisms. To me, they just look like my contributions discussing NPOV. --Iantresman 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There comes a point where you exhaust community patience for bringing up the same thing over and over again after consensus has been reached that is not in your favor. --ScienceApologist 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• The diffs show that this is not the case. --Iantresman 00:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be wishful thinking. There were many other editors telling you to lay off and go elsewhere. They were tiring of your promotionalism. --ScienceApologist 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing by User:Iantresman

4.1) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Art Carlson

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

[edit] ScienceApologist edits disruptively

6) ScienceApologist edits disruptively by removing verifiable information that contradicts his POV [58], introducing original research,^{[citation needed]} using personal attacks,^{[citation needed]} introducing unsourced negative comments in a biography,^{[citation needed]} (including statements implying that the subject lies about his credentials and other facts),^{[citation needed]} and edit warring.^{[citation needed]}

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

How many sources would you like to see?

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

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

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

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

Is the basis for this line of argument the results of a QuizFarm personality quiz posted on ScienceApologist's userpage? To quote from our own article about such things, "It should be noted that this type of personality quiz is unscientific, and gives no real insight into a person's personality." That point aside, attacking the philosophical or religious world-view that ScienceApologist, or any editor, may possess is an ad hominem with no direct bearing on the quality of their contributions (including the ability to meet NPOV) or their fitness as an editor. Serpent's Choice 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this right, SA can call me incompetant, bordering on lunacy and imply I am a fanatic, and absolutely no one says anything about that,. but when I say that his self-admitted worldview is 100% materialistic, and that this worldview influences how he sees science and the world, I am attacking him. Very good analysis...

Tommy Mandel 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't believe that SA edits disruptively. I think that he is aggressive and sometimes disrespectful of others, even uncivil. That msy sometimes cause some of the problems, and perhaps he should be cautioned about it. But it is going too far to say, as a blanket statement, that he "edits disruptively". Much of his work has been extremely valuable and not at all disruptive. Metamagician3000 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JBKramer edits disruptively

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

[edit] FeloniousMonk

8) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Pjacobi

9) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Tommysun

10) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Editor Tommysun

10a) Tommy Mandel seeks to use Wikipedia to promote fringe cosmological theories, notably Plasma cosmology. His approach is to seek redress for the perceived external difficulties faced by fringe theories in gaining mainstream attention. He has campaigned for Wikipedia to give fringe cosmological theories and Big Bang cosmology similar weight and status, rather than to reflect their respective levels of support within the scientific community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:I am NOT a Wiki editor! Plasma is NOT a fringe science. Consider the role of gravity v.s. electromagnetics in living structures...I maintain that in the Plasma cosmology article the primary focus should be on plasma cosmology. Is that hard to understand? I have made no suggestions for the big bang article one way or the other. I maintain that in the cosmology article it was wrong to state physical cosmology begins with the big bang. That is clearly a violation of NPOV.

Comment by others:

I'll be proposing something here, suggesting that Tommy Mandel edits as if he believes Wikipedia is a site of contestation between mainstream scientific theories and the proposals of more "fringe" theorists. He seeks a balance that would give redress for the difficulties faced by the latter in gaining mainstream attention. In doing so, he has taken on a mission that well goes beyond giving significant alternative theories their due weight.

I await reactions to my statement of my intent. While I have been happy enough to see Tommysun contribute to this page and express his perception of events, I also think that his contributions here are more than sufficient to demonstrate his frame of mind. Metamagician3000 11:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Some words now provided. Metamagician3000 03:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to know my purpose it is to help correct the errors of science. I have over the years immersed myself in the scientific literature and have come to realize that there is corrupt behavoir occuring in science as much as it occurs in general. In science this amounts to knowingly promoting falsehoods. As far as the big bang is concerned I always had an intuitive hunch about it, how can I say it, when I look at the sky I don't see a Universe described by the big bang. It just doesn't look that way. Now that I have learned a great deal more about cosmology, I can see that the problem is not so much the theorists, as it is the reporters of the work of those theorists - the secondary sources. They seem to have the knack of turning a assumption into a hypothesis into a theory into a proof. So while the theorists of the big bang acknowledge their theories are just that, by the time it gets down to fourth grade that theory is a fact of science. Witness the statement found at Wikipedia, "The big bang is not argued, it is presupposed." Something like this should not be taught to even our fourth graders. Tommy Mandel 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You can have that as a goal, but not here. That is explicitly not the job of Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not try and correct the errors in established truth, it merely reports on what established truth says. Nothing else is feasible for it to do.--Prosfilaes 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and my goal is well beyond editing Wikipedia. But that does not mean I cannot fix the problems where they occur. The problem I see here is one theory is taken as the correct theory, THEREFORE all other theories are taken as incorrect theories. The established truth is that the big bang theory is a theory yet to be proven. Now, the truth of the establishment is different story, Established truth and establishment truth are quite different. Tommy Mandel 20:36, 19 November 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)

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

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

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

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

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

Can I be truthful about you? Tommy Mandel 05:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert editors have been leaving Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is that why they are organizing Citizendium?

Sent to me --" I’ve seen enough of Wikipedia that I’ve concluded it is a failed model. In all areas of controversy where enough people care, the majority simply overpowers or wears out the minority regardless of where the merits lie. I don not see a way within the existing model to win on the merits."

Tommy Mandel 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Clearly, expert editors leaving Wikipedia is a very real concern. However, using this argument to suggest the burden of evidence should be reduced isn't appropriate. Addhoc 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The balance of imbalance

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Policy matters

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Damage from lack of clear and self-consistent NPOV policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Eric Lerner opposing others

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Ian Tresman opposing others

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Scientific consensus is the neutral point of view

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

In the specific case of plasma cosmology, it is verifiably the case that the dominant scientific view is Big Bang. An article on plasma cosmology whihc fails to adequately reflect that would be a gross violation of NPOV. Guy 22:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] Discussion regarding Category:Pseudoscience

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Electric universe (concept)

1) Electric universe (concept) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been pointed out as an example of Pseudoscience, see "They Sing the Comet Electric" Wired.com where it is described as "absolute balderdash" by a mainstream scientist. The article was created by Iantresman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) on July 7, 2005 [59].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

I can confirm that I created the article. The quote by Dr. David Hughes on one aspect of the Electric Universe is accurate. Although I would personally argue that his understanding of this one part of the Electric Universe is wrong, and consequently his analysis is inaccurate.[60][61][62], I was the one who added the source to the article.[63] --Iantresman 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Art LaPella

1) "a personality type"

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Hypercritical editing by ScienceApologist

1) ScienceApologist has engaged in hypercritical editing with respect to Eric Lerner removing awards and publications replacement of positive review with negative one

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Awards and publications of this sort are not listed on other pages. Likewise, I replaced reviews by people from outside the field with reviews by people from inside the field as those are the appropriate people to ask for a comment. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• (a) Unique people have unique attributes (b) As mentioned at the time, Carl Sagan has his (different) awards listed,[64] (c) Author Daniel Ford has his Space Writers' Association Award of Excellence listed, as does Martin Caidin.
• Your "reviews by people from inside the field" are not consistent with, for example, your criticism of Redshift quantization derived from "a number of creationists, and even geocentrists",[65], who are not just outside the field, but outside of even "fringe" science. --Iantresman 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Eric has unique contributions just like any other person. However, the details of whether his awards should be listed or not is a content issue. The fact is that there was no other biography page that had such a rambling list of awards -- it could only be because Eric was trying his hand at self-promotion (remember, he inserted those awards). And we enter into another illustration of Ian's tendentious behavior: first of all, it is not "criticism" to state the verifiable fact that creationists and geocentrists use redshift quantization. You may think it's criticism because you yourself don't like creationists, but that doesn't make it criticism. This is a totally unrelated matter, as far as I'm concerned and I can't believe how many times you resort to this sort of tit-for-tat justification of your side even when there is no parity of form! --ScienceApologist 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Hypercritical editing by JBKramer

1) JBKramer has engaged in hypercritical editing with respect to Eric Lerner suggesting category pseudoscience

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think there was a good deal of tendentious editing around Eric Lerner, which is why I proposed article probation below. JBKramer seems the least guilty and most ready to acknowledge his mistake and move on, however. Thatcher131 14:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypercritical editing by Deglr6328

1) Deglr6328 has engaged in hypercritical editing with respect to Eric Lerner "a crank like it ir not", "a total fucking nutter like Lerne"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Deprecation by ScienceApologist

1) ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos", The Electric Universe (book) "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, arugmentative"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It should be noted that this was all done in the course of conversation about articles: these points were never included in articles. Is there really anything wrong with expressing my opinion about pseudoscience and fringe science? If somebody wrote on the Talk:George Bush page "I really think George Bush is a well known woo-woo", would they be subject to sanction? Are we going to have gag-rules that are this tight on Wikipedia? Because if so, that needs to be made more explicit. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am just looking at what you did, not saying your judgments were inappropriate. Fred Bauder 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need to consider other language to describe persons who scholarship is inadequate. Fred Bauder 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I will consider this, however, I'm confused as to how to approach this matter and which evaluations are inappropriate and which are not. When I state that someone is "discredited" is that really inappropriate language to use? Sanctioning people for expressing their opinions on talkpages is something of a slippery slope, in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Criticism of George Bush are easy to source. Criticizing a person is quite different from criticizing their theory. WP:LIVING tells us "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." [..] "it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [..] "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." --Iantresman 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll note that WP:LIVING doesn't really seem to discuss talkpages. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'll repeat the quote you replied to: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." (my emphasis) --Iantresman 13:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So if it is so clear-cut as "unsourced", why didn't you remove it? --ScienceApologist 13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only unsourced, but also controversial and negative; If I had of known about WP:LIVING at the time, I would have indeed removed it. Now however, I have to give it a second thought, as the last time I removed controversial material from a biography of a living person ("aggressively", as required by WP:LIVING), and described in my evidence, I received a 24-hour block for apparently contravening 3RR. And when I reported yourself for this very issue, (as described in my evidence), your block was revoked and I was subsequently cautioned. --Iantresman 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

True, but seems to be a valid instance of Editorial judgement to me. Judging Tom van Flandern as very, very, unreliable source will be constitutive for being an expert editor. --Pjacobi 14:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Calling a living person a Woo-Woo is not an editorial judgment, but an ad hominem that seems to be prohibited by WP:LIVING. Deciding what to do with a reliable source that criticizes a person or theory, is part of the editorial process. --Iantresman 16:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not really apply to talkpages. --ScienceApologist 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Fred Bauder 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Iantresmesman, how would you put in less than 20 words, that Marmet's and Carezanis's "science" is as pathological as pseudophysics can get while still vaguely resembling physics? --Pjacobi 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to propose a remedy for ScienceApologist regarding use of simple informative language. He is spot-on in his criticisms, but is using inappropriate language. I would suggest a statement like this, "Marmet's and Carezanis's work fails to meet minimum scientific standards." Fred Bauder 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't such a statement be possibly unverified, and should read "Dr John Doe has written that Marmet's and Carezanis's work fails to meet minimum scientific standards.[reliable source] --Iantresman 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a basic misunderstanding of the responsibilities of an editor. A good editor must know enough about the field he is editing in that he can appropriately evaluate the reliability of sources. For example, if I am working on psychoanalysis, it is inappropriate to use Wilhelm Reich as a source. How do I know that? Anyone familiar with the history of psychoanalysis knows that. There may appropriately be an extensive article on Reich, but but his views have no place whatever in the article on mainstream psychoanalysis. It would be grossly inappropriate to demand a "reliable source" to that effect, although one could certainly be found. Fred Bauder 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And that's the point, a "reliable source" could be found if requested, which is essential since we often have no idea whether an editor is an expert or not. For example, what do I do when an "expert" editor claims that the Wolf effect is not a redshift... contrary to reliable sources? --Iantresman 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Iantresman's question shows a misunderstanding and a tendency to apply policies in a somewhat literal-minded way. No, it is not necessary on a talk page to say something like "John Doe has written that Marmet's work fails to meet minimum scientific standards". On a talk page, it is possible, as part of a routine exercise of good editorial judgment, to make an assertion such as "we should not rely on Marmet's work, or consider Marmet a reliable source, because his methodology fails to meet minimum scientific standards." Of course, if this claim is disputed (in good faith), evidence might have to be given to back it up before people are convinced. But often it will not be possible for a reasonable editor to dispute a claim in good faith - the Wilhelm Reich example is a case in point. In any event, it is not necessary to provide full evidence every time you make a claim on a talk page, relying on your familiarity with the topic and your own good judgment as an editor. What is necessary is simply to maintain civility, bear in mind BLP considerations, and so on. IMO, SA should be cautioned about the latter points, but he is quite entitled to make and express judgments such as we're discussing. In appropriate cases, others are entitled to ask him, politely, what facts his judgments are based on, but they are not entitled to insist that he always express his judgments on talk pages as if they were sentences on project pages and subject to strict rules of NPOV, sourcing, etc. Metamagician3000 02:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. My example "John Doe says..." was meant only for the articles themselves. Of course Talk pages can question individuals credibility, but there is a big difference between querying "Does Marmet's and Carezanis's work fails to meet minimum scientific standards.", and "Marmet and Carezanis is a woo-woo". --Iantresman 02:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You got it; now to convince ScienceApologist... Fred Bauder 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite unconvinced. I actually do not see the difference at all. Stating that someone's work "fails to meet minimum scientific standards" is, in my book, equivalent to some of the worst insults hurled at others in the context of scientific research. --ScienceApologist 12:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist's criticisms of Iantresman

1) ScienceApologist has strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman, "incompetent" "close-minded ignorance" advised him not to "be a dick" characterized him as an "avowed Velikovskian" [66] "inordinate ignorance" of a "nonscientist layman" "pet ideas" "Basic ignorance" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Regarding_Ian_Tresman_in_particular.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Are any of these criticisms incorrect? --ScienceApologist 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Spot-on, but they are not civil. You need to work on saying such things courteously. Fred Bauder 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why "avowed Velikovskian" is on this list. I can't think of a nicer way to express that fact. Similarly for the last link, given the purpose of the arbitration. The other quotes are at least not my style. Art LaPella 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Our requirements regarding courtesy exceed those of ordinary polite society. This is necessary because we routinely encounter, in this cyberspace environment, other users who may inhabit sharply different conceptual universes. I think that Iantresman considers Velikovsky a credible source is very significant, a sign of scientific naivety, of innocence regarding minimum requirements of scientific reliability. That is what needs to be said. As it stands much more is implied than plainly stated. Fred Bauder 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you've gone and got me confused. First, are you saying that Ian is not an avowed Velikovskian, or just that there is a more civilized way to say so? Second, what is the difference, with respect to civility, between Joshua saying Ian is incompetent and you saying he is scientifically naive? --Art Carlson 10:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to cite his work. However, he admits that is inappropriate in the context of a science article (remember the diff is on Talk:Carl Sagan). Saying someone is incompetent is a dismissive conclusion. Naivety can evolve into sophistication if a person is competent. Fred Bauder 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the appeal to Hanlon's razor, I'm not sure that the evidence supports this point. Ian seems to have the problem of imposing his incompetence in the talkpages and occasionally on articles without regard to the analysis provided by others. Certainly education breeds competence, but only if you are open to it. --ScienceApologist 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait! Wait! Wait! I was defending 2 words, "avowed Velikovskian". Fred was criticizing the whole paragraph. Miscommunication. Sorry. Art LaPella 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of these quotes are ripped right out of context and are made to look like I am just insulting Ian for no reason. The context of many of these quotes is in regards to discussions we had on talkpages and related directly to requests for why I reject Ian's editting style and requests for me to explain why I'm convinced that he is a POV-pusher. People seem to have the misconception that ad hominem is to be eschewed at all times, but that's patently silly. One must appeal to ad hominem in order to evaluate the motivations and evaluations for why bad contributions are added by particular editors. Civil discouse, in my opinion, requires a bit of leeway when dealing with disputes. After all when taken to extremes civility can be interpreted as a requirement for appeasement. --ScienceApologist 12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to be a little more courteous. Fred Bauder 13:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. I will try my best. --ScienceApologist 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh, "you will do your best" in one reply, and note (above) that I am "imposing my incompetence" in the same edit![67] You'll notice that in all the times we've been editing, I don't think I've impeached your character once. Of course you may be questioning my degree of expertise which I've never hidden, yet it is disappointing that you will criticize someone else's expertise, but not confirm yours,[68]. Would you be courtesy enough to indicate whether you have a Ph.D, are working towards a Ph.D, or are considering a Ph.D in the future, and the subject? --Iantresman 14:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Been burned by you in the past when you contacted my employer. Not going down that road again. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He told me he teaches astronomy at a community college. That level of expertise is excellent for what we are doing here. Fred Bauder 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine by me too. Yet when peer-reviewed David Russell came to the Intrinsic redshift article to help out, ScienceApologist criticised his work as being from "a school teacher from upstate New York,[69]. 7 hours later, David Russell stopped contributing to Wikipedia. --Iantresman 22:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As he has agreed, he could do better. Fred Bauder 22:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And I will point out that while I would avoid including David Russell's work from mainstream articles, so would I avoid including my own work. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Such comments are ad hominem and uncivil. Metamagician3000 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iantresman's credulity

1) Iantresman shows a pattern of being unable to adequately evaluate sources with respect to their reliability citing Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The reliability of Velikovsky as a scientific source is indeed very low, and I have never referenced Velikovsky in a Wikipedian science article. --Iantresman 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you just try to reference science as close to Velikovsky as you can dig up. --ScienceApologist 12:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Ian Tresman has harassed ScienceApologist outside of Wikipedia

1) Ian has gone so far as to contact the employer of ScienceApologist in an effort to "verify" his academic credentials.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Principals of fringe theories

1) There is a demonstrated pattern of behavior where principal authors of fringe theories have repeatedly used wikipedia to support their proposed theories. Often, these authors have violated policies in doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See my evidence RE: Asmodeus, and the substantal findings RE: Elerner. JBKramer 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] iantresman is "pushing pseudoscience" claims are unfounded

1) While several editors have claimed that I push pseudoscience, no evidence of editing diffs supporting this claim have been provided, and until such evidence is provided, we can conclude that the claim is false. Editors claiming in their original Statement that I push or promote pseudoscience inappropriately, included (a) ScienceApologist [70] (b) FeloniousMonk [71] [72] [73] (c) Guettarda [74] --Iantresman 09:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed statement of fact, until evidence provided. --Iantresman 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Demarcation problem. Since it is a matter of opinion whether the Electric universe, for example, is pseudoscience, and you have been fairly vigilant in your attempt to mitigate criticism of it in that article, it's a matter of opinion as to whether you "push pseudoscience" or not. There certainly is evidence that can be interpreted to that effect. --ScienceApologist 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words you can provided no diffs suggesting I "pushed pseudoscience" (a) in mainstream or minority science articles (b) in the Electric Universe article, an article to which I added the only citation to an article suggesting the subject was pseudoscience... hardly the actions of someone "pushing pseudoscience" --Iantresman 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, all my diffs provided suggest you pushed pseudoscience in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No edit diffs, no pushing. --Iantresman 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit diffs provided in the evidence section. --ScienceApologist 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No diff in "Regarding Ian Tresman in particular" is to an article page. No article edit diffs, no pushing. --Iantresman 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the consensus opinion? --ScienceApologist 18:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] iantresman's views on Velikovsky are not relevant

1) ScienceApologists's claims that I am "a catastrophist who supports Velikovskian pseudoscience [75], [76], [77]", (a) do not actually reflect my views on Velikovsky (b) and regardless of the degree of accuracy of the statement, there are no edit diffs provided to suggest that I have edited any articles, mainstream science or otherwise, inappropriately. Until such evidence is provided, such a claim is irrelevant. --Iantresman 09:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed statement of fact, until evidence provided. --Iantresman 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Claim isn't irrelevant. You edit articles to mitigate the fact that Velikovsky is harshly criticized in the scientific community. This includes the Velikovsky article itself. --ScienceApologist 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words you can provided no diffs suggesting my views on Velikovsky show inappropriate editing (a) of mainstream or minority science articles (b) the Velikovsky article itself. Not only do I not dispute that Velikovsky was harshly criticized in the scientific community, but I would be happy to provide sources to show this. --Iantresman 15:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, I have provided diffs which illustrate that your disruptive attitude may be attributed to your desire to see Velikovsky promoted. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No edit diffs, no inappropriate editing. --Iantresman 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit diffs provided in the evidence section. --ScienceApologist 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No diff in "Regarding Ian Tresman in particular" is to an article page. No article edit diffs, no inappropriate editing. --Iantresman 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the consensus opinion? --ScienceApologist 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] ScienceApologists claims "Regarding Ian Tresman in particular", not supported by evidence

1) ScienceApologists made numerous claims "Regarding Ian Tresman in particular", but no examples of edit diffs that support those claims. (a) Wikipedia does not discriminate against anyone's views (b) Until such evidence is presented, such claims against inappropriate editing are unfounded. --Iantresman 10:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed statement of fact, until evidence provided. --Iantresman 10:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Poorly phrased since there are edit diffs that support the claims, it's just that you interpret them differently. It's pretty hard to argue that you did not, for example, try to get anti-bangers at Arp's message borad to come to Wikipedia to support your cause. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, while there might be edit diffs, none were provided as evidence. And it is incontrovertible that I placed a message on Arp's notice board, (a) I have also placed messages on the "mainstream" Bad Astronomy/Universe Today messages board,[78][79][80], which is hardly the action of someone trying to buck the system, (b) it would be pretty naive to think that only anti-Big Bangers would read the post. --Iantresman 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I also note that my message on Arp's forum (9th Dec 2005) was not considered "inappropriate" until added into policy three months later on (26 Mar 2006)[81]

Policy does not poof into being on a date, it's ex post facto inasmuch as policy writing is just summarizing community consensus. You have obviously wished to see Wikipedia handle fringe topics differently than what is normally done, which is to say you wish to see Wikipedia treat topics differently than they are verifiably treated in the mainstream. This is POV-pushing, pure and simple. Edit diffs provided in the evidence section. --ScienceApologist 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No article edit diffs, no POV pushing. --Iantresman 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the consensus opinion? --ScienceApologist 18:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Significant minority views are defined by policy

1) Wikipedia policy provides several descriptions that enable us to differentiate significant minority views from tiny (extreme) views:

Source	Significant minority views	Tiny (extreme) minority views
NPOV The neutral point of view	"all significant published points of view are to be presented"	(Not specified)
NPOV Undue weight	"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"	(Not specified)
Jimbo Wales post (2003)	"If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so."	"if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too."
Jimbo Wales post (2003)	(Quoted text: I'm wondering if the proper crieria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, beit mainstream, minority or other, is whether or not it is available in print." Jimbo reply: I think that's a very valid way to look at it, yes, absolutely. And this helps to tie the policy here in with parallel policies in other areas, i.e. 'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule.

1. There are no other policy descriptions of significant minority, and tiny (extreme) viewpoints.
2. From which we can summarise that any (a) peer reviewed published article (ie verifiable), by a (b) respected, prominent scientist, is considered "significant" by Wikipedia policy. --Iantresman 13:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed statement of fact, unless other Wikipedia policy evidence is provided. --Iantresman 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example of how tendetious Ian is. Instead of relying on the editorial judgement and consensus of editors in articles, Ian tries to Wikilawyer his way through policy in strict contravention of what policy is supposed to be. Whether there are "policy descriptions" of a particular facet of Wikipedia article writing is not relevant to the task of writing an article. Ian can have his opinion about whether a subject is a minority opinion or not, and I can have mine, but there is no reason to appeal to policy when the arguments can be (and have been) stated simply. --ScienceApologist 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of areas where editorial judgment is important and rightly influential. But basic policy is already a consensus view, and Jimbo tells us that NPOV in particular is: "absolute and non-negotiable". I'm not giving you MY opinion on minority subjects, I am stating Wikipedia policy on significant minority views.
• Even the guideline on Wikipedia:Consensus tells us that consensus does not trump policy: "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." (my emphasis). ie. excessive representations of a significant view, and excluding a significant view, both fail Undue weight. --Iantresman 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We both agree with NPOV, Ian. What we have is a dispute as to whether NPOV demands the exclusion of certain ideas from mainstream pages. I say yea, you say nay. Such a dispute is manifestly not covered by the policies in question, it is mainly a content dispute and is subject to the verifiable status of the ideas as explicated by the editors. --ScienceApologist 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And we both agree that NPOV demands the exclusion of certain ideas from mainstream pages. And policy tells us it may be tiny (extreme) minority views, but significant views must be included. --Iantresman 15:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, and we disagree as to whether the ideas you champion represent extreme minority views or not. --ScienceApologist 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree, but policy describes what it considers to be a significant view. --Iantresman 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Description != definition. --ScienceApologist 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Treatment of Significant minority views is defined by policy

1) How we represent significant minority is defined in policy. Hence we can access whether policy is met (OK), or fails, depending on whether an article includes (a) Excessive treatment (b) Inclusion (c) Exclusion

Source	Description	Representation of Significant views
		Excessive	Inclusion	Exclusion
WP:NPOV	"articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views"	Fails	OK	Fails
WP:NPOV	"all significant published points of view are to be presented,"	Fails	OK	Fails
WP:NPOV Undue weight	"should do so in proportion to the prominence of each"	Fails	OK	Fails
WP:NPOV Undue weight	"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all "	Fails	OK	Fails
Jimbo Wales post (2003)	".. mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. "	Fails	OK	Fails

1. From which we can summarise that (a) Excessive (b) Exclusion, representation of any significant view will fail Wikipedia policy. --Iantresman 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed statement of fact, unless other Wikipedia policy evidence is provided. --Iantresman 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How we cover ideas is an editorial decision. Policy is not written to force a particular article style. It's meant to convey the consensus of the community. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can never trump NPOV, nor can policy. Fred Bauder 13:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed how we cover a subject, and its style are both editorial decisions covered by guidelines; however, we can't implement those guidelines at the expense of policy. Again, that is not my view, that is how policy and guidelines are implemented. --Iantresman 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• You will note that policy tells us that tiny (extreme) views may be excluded, and here is where your editorial judgment comes in. But it does not extend to significant minority views. --Iantresman 15:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines and policy do not say how to determine whether some subject is so obscure and insignificant as to be reasonably excluded from mainstream articles. Therefore, making an editorial judgement to this effect contravenes no policy; it is a content dispute not a policy dispute. I submit that the ideas you champion are not significant, so therefore exclusion is appropriate. --ScienceApologist 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Significant minority views are defined by policy (and Jimbo), as is shown in the previous section. Tiny (extreme) minority views may be excluded, are open to editorial judgment --Iantresman 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Significant minority views are not "defined" by policy. Properties of significant views are illustrated by policy, but a definition is not provided. --ScienceApologist 15:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Defined or described, policy does give us a clear demarcation. --Iantresman 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an inadequate demarcation because there are some subjects which have the properties that are clearly not significant. For example, it is possible to name the major proponent of time cube. So being able to name major proponents does not define a significant idea, it only is an attribute of significant ideas (an attribute that can be shared with insignficant ideas to boot). --ScienceApologist 16:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Time cube (a) peer reviewed (b) is the author prominent... has be published other peer reviewed papers, or does he have a university post, or are there citations to his paper? If not, then he is not significant enough to be included in a mainstream article. --Iantresman 17:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review isn't mentioned in any of the policies you cited. --ScienceApologist 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two previous quotes say "published". WP:RS says that for "Physical sciences, [..] Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications"[82]. Time cube fails WP:WS, and other criteria. --Iantresman 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Published != peer reviewed. WP:RS only lets us know what reliable sources are for the mainstream. It doesn't let us know what reliable sources are for things out-of-the-mainstream. I'm not sure how time cube fails wiki syntax, but I'm sure that there is nothing in the statements regarding NPOV's demarcation of what is and isn't significant that indicates that time cube is insignificant. The criteria for insignificance is an editorial (that is content) decision made by editors. I have outlined my criteria (a significant minority opinion must be subject to current critical review in the journals), but you have tried to fall back on vague descriptions in an effort to make sure that your pet ideas get the "significant" status. I believe it very unlikely that arbcomm will rule that plasma cosmology, electric universe, or intrinsic redshifts are "significant minority scientific ideas", so you're going to have to deal with my criteria substantively rather than with Wikilawyering. --ScienceApologist 14:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Time cube fails significance because it fails peer review and prominence of adherence. The suggestion that non-mainstream science has a difference criteria concerning reliable sources is an incredible conceit. WP:RS tells us that peer review is the publication criteria for scientific article. Only ScienceApologist suggests otherwise, and your word is neither policy, nor verifiable. --Iantresman 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review is not a stated policy requirement for significance and it is arguable that the author of time cube has prominence. Non-mainstream science must necessarily have a different criteria concerning reliable sources because it is by definition outside the mainstream and therefore will not necessarily have adequate mainstream coverage. WP:RS tells us that peer review is the publication criteria for a scientific article indeed, but when there is a controversy as to how "scientific" the subject of the article is, this requirement necessarily is modified since the subject may be considered "extra-scientific". Editorial demarcations are not subject to verifiability rules, nor are they covered by policy. You will have to deal with me directly and stop appealing to futile Wikilawyering attempts. --ScienceApologist 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy describes significance as (a) Published (b) Prominent adherences (see quotes above). WP:RS tells us that published scientific subjects should use peer reviewed sources. Time cube fails peer review (hence WP:RS), and hence is not a reliable published source, and hence it does not meet significance.

WP:RS does not modify the requirements for controversial views. It does say that we "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy."

What do you mean that "I will have to deal with you directly" and not Wiki policy? --Iantresman 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to combine WP:RS and WP:NPOV is inappropriate here because the very categorical nature of the articles in question is up for debate. Therefore, your reliance on peer review is unwarranted and indeed there are definitely ideas which can be reported on in Wikipedia which do not have peer review status. Unless you can prove definitively that the subjects you are dealing with are "science" subjects, we will have to go with editor's judgement calls on these. Which means that trying to combine peer review as a qualification for significance is inappropriate. This is all, however, iterations on Wikipedia policy interpretation and does nothing to answer the question as to whether these ideas you champion are significant to the scientific field in question. As such, this editorial question must be answered by editors, it cannot be determined by policy. Therefore you have to discuss the reasons why the ideas you champion are significant, you cannot just hide behind policy smokescreens. --ScienceApologist 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says that of "WP:V and WP:NOR. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable" (my emphasis). I can find nothing in policy to determine when it is inappropriate to combine WP:RS and WP:NPOV --Iantresman 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You are still WikiLawyering and are not dealing with the substance of the issue. --ScienceApologist 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am dealing specifically with verifiable policy, as agreed upon by a consensus of editors. --Iantresman 11:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that there is a consensus of editors who determined that the ideas you champion are significant to mainstream science? --ScienceApologist 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy is determined by consensus which in turn tells us that Wikipedia describes all significant viewpoints. Whether I support or abhor such viewpoints is immaterial. Our job is to describe them within policy guidelines... hence the job of an editor. --Iantresman 23:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] ScienceApologist and JBKramer commended and cautioned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JBKramer (talk • contribs).

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree not necessary. Addhoc 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist and JBKramer banned from biography for one year

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

No, per FloNight, to implement this remedy would require very substantial evidence to be presented. Addhoc 12:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Fully agree with the above comments, evidence has not been presented. Addhoc 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned from editting science-related articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Fully agree that evidence has not been produced to support this remedy. Addhoc 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommysun banned from editing science-related articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Evidence has not been presented to support this remedy. Tommysun has expressed a desire to improve, I would suggest this indefinite (?) ban is accordingly an inappropriate remedy. Would suggest a mentoring remedy or similar would be more constructive. Addhoc 12:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Disagree. If ArbCom decide to investigate a case and none of the parties involved present meaningful evidence, that isn't a failing of ArbCom. In my opinion ArbCom is analogous to a supreme court not a parliment. There is clearly a problem with experienced editors leaving, but that isn't within ArbCom's remit to resolve by imposing stronger remedies than are reasonably appropriate based on the evidence presented. Addhoc 12:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Agree not appropriate. Evidence has not been presented to support this remedy. Addhoc 12:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elerner banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

There is no policy against such expert editing, quite to the contrary! See WP:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. However, on this point there is also a guideline: [83]. Harald88 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I’ve been working so have not been following this arbitration for a while. But I strongly object to the proposed ban of myself from editing articles on which I have expertise—such as aneutronic fusion and plasma cosmology. This completely contradicts the idea that experts in a field should be involved in editing articles on those fields. Anyone who is expert in a field is obviously involved in working on it, so articles in the field are related to his or her own projects.

If I am banned, this is simply an exercise in eliminating certain points of view. Clearly if anyone who is involved in plasma cosmology is banned from editing it, the article will become the plaything of those who either know nothing about it or are opposed to its theories. The same goes for aneutronic fusion.

The plasma focus device is not my pet project, but is a major research device that has been worked on for over forty years by many dozens of researchers. Aneutronic fusion is also not my pet project, but a research program involving many researchers.

There are no findings of fact that in any way justify the proposed ban.

Any expert in a field of scientific research has a personal interest in that field. ANY scientist, in using his or her expertise to edit a Wikipedia article, potentially affects how others view their own work and therefore affects such decisions as the funding of their own research. If I am banned for having an interest in my own research, every expert would have to be banned for the same reason.

As to my own page, I have repeatedly pointed out that I have not edited it since being informed of the autobiography rule, so banning me from it would be a gratuitous insult.Elerner 05:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The tension between expert knowledge and conflict of interest is unavoidable in the real world as well as in Wikipedia. Even people like ScienceApologist and I, who have been vocal in criticizing Eric Lerner, welcome his expert knowledge in fields like plasma cosmology and aneutronic fusion. The issue is more the "disruptive editing". If he is banned it should be for his editting practices, not for his conflicts of interest. For Wikipedia, it would be better to civilize him than to ban him (if this is possible). --Art Carlson 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We already say that people should exercise particular caution when editing articles about themselves or their own business, this is a logical extension. Guy 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Guy this is a logical extension, however at the most, based on the evidence presented, probation not a ban would be appropriate. Addhoc 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Lerner article on article probation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Seems reasonable. Guy 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Guy. Addhoc 12:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresenting editors to be warned or banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Overly prescriptive, also redundant as these remedies already exist per blocking policy. Guy 12:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree this would be a mistake. Addhoc 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editors infringing policy to be warned or banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Overly prescriptive, also redundant as these remedies already exist per blocking policy. Guy 12:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Guy. Addhoc 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Policy advisors" to be set-up

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't explain it well enough then. Democrats and Republicans both have views on defense, health, social security, foreign affairs etc. Of course Democrat views are important, and they are the best people to asssess and describe their views. But we wouldn't be surprised if Democrats considered Republican views on the same issues to be insignificant. NPOV demands we describe views from both parties, describing which are Democrat, and which are Republican. Likewise we describe the majority scientifict view as such (probably best described by mainstream sceintists), and we desecribe minority scientific views as such (probably best described by the specialist experts in that subject). And we use verifiable reliable sources to help us describe these views. --Iantresman 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] Well-intentioned but beyond arbcom's remit, and seems like a layer of bureaucracy that could just lead to more confusion and disputation. Metamagician3000 03:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Redux: A fast track process is requested by which supporters of minor theories can recruit people who know nothing about the subject to back their novel interpretations of policy, and thus force those who know better to back down in the face of determined POV pushing. The argument re republican and democrat views on defence is a red herring: these are two views which have near-parity in the real world. The articles at issue are about minor theories which go against a scientific consensus which varies between a strong majority and near-unanimity. Guettarda is much closer to the mark with the opponents of evolution demanding parity. Guy 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're in the wrong building. This is a supreme court not a parliment. Addhoc 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "NPOV advisors" to be set-up

1) Since so many edits concern NPOV and neutral wording, a "fast track" dispute resolution process would be of tremendous help. Any editor may request "content advice", whereby one or more editors SHOW their reliable sources, and their proposed article discription, and an advisor indicates whether the sources support the wording proposed, and for example, excludes weasel words. Advisors would declare their areas of expertise, so that for example, science experts can NOT advise on science subjects (since they may be biased against the content), etc. I do not think that the current Request for Admins works too well. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not appropriate for arbcom to modify existing policies out of whole cloth. Yet again, attempts to keep expert editors away from where they are experts. JBKramer 16:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(a) An expert on any subject is not necessarily an expert on Wikipedia policy (b) Expert editors do not necessarily need to be experts in the subjects they edit. --Iantresman 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Since NPOV is a core policy, this is redundant with the proposal above. Or is this meant as an alternative? Guettarda 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This kind of decision would not be in ArbCom's jurisdiction, of course. But this proposal has the core of a good plan in my opinion, and this is the only place to discuss it right now. We need to take the "policy" and "NPOV" interpretation decisions away from the localized consensus of editors with the greatest tenacity. We need some way to put the decisions on "policy" and "NPOV" interpretation in the "hands" of the wide Wikipedia community. One way to put these decisions in the "hands" of the wide Wikipedia community would be for us to elect "judges" to make these quick controversy-by-controversy decisions for us--subject to review by ArbCom perhaps in some lengthy proceeding like this one. --Rednblu 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonwithstanding this RFArb, you're welcome to propose such. However, I a) don't think it would be adapted, and if it were, b) I don't think you will like the results. --EngineerScotty 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What results do you mean? --Rednblu 23:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion is that such a panel would take a stronger stand against "alternative" theories than Wikipedia does now. --EngineerScotty 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! In your crystal ball, do the advocates of "alternative" theories accept the decisions of such a panel without having to resort to edit wars? --Rednblu 00:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no clue; the panel wasn't my idea :), I'm only suggesting that given the politics of Wikipedia and the WFM, either one of two things is likely: a) there ain't gonna be a panel; or b) it's going to be one that backs "mainstream" science over alternate theories (if it its effect is to be different than what we have now). The WFMWikimedia Foundation and Jimbo are sensitive to comments coming from the outside (from academia in particular) that Wikipedia is unauthoritative and unreliable. Without passing judgment on the current case; I would note that many of those comments come from mainstream scientists who think Wikipedia too tolerant of alternative theories, and wish Wikipedia to be more like Encyclopædia Britannica--which has no article on plasma cosmology, and likely never will. My comment is intended only as a warning to Ian: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. --EngineerScotty 17:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It is difficult enough to get even the top experts in a field to agree on anything (and so, NPOV dictates that such articles accurately reflect the fact that there is a significant disagreement); if you get people who are only experts in a related field... well, it is unlikely to be good. I would propose that if there were such a panel (which I oppose for other reasons) it should consist of 12 ppl and decisions only be binding if they are unanimous. ObsidianOrder 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Well said. So then I guess my question is directed most appropriately to User:Iantresman. Consider with me please the following hypothetical. Suppose we as a Wikipedia community would elect "judges" to decide "fast track" such controversies as UndueWeight, ReliableSource, and NoOriginalResearch on any page, would you accept the decisions of the "judges" as the legitimate expression of the Wikipedia community--even if the "judges" decided that the pages should have the balance that they do now? I also understand that your "opposition" apparently has warped the existing rules and ripped your significant NPOV contributions from pages. So the rules that your "opposition" has applied would have to be clarified to be fair. What do you think? --Rednblu 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I suspect that once it has been resolved, both sides of this arbitration case will want a speedier way to resolve these issues. --Iantresman 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody: Substantial policy changes, such as setting up a "NPOV review board", is BEYOND THE SCOPE of the ArbCom. The ArbCom lacks the authority to impose policy. I'll concede that they may interpret it, and in doing so set precedent for how it may rule in the future (as there are no inferior tribunals presently on Wikipedia--unless one counts WP:AN as a "tribunal"--to speak of binding precedent in the Wikipedia context is meaningless). While such a thing might be useful; here is not the appropriate place to discuss. If someone is serious about such a thing, I suggest reading of WP:POLICY, and/or creating a page to discuss it. I'll even create a red link for you: Wikipedia:NPOV review board. But this is not a matter for the ArbCom to consider. Period. --EngineerScotty 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's examine that little disruption of the discussion for a second. We all understand that the discussion in this section is not binding on ArbCom. This discussion is located totally within this section--and possibly also the preceding section as a variation. So the discussion bounded in this section cannot reasonably be interpreted as "disruptive" of the purpose of the "Workshop" page. This is a Workshop page looking for solutions to problems, after all. And there are some problems in this case having to do with the murky and self-contradictory text in Wikipedia NPOV policy. I don't see anyone here advocating a particular solution to the problems, so it would be too early to move to a WP:POLICY subpage. This discussion in this section so far is only a RequirementsAnalysis activity; what are the causes of the problems? -- what are the possible resolutions of the problems? And this is the appropriate place to have this discussion because we have all the raw data of the "problems" and failed "solutions" here in links on this page. That is just my vote in the matter. What do others think? --Rednblu 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to disrupt anything; except to note that this page is for information needed to assist the ArbCom. Extended discussions of side topics are out of order here. If the clerk (or any of the arbitrators) feel that I'm wrong, please let me know. --EngineerScotty 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop disrupting the workshop page, now. JBKramer 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we saved simultaneously. Am I correct in that the above was addressed to User:Rednblu? --EngineerScotty 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We did. Yes, you are. JBKramer 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This idea is impractical, and seems mainly designed to prevent content experts from contributing in their area of expertise, to the benefit of POV-pushers. As such, I don't suppose it'll make the cut. Guy 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. I do, however, think that Rednblu's comments represent a reasonably arguable viewpoint. Underlying the disputation that led to this arbitration, there does seem to be a clash of opinion about the spirit and purpose of the NPOV policy and its correct application to science articles, and a number of proposals have now sought to address that problem (one way or the other). Metamagician3000 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're in the wrong building. This is a supreme court not a parliment. Addhoc 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Write plasma cosmology article about plasma socmology

1) If the article were about "cosmology" then all cosmologies should be included, along with the policies of NPOV and Undue Weight atc. But the Plasma Cosmology article is about plasma cosmology, and there is no apriori reason to reference the big bang, except perhaps in a section called big bang something. Tommy Mandel 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Content issue, too specific. Guy 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with Guy. Sorry. Addhoc 12:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shell Kinney, other admins, reminded

While some have disputed whether or not the block imposed on User:ScienceApologist by User:Shell Kinney was a proper course of action; there is no evidence that the block constituted an abuse of administrator powers. Thus no sanction is to be meted out against Shell. Shell, and other administrators, are reminded that in many cases it is better to discuss proposed blocks at the administrator's noticeboard; especially when the block doesn't involve issues like vandalism, banned users, enforcement of arbcom or community sanctions, users who have been repeatedly blocked before, and the situation is not such where an immediate block is warranted to avert a potential threat to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

For your consideration. Agreeing with others, Shell shouldn't have been named in this arbitration to begin with. --EngineerScotty 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell insists she discussed blocking me with other administrators but has not (cannot?) referred to any diffs that illustrate this. --ScienceApologist 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for Shell, it's entirely possible the discussions occurred on IRC rather than at WP:AN. But it probably doesn't matter. I know that the block seems to have offended you... but I don't see how that it contravened policy, or represented an abuse of administrator powers--which is the only issue for the ArbCom to decide in regard to Shell. Admins make mistakes. If we stipulate that Shell's block of you was a mistake, it was reverted quickly. I'll make a proposal in the next section that will serve to make you "whole". --EngineerScotty 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] I'm prepared to support this, but I don't believe Shell should have been dragged into this request for arbitration in the first place. Metamagician3000 03:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While, I don't think Shell acted inappropriately, I don't see any harm in an overall reminder that blocks against experienced editors can be contraversial, so the blocking admin should consider discussing the proposed block at WP:AN. Addhoc 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block log of ScienceApologist to be erased

Unless the developers indicate this is impossible or difficult, the block log of User:ScienceApologist is to be expunged of any record of the block imposed by User:Shell Kinney and the subsequent unblock by User:FeloniousMonk. (At least to the point that ordinary users, including administrators, cannot see it).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think we ought to wait to see the outcome of this arbitration case, as User:ScienceApologist's block, and User:FeloniousMonk's unblock, are part of the evidence of this case. --Iantresman 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Naturally. Other than preliminary injunctions (which there are none of in this case), remedies are not imposed until after the case is completed. --EngineerScotty 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal

1. Developers don't like block manipulation
2. Receiving some block now and then is only a sign human fallibility (of the blocked user or the blocking admin)
3. Compare [84] as example
4. An admin using isolated inicidents in the block log as a reason for being tough don't fulfill their job duties.

Pjacobi 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

For your consideration. Many Wikipedians consider it a matter of pride that their block log is empty; the log of ScienceApologist is empty other than Shell's block and the subsequent unblock. In addition, users with non-empty block logs are more likely to be blocked for borderline infractions (by admins unaware of the circumstances of the original block) than are those with clean records--much the same as motorists with prior traffic offenses are far less likely to receive a warning when pulled over by a traffic cop. There is precedent for this, (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, though the block log in question in that case contained an accusation in the comments that User:Giano found higly offensive). I invite User:ScienceApologist to comment as to whether or not this would allay his concerns. --EngineerScotty 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me too much because I can explain to anyone that Shell did not do the requisite research to justify the block which was summarily removed. However, I am still interested in looking for evidence that this block was discussed if for no other reasons than to talk to the administrators who agreed with Shell. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of a clearly unwarranted block entry that had caused serious controversy was suggested by me in Workshop of the "Giano" arbitration case now winding up. The ArbCom voted 6-0 that this was an appropriate remedy "subject to the developers cooperating," but the head developer (in a rare appearance on the arbitration pages) posted that block logs are not to be tampered with and the request would absolutely not be implemented. Newyorkbrad 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See this diff. [85] --EngineerScotty 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If SA doesn't care about this issue, then perhaps we can scotch this particular remedy. (I still see no reason that Shell ought to receive any sanction--one single instance of questionable judgment is no reason to punish an admin; that's long established on Wikipedia. The only possible damage which might have been done would be to SA's reputation, and SA appears to think that even this is mitigated; removal of the log entry was my attempt at mitigation). --EngineerScotty 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Unnecessary - and the circumstances of the block were nothing like the circumstances of the controversial (and widely deprecated) block of Giano early this year. Metamagician3000 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, encourages a stigma about being blocked that could result in other users suggesting that resolved disagreements should be revisited. Addhoc 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designation of subjects requiring academic expertise

1) If, in the opinion of a user who possesses significant academic expertise or equivalent experience, evaluation of substantive edits to an article requires such expertise, they may place a tag on the page which so designates the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• I think there is a problem ascertaining expertise. One of the editors has claimed to be an expert,[86] and professor,[87], but it is not verified.
• I have gone out of my way to solicit the opinion of a number of experts, including Prof. Daniel James who has contributed directly to Wikipedia discussions, and Prof. Emil Wolf whose response I also posted (see my evidence for details), both of which have been ignored by the same editor.
• Another issue that comes to mind is that different experts in a field may have different opinions, especially with some controversial subjects. For example, most expert cosmologists will differ in opinion from, say, Halton Arp, a well-published expert in cosmology. --Iantresman 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:EXPERT, anyone? This and the next several proposals reflect that (inactive) proposal, and then some. The ArbCom (well, Fred at least) is being quite WP:BOLD here--not that I don't mind.  :) Is it the intent of the ArbCom to drag this encyclopedia, kicking and screaming, to academic respectibility--even if the community (or a vocal subset thereof which has heretofore jealously guarded their "right" to edit Wikipedia however the hell they want to) don't like it? And if the ArbCom moves in this direction--does it have the support of the foundation? Some of what is proposed here is--assuming it gets five votes from arbitrators (or however many is a majority in this case)--ready and revolutionary stuff. Again, not that I don't mind. But I'm surprised (pleasantly) that Fred is proposing remedies here in arbitration that us expert rebels have long believed unattainable via WP:POLICY. It will be interesting to see how the larger community reacts, should these pass. --EngineerScotty 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is not as bold as it seems, we are expected to take "established Wikipedia customs and common practices" into consideration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules. It is only common sense to respectfully consider the opinions of experts. Much of the trouble here has resulted from willfully declining to do so. By making this informal practice explicit I think we can establish a new paradigm. Fred Bauder 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Define expert. Expert in fringeology, or expert in mainstreamology? What if an expert on fringeology insists on the removal of text which points out that mainstreamology dismisses fringeology? This proposal would make excellent sense in respect of half-baked edits to articles on mainstream scientific subjects, but I'm having a little trouble seeing how it applies to the situation where porponents of fringe and mainstream come into conflict, which is what's apparently happening here. Guy 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not an appropriate forum to be discussing this. ArbCom is a court not a legislature. Addhoc 13:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To possibly offer further light as to what an "expert" may or may not actually be, since "expertise" itself is a somewhat encompassing term, I will point to a taxonomy I proposed on the Expert retention discussion page. I feel, from direct experience over the years dealing which each type of expert that crude taxonomy proposes, that there are far too many nuances involved for recommendations and so on to involve the identification or giving deference to an amorphous "expert". Moreover, a single person can fall into various aspects of expertise even in the same subfield of science -- being an originator of some theory and a generalized in what, to an outsider to the field, appears to be the very same subfield. Introducing any formal recognition of expertise into the picture, in otherwords, would introduce "determination-creep" -- that is, it would lead to having to classify "experts" into narrow bands of their expertise to have any real meaning as pertains to the apparent intent of the present case. IMO. YMMV. Void where prohibited. Offer not available in Springfield. -- QTJ 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A user? You mean I can turn up to any article, tag it as being unfit for editing by the hoi polloi and then demand that all comers show their credentials before making substantive changes? I'd say that there should be a consensus among editors that it requires such expertise. Guy 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self designation of academic experts

2) At the top of the talk pages of articles which have been designated as requiring academic expertise for adequate evaluation of substantive edits, any user who feels he has such expertise shall designate himself an expert and state the basis of his expertise. If their expertise is challenged, they may be required to demonstrate such expertise to an administrator, upon pain of being removed from such lists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This isn't part of ArbCom's remit. If any user wants to design a template, then ok, but this isn't an appropriate forum. Addhoc 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing of articles designated as requiring academic expertise

3) Articles which have been tagged as requiring academic expertise may be edited by any user; however reasonable deference shall be made to users who have designated themselves experts with respect to the subject. Such experts shall limit their special role with respect to such articles to those aspects of the subject which present substantial technical difficulties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oh dear. Besides instruction creep, I don't think this solves anything and may hurt a lot. Take for example Eric Lerner and his ideas on plasma, redshift, and the big bang theory. He designates himself an expert; ok on his own topics but strongly challenged on mainstream topics like the big bang. Some other editor with a science background wants to edit plasma cosmology to add the perspective of mainstream science, Lerner challenges that, as a non-expert, they must defer to him. I forsee similar crises on intelligent design, cold fusion, etc. etc. This does not fill me with confidence. These proposals would really only be needed if there is a finding that principles like WP:RS and WP:NOR are insufficient to keep Wikipedia reliable. The problem with aneutronic fusion is not that it's impenetrable, it is that the editors were drawing on special personal knowledge and original research. I should be able to write just as good an article (with a biology degree) because I will be reporting what is written about the topic in reliable sources. The edits are only impenetrable because they weren't following WP:RS and WP:NOR.

I think you've lost the thread of the case; users being dicks to each other over editing of science topics. I'd like to make a modest plug for my original principles (8, 9 and 10) which basically boil down to, (a) fringe topics should be treated with respect in their own articles, and (b) mainstream topics should refer to related fringe topics in a limited way. There are two main classes of content problems in this case--fringe theories getting trashed in their own articles (should get balanced treatment), and fringe theories getting inappropriately advanced in mainstream articles (balance here requires minimal coverage). Some reinforcement of basic principle is all that is needed here, plus coming down on editors who are disruptive in one form or another (trying to change core policies, incivility, etc) Thatcher131 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your analysis of aneutronic fusion is spot on. Fred Bauder 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] I do see an element of instruction creep in these proposals from Fred and wonder whether they might not end up getting manipulated and wikilawyered over. I'm wondering whether something less prescriptive could be developed, perhaps as a principle rather than a remedy. I do take the point that it is useful for experts to identify themselves and get at least some deference (but on pain of having to back up the nature of their expertise in some way if it is challenged). Meanwhile, I think the second para of Thatcher131's remarks contains an insightful picture of the overall dispute and the problems it has thrown up. Metamagician3000 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem here in that the proposal does not recognise any difference between an academic editing in support of their own personal fringe theory and an academic editing in support of the mainstream. The only "experts" on plasma cosmology, for example, will likely be those who are pushing the theory. I think we should stick with NPOV and V/RS and not get drawn into trying to establish (especially in the abstract) the objective validity of individual contributions. Guy 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate forum to propose a policy change. Addhoc 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Academic

4) The content of Template:Academic shall be created by those who contemplate using it. It shall briefly explain, in terms understandable to the general user, its purpose and effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Would suggest this isn't the appropriate forum. Addhoc 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies with respect to persons

5) If provisions are made for a special role for academic experts with respect to subjects requiring such expertise, no remedies shall be made regarding users with respect to past behavior involving edits of such articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Present the WP:V of WP:RS on pseudoscience topics in a WP:NPOV manner

1) Where there are WP:V and WP:RS publications on a pseudoscience topic, mainstream science criticism shall be limited to a 1) Warning template and a 2) Criticism section. That is, the content of a pseudoscience page should present in a WP:NPOV manner what the actual significant scholars have written on the topic of the Wikipedia page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rednblu 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Might we use again the intrinsic redshift page for a concrete example of the problem, allowing the category "pseudoscience" to expand to include whatever is unpopular with Mainstream scientists. It seems to me that there are two concerns on a technical page like intrinsic redshift. We want to 1) describe clearly and succinctly what the "intrinsic redshift" falsifiable hypothesis is and we want to clearly 2) warn the reader that the "intrinsic redshift" hypothesis is very unpopular among the physicists who will grade your physics papers. Accordingly, the intrinsic redshift page should present clearly and succinctly what Arp, Bell & McDiarmid, and others have actually published about the empirical data on "intrinsic redshift" in the last two years. And we should put a big RedWarning label at the top of the page stating that "intrinsic redshift" has less than a 1% popularity rating among the physicists who will grade your physics papers. Subsuming the Warning in a BigRedLabel at the top of the page would greatly improve the readability and usefulness of Wikipedia pages by making it possible to 1) state in a clear and succinct manner what the scholars have actually written about the subject of the page while 2) preventing any reader from thinking that "intrinsic redshift" is popular among physicists. The popularity rating among physicists for any technical subject might be measured empirically by tabulating the percentage of, for example, PhysRev D articles on the subject of, for example, "intrinsic redshift" averaged with the percentage of pages devoted to the subject in the latest edition of Halliday & Resnick. --Rednblu 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion for Uncyclopedia, "Warning this article contains views that skeptics consider to be heresy". Addhoc 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious! Of course it stands no chance of being included in the final findings, because it is a specific ruling on content, not a principle, but the idea that we should deliberately override WP:NPOV in order to give the most sympathetic portrayal possible even to ideas considered completely batshit by the mainstream scientific community would certainly make for some amusing reading :-) Guy 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Inappropriate use of Template:Academic

1) Template:Academic may only be used on an article by a user who also designates themselves as an expert in the subject at the top of the talk page of the article together with a summary of their qualifications. If challenged, they must be willing to confidentially demonstrate to an administrator their qualifications. Any other use of the template may be summarily removed by any user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See this diff for why I feel this would introduce tremendous complexity into not only this case, but Wikipedia in general. This would, IMO, place tremendous requirement for differentiation of varying levels of expertise into the situation, and may eventually lead to having to use chicken entrails to determine who is and who is not an expert, what kind of expert, and what the relevance of that expertise is to a particular article, topic, or what have. The notion of "expert editing" is a deep well to dip into. -- QTJ 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

[edit] Wikipolicy on NPOV

Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. Wikipedia uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense! This doesn't mean that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, the neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. That's a common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. :::The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. [88]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Executive summary

Comment by others:

I don't see this as "evidence". It may serve as pointer to the allegation that ScienceApologist's modus operandi conflicts with WP:NPOV policy as summarized above. Harald88 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment about something that is somewhat related. There was once a proposal to use the scientific point of view: Wikipedia:Scientific point of view, but it wasn't adopted. Perhaps it is time to revisit that. Bubba73 (talk), 23:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to open the door to the perspective that the Big Bang theory is theology, not physics? Fred Bauder 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of presupposition

(cur) (last) 02:17, 18 August 2006 Astrobayes (Talk | contribs)

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

[[89]]

Here we have evidence of POV Pushing in that the big bang is a theory, yet to be proven, and is by no means something that can be presupposed. For example, the authors of Inflation theory call there model a theory, while Gibbins says there are a bewildering arrary of different versions, yet to be determined which is going to be successful. While the comment above is not in the article, it reflects the thinking process of the editor and those who edit plasma cosmology to improve it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Tommysun. Is this the diff for the "Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it" Edit summary? --Rednblu 11:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Tommy Mandel

[De-indent.] It is true that scientific theories are accepted provisionally. However, well-corroborated theory is not the same as mere hypothesis. In some cases, as with the heliocentric model of the solar system and the evolutionary account of the history and diversity of life on Earth, it is now inconceivable that future developments could overthrow the theoretical essentials (i.e. the Earth and other planets do go around the Sun and life did evolve through natural selection). The Big Bang account of cosmological origins may not fall in the latter class, but at the same time it is misleading to say it is "only" a theory and therefore not proved. Metamagician3000 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The disputed edit is simply removal of weasel words. Right now the paragraph says is generally understood to begin with the big bang which is fine. It's not an NPOV failure, it's an editorial judgment regarding the relative weight which should be given in the lead of a high-level overview of the subject, to the existence of some minority dissenting opinions. It is not a problem for an article at this level to state in the lead (i.e. the most condensed overview of the topic) that cosmology begins with the big bang, because as far as the mainstream of cosmology goes that's where it starts. This does not preclude later discussion of dissent. Guy 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of misrepresentation

The article reads:

Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community[2].

The source for this statement (2) reads

^ Prominent plasma cosmology advocates Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences." and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies." [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tommysun is unwise to open a discussion of misrepresentation - here is an old list of my reactions to his various misrepresentations. Art LaPella 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He may be unwise to do so, but it is for the good of this encyclopedia. Misrepresentation of facts in article by one party cannot serve as excuse for misrepresentaion of facts in an article by another party. Harald88 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I have defended ScienceApologist on this issue here and in the following discussion. Art LaPella 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, TommySun appears to acknowledge above that plasma cosmology is largely ignored by the scientific community, leaving one to wonder what exactly is the supposed nature of the misrepresentation. Seems like an editorial dispute over nuances of phrasing to me. Guy 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Guy - editorial dispute over nuances of phrasing. Addhoc 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of removal of evidence

[[90]]

The article reads in part:

[Redshift|Cosmological redshifts]] are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by Hubble's law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim that this observation indicates an expanding universe, and they point out that Hubble himself did not embrace expansion.

history reads:

(cur) (last) 11:29, 25 September 2006 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (rv Tommysun nonsense.)

(cur) (last) 05:23, 25 September 2006 Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (hubble did not believe in expansion)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Note that the issue here is that this generally is not pointed out by plasma cosmology adherents. It is something pointed out by Alan Sandage who isn't a plasma cosmology adherent. --ScienceApologist 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is one example of what I tried to put in

and they point out that Hubble himself did not embrace expansion.

and what SA subsequently did:

rv Tommysun nonsense.)

Please note that while I tried many times, each edit was phrased differently ranging from a verbatum copy of what Hubble said in detail to this simple phrase above.

Comment by others:

[Placeholder]. I'll refactor the long comment I originally made here, as I slightly misunderstood the context. I'll put it somewhere to work on, but it's obviously in the history as well. Metamagician3000 09:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've put some re-cast thoughts at this subpage for anyone who thinks they might be of value and would care to consult them. Metamagician3000 10:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are countless examples where what is now mainstream was once an emergent field. Prominent individuals in the field dissented, often until their dying day, from the emerging consensus. That doesn't make it any less a consensus, and simply naming the prominent holdouts (or indeed prominent proponents) is an appeal to authority, a form of fallacy, not formal evidence in respect of the theory. The relevance of such an appeal is an editorial judgment and can safely be left to the normal content dispute resolution processes. Guy 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Lerner's ideas do not influence mainstream science

Somewhere in this mess I read a statement to the effect that no one had been able to prove that Lerner's ideas were ignored by mainstream science. I set out to test this proposition.

I have access to a database called ISI Web of Science. It finds journal articles and reports how many times they have been cited by other articles. Unfortunately I can not provide links, because it is a subscription site. In search for publications by Eric Lerner, I found, 6 papers in IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science, 2 papers in Astrophysics and Space Science, one paper in Astrophysical Journal and one paper in Laser and Particle Beams all relating to plasma cosmology. These 10 articles have been cited a total of 40 times, which is respectable. However, 26 of those citations were in other papers by Lerner, meaning the number of times he has been cited by other scientists is 14, or 1.4 per article, which is quite low. Furthermore, nearly all of the articles that cite him themselves have very low citation counts, generally 4 or less. One important article that does cite Lerner is in Nature 352, 769 - 776 (29 August 1991), a major journal. However since the title of this article is "The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology" and the abstract states

The relativistic hot Big Bang model for the expanding Universe has yielded a set of interpretations and successful predictions that substantially outnumber the elements used in devising the theory, with no well-established empirical contradictions. It is reasonable to conclude that this standard cosmology has developed into a mature and believable physical model.

I don't think it puts much stock in the idea that radio absorption by the intergalactic medium is responsible for the measured redshift effect.

While I am sure I did not search all of Lerner's papers, there is no reason to think this is not a representative finding. Thatcher131 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a very good summary of the status of Lerner with regards to the cosmological community. What I'd like to point out is that the opposing "side" in this arbitrartion case has resisted efforts to state this plain fact on pages such as plasma cosmology and Eric Lerner. --ScienceApologist 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This analysis does not reflect a good understanding of how science, or citation, works. Most scientists overwhelmingly cite papers that they agree with, not those they disagree with. So if citation is used as measure of support, not awareness, my citation level can indeed indicate that my views don’t have a great deal of support from mainstream cosmologists.

To say my views are ignored by the “scientific community” is a next-to meaningless statement. 95% of working scientists in the world (very conservatively) have never heard of me. Not only that, 95% of working scientists have never heard of ANY cosmologist, with the probable exception of Steven Hawking, who has become a media personality, and perhaps, Smoot and Mather who just won the Nobel prize. So you can say that, with those possible exceptions, the work of any cosmologist is ignored by most of the scientific community. It would be an equally inane statment.

However, to say that my work is ignored by mainstream cosmologists is simply false. On the one had people like Ned Wright, Arno Penzias and Paul Davies have publically criticized my work, which is not the same as ignoring it. On the other hand, institutions like the European Southern Observatory and Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University and so on have organized seminars in which I have presented my ideas.

SA took a lot of trouble to continually revert edits that included some of this evidence that I was not ignored in my page, so their argument that I am ignored is not only false, but disingenuous. They know it to be false.

Also, my work is part of a minority viewpoint held not only by myself. So if you want to judge plasma cosmology, you would have to look at the response to papers by others, such as Alfven.

By the way, I also want to say that for the purpose of deciding if a minority viewpoint is significant, it is not a necessary criterion that majority scientists pay attention to it. If it has an adherent who is prominent in the field, OR if it is represented by many peer-reviewed papers by several authors OR if it is viewed a significant scientific viewpoint by mass media or the scientific press, it should be included in Wikipedia.Elerner 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The cosmological community is a small subset of "mainstream science", of which an even smaller handful have criticised Lerner's book. Over 50 university-affiliated scientists and engineers have declared that they share some of the views held by Lerner,[91], and Lerner's peers have felt his papers worthy of publication. I have not seen any information to discern whether Lerner's papers are ignored, or whether scientists are just not aware of them. I suspect that the phrase "mainstream science" is deemed a Weasel word,[92] for this very reason. --Iantresman 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What Ian is doing here is a very common tactic of the pseudoscience/fringe science supporters. First of all, they try to marginalize the experts by saying that there aren't very many experts, but they don't try to enumerate this because it totally messes up the next tactic. There are thousands of active researchers in cosmology at this time, judging from abstract searches and journal articles published. Taking Ian's baldfaced number of 50 is pretty tiny-minority (less than 1% of active researchers), but even then it isn't well evaluated. Many of the "university-affiliated" scientists do not actively research or publish cosmology, a few of them are so removed as to be in disciplines such as geology and electrical engineering! A careful examination of the signatories of the cosmologystatement reveals about a dozen or two of the usual suspects who actually publish in cosmology or related fields. These signatories include Halton Arp, Eric Lener, and others we've discussed. In other words, while it is possible to list the number of "dissenters" who signed this ridiculous statement, it is nearly impossible to list the number of "non-dissenters" since there are orders of magnitude more of them. Listing such as this is a tactic employed most famously by creationists like William Dembski, fellow of the Discovery Institute, whose "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a similar "letter" signed by "hundreds" of researchers. For more on how absurd this tactic is, read Project Steve. It would be nice if the fringe researchers who are not necessarily advocating pseudoscience didn't take a page from the creationist handbook and push themselves further away from the way science actually operates, but that's how it goes. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• (a) "Pseudoscience supporter"? (b) "ridiculous statement"? (c) "dissenters"? (d) "nice if the fringe researchers .. didn't take a page from the creationist handbook"?
• Agreed, "50 is a pretty tiny-minority". And half a dozen critical statements?
• I've never disputed that most of the reviews of Lerner's work are critical. I don't disputes that IF most cosmologists read Lerner's work, they too would probably be critical, but Wikipedia is not a place to speculate; It would certainly be no surprise, seeing as Lerner's work is by definition, a minority view.
• And I've never resorted to using the language you've used above, nor characterised any scientists in such a disrespectful nor discrediting manner. --Iantresman 15:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Lerner's work was ignored, I said it did not have influence. I am not embarrassed to say that several of my research publications have also not influenced the field they were in, judging from the number of citations. (Disappointed, perhaps, but not embarrassed. Other of my articles have quite respectable citation counts.) Citation counts are an imperfect measure of influence, but they do collect (a) the number of times someone agrees with your work and finds it relvant to their own, and (b) the number of times a significant finding is mentioned in order to refute it. The fact that Lerner's articles have very little outside (non-self) citation indicates not only that few cosmologists agree with his findings but also that few cosmologists have felt his findings significant enough to warrant mentioning them in order to refute them in any of the hundreds of papers on Big Bang cosmology. Thatcher131 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed, it looks rather clear that mainstream science largely ignores his theory. On a sidenote, I Partly agree with Thatcher about indications, but she overlooked that scientists are human. An "illegal" but excellent reason for non-citation is to disagree but being unable to refute. Greeting with silence is a frequently used and effective tactic (I am a complete outsider on Lerner's work, and thus I have no opinion if it may have played a role here). In any case, ignoring is ignoring, willful or not. Harald88 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This edit violates WP:NPOV policy

1) This edit violates WP:NPOV policy by removing from a Wikipedia page a significant view in which the authors Bell and McDiarmid extended to the year 2006 the Halton Arp controversy over the empirical data in support of intrinsic redshift.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No, this edit removed an related set of references from an article about a different subject. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we assume then that the proper reference to Bell and McDiarmid was placed in the appropriate place so as to improve the article? Tommy Mandel

It is placed in the appropriate article. --ScienceApologist 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabably needs reformulation, in part because of ScienceAplogist's comments as well as because the 2006 reference is only to an Arxiv paper, if I see it correctly... Harald88 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good comment. Here are the details. The citation to the Bell and McDiarmid 2006 ApJ article, the first article citation that was cut in this edit, was appropriately corrected from publication year 2005 to 2006 when it was moved to the last note on the Redshift quantization page.

However, if you read what Bell and McDiarmid (2006) actually wrote, they report their most recent findings that their "intrinsic redshift" model agrees with the observed redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the SDSS Quasar Catalog including the six peaks at preferred redshift values. And Bell and McDiarmid cite to the 2005 Arp preprint in which he argues that the positioning of the discrete preferred values supports the "interpretation of the redshifts as intrinsic." Hence, it is a severe violation of NPOV to invert the explicit writings of Arp, Bell, and others to say that their arguments are not about "intrinsic redshift." For Arp, Bell, and others explicitly say that even the "discrete preferred values" support the "intrinsic redshift" explanation.

So how would you formulate what is wrong with this edit? To satisfy NPOV, at least the findings of Arp 2005 and Bell 2006 should be cited and summarized on the intrinsic redshift page. Would you agree? --Rednblu 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO you blow this single edit out of proportion; OTOH, it's indeed part of a long pattern of similar fact-hiding edits.

I would agree that there is no reason to limit mention of each paper to only one article in Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia rule (even policy) is to provide sufficient "reliable" references and sources inside each article - IMO that excludes ArXiv papers except if a personal opinion needs to be expressed. In this case, that M. Bell supports an intrinsic redshift hypothesis is shown to be notable as well as taken seriously because of the peer-reviewed paper in the Astrophysical journal: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model". In view of verifiability (WP:V), a reference to such an article of Bell definitely must be linked to the article's statement.

BTW, a similar reference to for example [93] is equally lacking in the article, as such a reference belongs with the statement about Lopez-Corredoira and Gutierrez.

Until inclusion of the Bell reference and again as a result of the removal, the article's discussion and remaining references easily give the false impression that nowadays only Halton Arp publishes about intrinsic redshift, and that no related recent publication appears in any mainstream scientific journal. Thus its removal was IMO not only against WP:V but certainly unfair and consequently against WP:NPOV as well.

Harald88 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 :)) Thanks for your useful comment. And thanks for your patience with my redissecting this one edit over and over until I can discern some effective rule that would 1) detect and 2) clearly prohibit what you aptly call the "long pattern of similar fact-hiding edits." Earlier in this page, I tried to cobble together some sufficient but not necessary definition for the 1) "facts" that the rule should prohibit being removed by 2) "fact-hiding edits" as you so aptly called them. That rule, if revising the publication time period to be back 5 years instead of only back two years, it seems to me, would prohibit even a disapproving cosmological expert from removing from the intrinsic redshift page, 1) the Bell & McDiarmid view published in the 2006 ApJ article and 2) López-Corredoira & Gutiérrez view published in the 2002 A&A article as you bring to our attention. In addition, as you wisely note, some of the ArXiv preprints would be helpful "if a personal opinion needs to be expressed"--as you say it--for clearing up the current murky and inaccurate intrinsic redshift text. For example, I think the intrinsic redshift page would benefit greatly from Arp's sparklingly clear statement at the bottom of page 1 after the heading "The Basic Hypothesis" in the ArXiv preprint of his view of the intrinsic redshift explanation based on available empirical evidence as of 2005. But this is not a content debate. Here we are looking for a rule that would prohibit even a well-meaning expert from deleting the significant views that are necessary to give fair and unbiased presentations of a whole range of pages of which intrinsic redshift is only one example. Are we getting anywhere? What is next, do you think? --Rednblu 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

About content, and thus a bit "off-the-record": I do not see the necessity to include an ArXiv paper about someone's personal views in an article about a class of theories; it seems more appropriate in an article about himself. In any case, an eventual inclusion must clearly present such as someone's personal statement.

What would be next? first wait for the comments of others of course!

If a consensus in agreement with the above would be expressed by the arbitrators, a practical next step could be to include it as practical example in the NPOV-tutorial, together with other examples that may come out of this arbitration -- such as an example that advises how to avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories. For example if in the Redshift article, non-standard cosmologies were linked to in one short sentence in the body text. That would IMO be a good (as well as smart) example of how one can give due weight to a number of small minority theories, therewith avoiding allocating too much space for them in the article. Harald88 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This edit violates WP:NOR policy

2) This edit violates WP:NOR by substituting the 1) Bell and McDiarmid authors' express opinion that they were writing about intrinsic redshift with the 2) editor's opinion that the authors really were talking about redshift quantization and not intrinsic redshift which is the term the authors used in the title and text of their article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There was no substitution going on, therefore the evaluation presented is wholly incorrect. How can it be NOR to remove a list of misbegotten references that belong in another article? --ScienceApologist 12:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's pretty clear to me that User:Rednblu didn't read the paper in question. The authors do not discuss their intrinsic redshift model in the paper, they use it as a starting point to evaluate claims of redshift quantization. Go over to the other article and you find the paper discussed! --ScienceApologist 12:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV fork? This is only removal of a list of papers! I find the summative comments by Rednblu to be a massive amount of hot air. Maybe there should be a "Wikipedia law" against User:Rednblu writing about the dogmatic edits of "BigBangBelievers". Rednblu's choice of language and willful ignorance is wearing very thin -- this kind of advocacy doesn't belong here. --ScienceApologist 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See, this, above, is how ScienceApologuist writes to all of us.

PS the list of papers are the paper confirming quantized redshift which, if true, is caused by an intrinsic property of the light and/or matter interaction. In other words they present observational evidence of intrinsic redshift. Tommy Mandel 06:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they present evidence for redshift quantization and one paper makes a claim about the authors proprietary "intrinsic redshift model" (not intrinsic redshifts in general) being able to explain redshift quantization. Since the subject of intrinsic redshift is not "redshift quantization", and as there is no evaluation these references as to their relevance to the text of the article, and as these references are all included in redshift quantization, they are rightly removed as reference spamming. --ScienceApologist 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The papers confirm the finding of redshift quantization. Intrinsic redshift is redshift that is intrinsic to the photon/medium

and therefore a quantized redshfit is evidence for intrinsic redshift. Removal of evidence for intrinsic redshift on the grounds that it is already in some other article does not improve the article.Tommy Mandel 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be a Wikipedia law against even a well-meaning expert making this edit which imposes a BigBangBeliever POV-fork that severely misrepresents what Bell, Arp, and other scholars have actually written about intrinsic redshift, the subject of the page in question. I quote Arp 2005 himself: "Quasars are always higher redshift than the ejecting galaxy and none show negative redshifts of approaching velocities. The conclusion is that they must have intrinsic redshifts which are much larger than their ejection velocities. Supporting the interpretation of the redshifts as intrinsic it was then found that the redshifts had discrete preferred values in the frame of their parent galaxy. (The Karlsson periodicity formula).The ejection velocities allowable are small compared to these intrinsic redshifts." The resistance of the well-meaning BigBangBelievers against representing significant views fairly and without bias demonstrates the necessity of clear and self-consistent policy text to prohibit edits like this edit. This is not a content dispute. This is merely one example for clarity from the whole extended pattern of well-meaning BigBangBelievers ripping from Wikipedia pages the sourced NPOV that their dogma cannot stand. --Rednblu 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

s/BigBangBeliever/Mainstream scientific viewpoint. Enough said. Guy 19:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BigBangBeliever/Mainstream scientism's viewpoint. Enough said. Tommy Mandel 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, after all, the "Findings of fact" section, is it not? Hence, our methods should be straightforward forensics. So what is your forensic theory of the edit? Why would the well-meaning editor who made that edit rip out what the authors Bell & McDiarmid wrote about the data and insert his own unsourced but well-meaning editor's beliefs about the data in violation of WP:NOR? First of all, what did the well-meaning maker of that edit know when he made the edit? Certainly, the one who made that edit knew that Bell had applied since 2002 Arp's 1997 argument that parent galaxies eject quasars with high "intrinsic redshift," far greater than the parent galaxy, which "intrinsic redshift" has nothing to do with either 1) distance from the earth or 2) velocity of the ejected quasars. Furthermore, the well-meaning editor who made that edit must have known that Bell himself had published in 2002 in the Astrophysical Journal his intrinsic redshift model in which the high intrinsic redshift of new quasars is superimposed on the "Hubble expansion [that is] still expected to apply for normal galaxies"; in the "normal galaxy" all associated quasars, if any, were ejected more than 10^9 years ago, given that the "intrinsic redshift" dies away and becomes undetectable after 10^8 years. Moreover, the well-meaning editor who made that edit must have known that in the cited 2006 article that was cut, Bell & McDiarmid explicitly say in applying Bell's 2002 intrinsic redshift model to the whole SDSS Quasar Catalog of 46,400 quasars: "It is also worth noting again that in the DIR [decreasing intrinsic redshift] model the intrinsic component present in quasar redshifts is superimposed on top of a second redshift component that has been found, at least in the local universe, to be indistinguishable from that of a Hubble flow" (p. 141). And then in the citation that was cut in the edit, Bell & McDiarmid explicitly calculate from the empirical data to distinguish what is 1) intrinsic redshift and what is 2) cosmological redshift (p. 143). Certainly, the well-meaning editor violated WP:NOR in this edit by ripping out the author's argument and inserting his own unsourced POV, but what is your forensic theory of the edit? Why did he do it? --Rednblu 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept ScienceApologist's explanation of his reasoning. You have verifiable evidence of baser motives? And quit with the legal talk, it does not impress. And as stated, those you denigrate as BigBangBelievers are, in fact, in a supermajority within the field. Guy 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is basically a personal attack on myself and it oozes with lack of civility. --ScienceApologist 19:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This edit violates WP:TALK and WP:DE policy

1) This edit violates WP:TALK and WP:DE by unnecessarily chilling and disrupting civil discussion that was localized to specific sections of the TalkPage and did not disrupt discussion in other sections of the TalkPage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rednblu 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. It is not "chilling debate" to remove from project space an editors attempts to rewwrite policy in favour of his own position in an edit conflict. Guy 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this straight, After determining that removal of evidence/content is not the subject here, discussion revolved around interpretation of NPOV. When a section was established to discuss Recommended policy changes, it was removed? (Someone did that to me once, and when I told him that he would be sued if this were the real world, He had me blocked for making a legal threat.) Guy is giving us good examples of the kind of "civil discussion" gong on here. Tommy Mandel 06:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the referenced blocking, that almost certainly occurred because the implication that an editor's behavior is legally actionable (outside of narrow copyright issues) is broadly prohibited by WP:NLT. Or, in short, telling people that they could be sued for what they are doing is not "civil discussion". Serpent's Choice 07:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommy was blocked twice for legal threats. block log related discussion related discussion (search for "legal threat") Art LaPella 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I made no legal threat, I said that if the editor who removed my text from the talk page could be, in the real world, sued for what he did. It would be nice if youse guys told the truth about what I say.Tommy Mandel 05:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case study in Ian being tendentious: Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe

Complete Idiot's Guide to Theories of the Universe, Gary Moring, ISBN 00286-4242-2, Alpha Books (December 4, 2001), trade paperback, 358 pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Poor resource. --ScienceApologist 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because? --Iantresman 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the author is not reliable being, basically a fringe promoter of holistic pseudoscience. He teaches at University of Phoenix and is pursuing a New Agey degree in "Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness" (big red flag). His degrees are from very out-of-the-way schools and his understanding of physics and science in general is fairly limited: generally "bad science". This may be a fine text for showing what this particular author thinks are interesting ideas about "theories of the universe", but this text is not fine for a scientific introduction to the subject nor is it even very good as a philosophical introduction to the subject. There's no accountability in the publishers of "Idiot's Guides". However, there are good resources out there. For a good layperson's introduction to the scientific study of cosmology I would recommend Hawley and Holcomb's Foundations of Modern Cosmology which covers the scientific ideas fairly well. For a general philosophical and larger-contextual overview, I would recommend Hetherington's Cosmology: Historical, Literay, Philosophical, Religious, and Scientific Perspectives. But please, this Idiot's Guide is not very good. --ScienceApologist 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting, the Editors of Scientific American liked his book on Einstein,[94], and say that "The book's explanations are complete enough to both satisfy the reader and pacify the scientist". I'm sure that Norriss Hetherington's book is good too; I wonder how his academic qualifications compare to Moring's? --Iantresman 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting, however, with a few classes in general relativity, it's relatively (pun for the win) easy to amaze a general audience while "pacifying" scientists. Einstein's work and life is covered by so many secondary sources, summarizing it all amounts to a much easier time in the scholarship department. Hetherington, since you asked, is the director of the Institute for the History of Astronomy and conducts research out of Berkeley. You can compare that to Moring who is pursuing his PhD in fringe philosophy and teaches at the University of Phoenix. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's what I found too, that Hetherington does not seem to have the same academic qualifications as Moring. --Iantresman 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If by "does not seem to have the same academic qualifications as" you mean "has better academic qualifications than", then I agree. --ScienceApologist 15:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can't find whether Hetherington has an undergraduate degree, let alone a Ph.D. --Iantresman 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and request his CV if you want. [95]. It's patently obvious that someone who researches at Berkeley is more qualified to write about these subjects than someone who teaches at a controversial for-profit institution and is pursuing a PhD in fringe philosophy. --ScienceApologist 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, no evidence. --Iantresman 13:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian, isn't this incredibly hypocritical of you? Didn't you argue against JKramer in favor of taking Eric at his word for his bachelor's degree? And we're not even writing a biogarphy of Hetherington here! Did you suddenly decide that you didn't want to take a hardline with WP:BLP and think it's fun or ironic to attack mainstream scholars with innuendo and indignity? Are you trying to teach me a lesson or something? And since you're on the subject, the evidence (Hetherington: publications in prestigous journals, editor of dozens of texts on the history of astronomy, appointment at Berkeley, endorsement by experts in the subject; Moring: degrees from third rate institutions, pursuing a PhD in fringe philosophy, employment at a for-profit diploma mill, exclusively published under the Idiot Guide label) is overwhelming that Hetherington is the better scholar. What is with the tendentious posturing? --ScienceApologist 13:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[Undented] I have no problem with Hetherington, and I am sure his book is fine. But I also have no problem with Moring either. The assumption that Hetherington's book is credible but Moring's isn't, does not seem to based on any evidence whatsoever, except prejudice. As I said before, you may well be right that Hetherington is the better scholar. The editors of Scientific American, and the publisher's of the Idiot's Guide, seems to have a completely different view of Moring than yourself. I am also astonished that someone's interest in Consciousness apparently undermines their integrity in other subjects. --Iantresman 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

All well and good Ian, but it took you a day-and-a-half's worth of back-and-forth before you declared what your intentions were. It's obvious that you don't think that Moring should be marginalized. I'm telling you as a bald evaluation from the mainstream that Moring should be marginalized because he isn't ensconced in the mainstream while Hetherington is. Idiot's guide, positive review from Scientific American do not trump degrees from out-of-the-way schools, attendance at a decidely against the mainstream school in pusuit of a decidedly against the mainstream degree, and employment at a diploma mill. So instead you switch the focus of the discussion and you harp on not being able to find what degrees Hetherington holds in what looks to be pure game-playing. It's as if you're trying to tell us because Hetherington doesn't post his CV online, he must be as "marginal" as Moring, even though I've been very clear in telling you why this cannot be the case. You employ this technique way too often, Ian. You hide your actual intentions while making vague accusations and innuendo. Then when called on it you declare your motivations and plead ignorance as to your bad faith dialogue. It's really poor form. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unfair. You and User:Iantresman put different value weights on the input variables. And the Wikipedia community has not made clear what the value weights are to be on such variables as 1) "favorable review of a different book in Scientific American" or 2) "available documentation of CV with dates of degrees awarded." In this case, I criticize you as "unfair" because you are the one throwing your weight around inappropriately. We should be looking for balance here, I suggest. --Rednblu 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You've missed a few key facts: (1) Ian has been deceitful or at least hypocritical in his approach, (2) The evidence shows that Moring does not engage in the level or quality of scholarship as Hetherington. As such, typical of your contributions to this arbitration, I find your criticism empty, meaningless, and based on ignorance and lack of research. Did you read either of the books mentioned? Come back when you actually do the research required to make a thoughtful evaluation. It is a waste of time for the community to have to consider arguments based on your own perceived feelings of balance based on prejudice and a misplaced sense of authority. --ScienceApologist 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You and I disagree over whether the Wikipedia community should continue to allow you to insert what you know to be "true" to replace WP:V of WP:RS in violation of WP:NOR. You are right, of course, that Moring is not a WP:RS on "physical cosmology" because he repeatedly takes seriously such nonsense propositions as the following. "Space and time are simply states of consciousness. This, of course, has very significant ramifications for cosmology" (p. 288-292). Notwithstanding Moring's irrelevance to physical cosmology, books such as Moring's are the key WP:V of WP:RS for those Wikipedia pages devoted to explaining how to verbalize the view that "Space and time are simply states of consciousness. This, of course, has very significant ramifications for cosmology." This view on "states of consciousness" is the very fundament of all those wonderful green-eyed beauties in Greenwich Village who take pleasure in reading your palm, gazing into your eyes, and doing your tarot. Should you ever want to explore the pleasure of green-eyed beauties, we would want Wikipedia to have handy and concise pages for you to read quickly to understand the particular language and concept of "Space and time are simply states of consciousness. This, of course, has very significant ramifications for cosmology." For you would lose out terribly if you would go to dinner with the green-eyed beauty prepared with anything from Hetherington's collection such as even Guth's wonderful essay: "Therefore, even though inflation would predict a completely uniform mass density by the rules of classical physics, the inherent probabilistic nature of quantum theory gives rise to small perturbations in the otherwise uniform mass density" (p. 441). That is, Hetherington's collection would not be WP:V on WP:RS on any Wikipedia page about "Space and time are simply states of consciousness. This, of course, has very significant ramifications for cosmology." -- right? And giving both Moring and Hetherington their proper NPOV Wikipedia page -- that is what I mean by balance. As Wikipedia editors, we should not allow each other, not even you, to replace WP:V of WP:RS with our own WP:NOR about what the published scholars have said. --Rednblu 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And the red herring comes full circle. If you want to use Moring's work as a reference for New Age cosmological consciousness, be my guest. I have no beef with marginalizing Moring's work to pages that aren't scientific. But we're talking here about another set of topics. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have articles about what fortune tellers believe, I'm trying to say that articles which are about scientific topics OR are about topics which purport to have scientific validity/critique mainstream science must be evaluated in the context that they themselves are in (that is, science). This book is presented as possibly relevant to the discussions we've been having about the status of various fringe and pseudoscientific theories. As such, this book is only relevant to the opinions of Moring -- a non-mainstream unreliable source. Hetherington's book is actually about the subject we discuss. So please, don't keep dragging us into different rooms in your house of ponitifical NPOV magic tricks. --ScienceApologist 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I have no doubt that Hetherington's book is the more detailed and rigorous book. While cosmology and consciousness probably does not belong in an article on physical cosmology, that doesn't make Moring's scholarship any less. And I reject that idea that (a) because Moring covers cosmology and consciousness, that it implies some kind of unreliability, (b) that Moring's place of study also affects his reliability. --Iantresman 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moring's scholarship is frankly tainted by his faux-philosophical perspective that the world is how you think it (see What the bleep do we know, for example). As such, he entertains views that are not part of mainstream thought because to do otherwise would cause his perspective to be invalidated. His Idiot's Guide is presented as a resource, but it is a resource only in that it shows how non-mainstream thinkers evaluate some of the topics discussed in this arbitration. That Moring does not engage in the rigorous scholarship required to explicate physical cosmology as a historical subject is simply not up for debate. That Moring fails to critically evaluate the problems with nonstandard cosmologies is a direct symptom of this. Instead, Moring is content to revel in faux-scientific analysis while pursuing his reified vision of the universe in his head. Moring is not a reliable source for information on nonstandard cosmologies and associated ideas inasmuch as nonstandard cosmologies are subject to the venue of scientific analysis. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said, both. Do we have a common ground now for discussing how to present pseudoscience in Wikipedia pages? --Rednblu 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Pseudoscience that is notable enough can have its own article. Criticism of it is included from the scientific community, skeptical societies, and verifiable contradictions to mainstream scientific thought. Pseudoscience is left out of mainstream articles unless there is some way it has established enough notability to warrant mention. The relative weight and notability of the pseudoscience is an editorial decision discussed in WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and WP:FRINGE to be made by people familiar enough with the subjects to know whether something is considered generally important or not. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've missed something here. What's Moring's or Hetherington book, got to do with pseudoscience?
• And this ArbCom is about the misrepresentation of minority scientific viewpoints, not pseudoscience. --Iantresman 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • There is an unforuntate tendency to fail to demarcate between fringe scientific theories and pseudoscience, but the general principles of inclusion for both should be the same. Ultimately, what I said about pseudoscience applies equally well to fringe science. You can worry about the demarcation problem elsewhere. --ScienceApologist 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RednBlu: you say above that You and I disagree over whether the Wikipedia community should continue to allow you to insert what you know to be "true" to replace WP:V of WP:RS in violation of WP:NOR - this is not only a personal attack, it's also a highly biased way of looking at things. One might equally state that the disagreement is about you doing precisely that (and violating WP:NPOV into the bargain). Indeed, the accusation fits you rather better than it does SA, since SA is adding what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources (i.e. the dominant scientific view) whereas you are boosting fringe theories which, as far as the Wikipedia community can tell from the reliable sources, are largely dismissed. Guy 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What you say about the so called fringe theories is not true, Guy. Plasma has not been dismissed by any scientist, it is just that the theory of gravitation that the big bang is based on does not take electromagnetics into account. This is not evidence that plasma is fringe science. The big bang is not a proven theory, it especially has not been confirmed. Certainly you can argue that Wikipedia ought to only publish mainstream ideas, but that in no way whatsoever changes the fact that plasma is an up and coming science, and in no way can be regarded as dismissed.

I would like to just add that the discussion above is typical of Scienceapologist's approach. Endless arguments about insignificant stuff like is plasma cosmology a theory? Tommy Mandel 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minority scientific theories

Minority scientific theories are ideas that are critically examined by the mainstream and criticized in the journals. Examples of such ideas include many worlds hypothesis, punctuated equilibrium, and MOND.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation? --Iantresman 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article, Ian. --ScienceApologist 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I presume you're quoting policy, in which case a quote and article reference would help
• Or perhaps you are aware of a definition of "minority scientific view" that I am not, in which case a citation would help. --Iantresman 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I had previously clarified the definition of "Minority viewpoint" by providing a quote from Wiki policy: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"[96] --Iantresman 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, prominent adherents are not good enough. In order for a view to be within the community, there has to be a willingness shown by the community to at the very least entertain the perspective on its own terms. So it becomes very easy to see why your pet ideas don't belong on mainstream pages: there are no scientists who dispute them who find them worthy enough to publish about. --ScienceApologist 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough for you perhaps, but good enough according to Wikipedia policy as quoted above. And they're not my pet ideas. --Iantresman 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to include subjects that have not been passed through critical review, then you are including subjects that are not minority scientific theories. Minority scientific theories are those that scientists take seriously, not the ones they ignore. --ScienceApologist 15:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hundreds of scientists and engineers don't ignore them.www.cosmologystatement.org.
• A special issue of the peer-reviewed IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science featuring Alfvén's plasma universe is due in August 2007.[97] You still have time to contribute. --Iantresman 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

None of those represent critical reviews. Since the only people that talk about plasma cosmology are its supporters, it is clearly not a minority opninion within science because those that opposed it would talk about it too. There are only two options when there is no controversy about an idea: either it is the consensus mainstream discourse or it is not part of the mainstream discourse. Since plasma cosmology is obviously not the consensus mainstream discourse, it must be outside the mainstream discourse as it is ignored by those who don't believe in it. --ScienceApologist 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, plasma cosmology is clearly outside the mainstream. But as a minority view, it is discussed in mainstream journals, such the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (TPS), previously in Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, also, Laser and Particle Beams, Vol 6 Part 3, and several other issues of the IEEE TPS, including Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986); Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989); Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990); Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992); Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2003). --Iantresman 15:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Since plasma cosmology is outside the mainstream, the way to establish that it is a minority opinion within science is to show a citation to a scientist who critically reviews it in a peer-reviewed journal. If you cannot find such a citation, then it must be that it is not a minority opinion within the scientific community: it must be outside of the scientific community. --ScienceApologist 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• [Undented] I've already acknowledged, several times, that plasma cosmology is outside of the mainstream. I have provided lots of peer reviewed citations (above) demonstrating that it is treated in mainstream journals. You have provided no citations suggesting that a "critical analysis" of a minority view is a requirement for mainstream thought, and I can find nothing in the Wiki article on the Scientific method that even hints at this requirement. --Iantresman 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not critically treated in mainstream journals. In order for something to be taken seriously it needs to have critical analysis and critical review. Since plasma cosmology obviously contradicts mainstream ideas, the fact that no one has bothered to refute plasma cosmology means that plasma cosmology has not been subject to critical review. This is in contrast to actual minority theories in science like many worlds or punctuated equilibrium or even MOND. --ScienceApologist 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Subjects of this arbitration are not minority scientific theories.

As per above, the subjects of this inquiry are not minority scientific theories because they lack critical analysis in the journals. That is to say, since mainstream scientists do not find it worth their time to present refutations of these ideas, these ideas do not represent minority scientific theories within the scientific community. They are excluded from the scientific community and so therefore are justifiably excluded from mainstream articles in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• How novel, science by not having to do any science. --Iantresman 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to right the wrongs you perceive in the real world. --ScienceApologist 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SA, if you were competant, you would know that plasma is being investigated by science, and that plasma is not discounted, it is uncounted. Your opinions above is just that, and if it finds it's way into wikipedia by way of circumvention, For example by deletion., then it violates NPOV. But if you have a reputable verifiable peer reviewed source which states that plasma is not worthy of investigation, please tell us about it. I suspect, however, that if EMF were introduced in your physical cosmology, it would bring into question much of the conclusions based on gravitational forces, and I believe that you know this and work to prevent any refutations. I don't know if the professors at Princeton are reputable enough for you, but they have their undergrads doing research on plasma, to such a degree that jets are thought to be due to radiation and plumes are thought to be plasma induced.

"MHD Turbulence in Molecular Clouds [98] Studies of the emission lines from gas in molecular clouds indicates the presence of supersonic, strongly magnetized turbulence. This turbulence has important implications for star formation in these clouds: it may dominate the spectrum of density fluctuations that ultimately collapse to form stars, and it may alter the balance between pressure and gravity that supports them. However, the properties of supersonic MHD turbulence are not well understood: it is not a regime encountered in many terrestrial flows. Thus, direct numerical simulation of strong MHD turbulence is needed. Tommy Mandel 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is so perplexing about Tommy is that he doesn't know the difference between the mainstream study of astrophysical plasmas and plasma cosmology even though probably close to a half-a-dozen editors have tried to explain it to him. Oddly enough, Ian Tresman and Eric Lerner are completely unconcerned with Tommy's sort of advocacy. The only anti-banger who I often wonder why. --ScienceApologist 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why you didn't rise to the occasion and explain the difference between the general and a specific while you had the opportunity? To me plasma cosmology is the evolution/development of plasma, what you call cosmology. Well, I got you here SA. it is called prior research, and if you choose to ignore that then you are not a scientist. I get the sense that you have taken a snapshot of plasma research at some time in the past, labeled it as discredited, and then incorporated modern plasma research into your own physical cosmology.

That is, someday. Tommy Mandel 07:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I can say now that my suspicions have been confirmed. A supposed distinction is being made between plasma cosmology and plasma astrophysics, the results of plasma astrophysics being subsumend under the umbrella of the standard theory, and plasma cosmology being cast as a cult fringe science,outdated and irrlevant. Tommy Mandel 20:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not aspire to become a Wikipedian. I am not a Wiki editor. I am a reader who happened to find numerous flaws if two articles that I was interested in. I really believed that this encyclopedia was free, and that edits would be welcome. BUT what I found was that controversial articles are "owned" by a select group of editors who manage to slant the article one way or the other, usually their way. It really is obvious. I also found that it is almost impossible to correct the situation, for, as one admin stated on the general talk page "Wiki admins can do as they damn well please."

I do not understand how the fact that plasma cosmoogy is not the big bang theory escapes nearly everyone. I do not understand how a big bang advocate can edit plasma cosmology, removing what plasma has to offer, and leave the article in complete disarray, and get away with it? Does everyone think they are doing a good job?

My daughter is working toward her masters in information science. According to the class, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source in academic situations. Believe me, it is not because experts are pushed away by pseudoscientists, it is because, as my colleagues told me several times, of the edit wars. They just don't have the time to play the game. Wikipedia, at least at UofI, is considered a social phenonmenon, and it is not considered by them as a "reliable source of information."

Because I have tried to implement such a project as Wikipedia myself i can appreciate the significance of this project. But there is a cancer at the very core of Wikipedia, and there is no mechanism to ferret it out and make course corrections. Ultimately the truth will be known, so what appears in Wikipedia now will have no lasting effect. But it is a shame that our children who find Wikipedia easy to use, will suffer the consequences

Just for your information, in our work, we use the four domains of philosophy, science, methdology and action. The philosophy are the general principles, the science is application of those principles, methodology, assuming discovery and diagnosis, is the plan for resolution, and all this ends in action. The modeling is recursive.

As a post script, I have met a couple Wiki-walkers, workers who only want to help. So I know they exist.(I am grateful for your help.) On the other hand I have also met Wiki-talkers who are very adept at wiki-talk. They are very adept at telling us they are doing a good job, while they wiki-talk in the article.

Tommy Mandel 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia does not given weight to subjects that run contrary to established knowledge. For example, someone editting wikipedia claiming the sky it polka dot will have their edits reverted. Arbusto 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT a wikieditor, nor do I aspire to become one. I have enough writing of my own to keep me busy. Part of my job is to do research and I have done quite a lot of that. I have read enough of the literature, both Western and Eastern, to be able to tell the good from the bad, the great from the small. The good doesn't have to belittle the bad and the great wants to lift everyone else up, not drag them down to their level. Your editors may think themselve as being clever with their sly remarks in the interest of mainstream NPOV, but it is obvious to almost any reader when the story starts to read one way or the other. Editors have to twist the story to twist the story. Duhhhh Unfortunately, the "reader" is hardly if ever mentioned. I am a reader and the quality of your literature does not impress me. It is tainted and It makes me wonder what isn't. In my estimation, Wikipedia is useless to the serious researcher. The presentation of the most popular view is already known to every researcher, it is the small out of the way so called fringe information that we are interested in. That Hubble never believed in expansion. That Inflation Theory replaced the original big bang. That the big bang does not include electromeagneticsm the stuff that makes life, and instead tries to explain everything in terms of gravitational forces and to do that it was necessary to invent all kinds of black stuff so far invisible and unconfirmed. That no one actually knows what gravity is. That all of this is just a theory, a hypothesis, an educated guess. And it is absurd from my point of view that you promote it in the guize of some imaginary Mainstream science as if science were a religion. Science is a verb, Google it.

Done as requested. a few items presenting it as a metaphor, some decrying its use as a confusing metaphor, and some about a method of teaching about science in the elementary classroom.DGG 07:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)