Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Martinphi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "alleged" and "purported"

WP:WTA actually says these are OK if used carefully and that they are the alternatives generally used by newspapers. This is just another example of Martinphi abusing WTA and WP:WEASEL in an attempt to force definitions into saying things like "Psychics have powers". Do we really need to go and remove all "qualifiers" from every topic of unproven existence? --Minderbinder 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes using qualifiers is the only way to maintain NPOV, and then they are essential, and would only be considered weasel words by .... (fill in the blank). -- Fyslee/talk 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the relevant section: "Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear." In the cases of purported psychics, the identity of those purporting is clear, it is the "psychic" himself and/or his fans. --Minderbinder 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
However, when genuine attribution can be given, such as "so and so defines X as Y", then you give the attribution, and eliminate the weasel. You don't continue to say "X is supposedly Y", and you don't say "So and so says that the supposed X is Y." This is a matter of attribution and good writing. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"So and so says that the supposed X is Y." You certainly can say that (although alleged, or purported, or said to be, or whatever is agreed to be the most neutral of those options could be better, along with fixing your awkward wording) when your sources define it as a supposed thing. The oxford american dictionary defines psychic as "a person appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or clairvoyance". Some things are simply considered to be "supposed" by the mainstream and defined as such. And we are required to present the mainstream definition, at least primarily.
We obviously aren't required to say "Bigfoot is a big hairy creature" just because putting in "alleged" or "purported" or similar would be a weasel word (which they are not). The fix for supposed weasel words isn't to leave them out and end up with a factually incorrect and POV statement. Or are you arguing that's what we should do?
Your comments above would seem to support wording such as "John Edwards says he is a psychic medium", but you have opposed such wording (even though it's "genuine attribution" and "good writing" as you say). Why the inconsistency? --Minderbinder 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I opposed that wording because there was another word "performs" which was more NPOV. Now, you can say "a psychic is a suppposed X" or you can say "a psychic is defined as X". One is NPOV, the other is not. We do not simply parrot the mainstream wording, when another wording is avaliable which explicates things better and allows NPOV. That is called good writing. We explicate both positions on a subject, not stating either as fact. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Your posts here have been very illustrative of your POV issues, namely that you feel your wordings are "better" and "more NPOV" than mainstream dictionaries. You don't see that as WP:OR? And you haven't explained why you feel that "says", which is recommended by WP guidelines as neutral, is less POV? --Minderbinder 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice that the dictionaries give both definitions, and you, seemingly out of pure POV, wish to choose the one which throws the worst light on the subject. I, however, want to explicate all points of view. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very illustrative of my POV issues to say that both positions should be clearly stated. You're right. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Park

Robert L. Park commented on this type of editor about 10 days ago:

WIKIPEDIA: HAS A BEAUTIFUL IDEA FALLEN VICTIM TO HUMAN NATURE?
Science owes its success and credibility to openness. Findings, including details of how they were obtained, are exposed to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community. It sounds like a prescription for chaos, but it's a mechanism for self-correction. The alternative is dogma. Could openness be extended to all knowledge? With Wikipedia, it seemed to work for a time, but for those who profit from a misinformed public, including purveyors of pseudoscience, the target is too tempting to leave alone. source

Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a great quote! Totally true. That is why I eliminate innuendo in favor of explicitly stating all positions. For instance, instead of a definition like this

A psychic is a person with supposed paranormal powers

I say something like

A psychic is a person with paranormal powers. Skeptics believe that these powers do not exist, but are merely self-delusion, fraud, or mentalism.

See the difference? One in underhanded and unclear. The other is open and explicit. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The part where you do get underhanded is when you go on to say "Psychics often say/do/believe..." as if there are any. This practice occurs every time, and you hide under the guise of merely defining a certain kind of psychic as one who reads minds/affects number generators/shoots lightning from his fingers/what-have-you. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Bad wording isn't necessarily underhanded. Being mistaken isn't necessarily underhanded either. Even making mistakes and never realizing that they were mistakes isn't necessarily underhanded. You can make good faith edits (the opposite of underhanded) and still be wrong.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Could you give the link for that? I suspect this is not what actually took place, but I may be wrong. I think you have mixed up "parapsychologist" with "psychic." Be assured, parapsychologists exist. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"The" link? Almost half the examples given in evidence item #2 are of you doing this. Here you are making the article read as if the girl actually had her powers. Here you are having an article tell about the things "clairvoyant mediums" say, as if there actually were such people. Here you are having an article assert that people really do experience "astral projections." Here you are having an article assert that "materializations of spirits" are sometimes formed from ectoplasm. Are you really this oblivious to your own editing habits? This isn't even touching the fact that each and every paranormal assertion you've inserted has absolutely no citation (not to say that one is possible). Simões (talk/contribs) 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if those links are the best you can dredge up, I have no idea what you are talking about. Because you obviously didn't acutally read the differences. In this link, people undebatably do experience astral projection. There is no dispute about that. The only thing that is in dispute is the interpretation. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That you consider these edits to be in line with WP:NPOV is one of the many reasons why this RFC was initiated. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite so. All you have done is give anyone with a neutral POV good reason to think that you are extreme, and I am NPOV. Quod errata demonstrandum. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow! m:MPOV anybody? Martin, you have often used "neutral" in this way (which was the first red flag I noticed in connection with your editing and comments), and the quicker you learn that no one is truly "neutral", NPOV, or objective, the better. Anyone who is really "neutral" knows little or nothing about the subject at hand. If they, after learning more, remain neutral, they may even lack the ability to see the difference between two opposing POV, IOW they are immune to cognitive dissonance. Such persons will likely never understand the NPOV policy.
Basically you should just admit you have a POV. Great! Be proud of it. I have a POV, others have a POV, and since none of us are NPOV when alone, we need to collaborate with others who hold opposing POV by presenting all significant POV without stating that any one of them is "the truth."
We just need to present verifiable opinions, and not state that something without incontrovertible and uncontroversial proof is fact. (Around here it is allowed to state that the earth is not flat without providing evidence...;-) The closest you can get to stating that psychic phenomena are "real" is to quote a believer's opinion from a V & RS, and then it must be NPOVed by the use of qualifiers or by clearly stating it is a believer's opinion, IOW a minority opinion. -- Fyslee/talk 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Martin's "A psychic is a person with paranormal powers" is that without the qualifying words, it implies that there are actually people with such powers. Bubba73 (talk), 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Er....Hello.... A psychic IS somebody with "powers" (or would be if such powers really existed). If they don't have powers, then they aren't a psychic. We are talking a dictionary definition, not a scientific definition.
perfectblue 07:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem is the dictionary definition doesn't actually say that, at least not most mainstream dictionaries. I have advocated using "dictionary definition" all along, while Martin insists on fringe definition (for Psychic, he cited three paranormal publications plus a mainstream dictionary where a majority of definitions there used "alleged"). From the Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine) "a person appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or clairvoyance" Nether the dictionary nor "science" backs you up on this, perfectly illustrating the POV which Martin has and a number of editors participating here seem to share. --Minderbinder 11:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
.... and that those powers exist. Charmed is nice TV, but reality is something else. -- Fyslee/talk 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Science is defined as the inductive reasoning process which leads to theories. Skeptics believe that this process is bunk, because revelation is the true source of truth.

Science is defined as the supposed inductive reasoning process which scientists claim leads to theories. Skeptics believe that this process is bunk, because revelation is the true source of truth.

I rest my case. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On second though, I'm not sure you'll get it. The first is NPOV, the second is not. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Skeptics believe that [science] is bunk, because revelation is the true source of truth" is NPOV in the possible world where this is Conservapedia. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's amazing. He took it literally. He didn't even get the analogy! Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to excuse me if I find it less so. If you had actually inserted that somewhere in an article, it still wouldn't be the strongest item in the evidence pile. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Less so than what? What are you talking about? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible conflict of interest

Disclosure: I am a third-party not involved in any of these disputes, however in the interest of disclosure, I do sometimes agree with Martinphi's reasoning. Definitely not always, but sometimes. That said:

Having read over more of the edits being used as evidence, there's an apparent conflict of interest that should definitely be considered. Many, if not most, of these edits are differing opinions of Wikipedia guidelines. Some of these disputes have even gone to mediation. There's two sides in those mediations and the complaints here in the RfC are coming from editors on one side of them.

The requested outcome of this RfC is that:

"It should be sufficient that the user be admonished to significantly reduce (if not end) his participation in all articles related to parapsychology and the paranormal. He certainly has other interests and should contribute to articles related to those."

It's being asked that he refrain from editing these article that are already being disputed when resolvement of the disputes haven't been settled. The requested outcome circumvents normal dispute resolvement by barring Martinphi from participating in the articles and disputes. The requested outcome doesn't ask for Martinphi to be counseled on Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't ask that he be warned of possible penalties of disruptive action (if any). It asks specifically that he be reduced or removed from editing the articles that are already in dispute by the complaining parties.

That's an apparent conflict of interest, or at least it's apparent to me and I believe anyone who would look at this RfC request who isn't directly involved in the disputes. I'm not saying that's the intent of the complaining parties, but the requested outcome could have been counsel instead of blocking. The RfC could have waited until after mediation instead of during. There's a number of ways this could be handled that are more amicable.

Feel free to discuss. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The possible conflict of interest is further compounded by statements on several paranormal-related articles that an arbitration is pending or planned, and then one of the key people who has a strong opinion on the outcome of any such arbitration, and who would be involved in it, is asked through an RfC to not participate in paranormal-related articles?
The requested outcome could really have asked for something other than blocking especially considering all the other things going on.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And again, without saying it is the actual intent of complaining parties, it does seem strange that [1], timestamped 19:56, 1 April 2007 on the talkpage of an article that is directly related to this RfC was followed by the creation of this RfC, timestamped 22:51, 1 April 2007. The comment states the goal of a suggested RfC (though the editor isn't a complaining party here, nor was it directed at Martinphi) to "go for a community editing restriction or ban. Simple cases do not require extensive processes," which is an obvious attempt to circumvent normal dispute resolution. And again, this RfC asks for such a restriction on Martinphi.
It may not be the case, but it is strangely coincidental. And again, why not ask that Martinphi be counseled on Wikipedia policies, or any of the other softer requests on WP:RFC, instead of going straight for a ban?
From WP:RFC: RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're having quite an odd discussion here. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's sort of one sided because you, the complaining editor, haven't addressed it. It sure would be nice if you responded to it instead of making fun of it. Am I completely wrong that the timestamps, wording, and all of the above suggest a motivation to circumvent normal dispute resolution? I mean, it is a request for comments. I would love to hear yours.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's somewhat difficult to take you seriously when you begin by declaring yourself neutral and abstaining from speculating on my intent and then conclude by insinuating that my intent is to harrass. And I have no idea what you're talking about with coincidences'o'plenty, especially given that I (the person who initiated this RFC) have never touched the article or talk page to which you're referring, and also that these portions are referring to some other hypothetical RFC. Typing paragraphs of text is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to warrant a response. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, what I said is that I can't speak for you and say it was your intent. I also didn't say that I am a neutral third-party, just that I am a third-party not involved in any of the disputes listed. And I'm not. I don't have a strong opinion which way they go. I do have a strong opinion on this dispute, however, and that is that it is wrong to request that a person be banned admonished from editing articles where disputes haven't been resolved, especially when other things could have been requested, especially when there's at least some question as to the motivation behind it. That's my opinion. Has nothing to do with any of the disputes listed beyond this one, the RfC.
I never said I'm not speculating. Obviously I'm speculating. I also didn't say harrass. I bolded the "remove an adversary part" thinking that might help clarify. I also said that the EVP article was related to this dispute and that's evidenced by your first edits to the RfC (before anyone else showed up) where you link to the dispute on the EVP article as an example of a dispute that hasn't been resolved [2]. The portion talking about how one can get rid of a person they find troublesome by filing a RfC, and how that was easier than sticking out a dispute, was in there when you linked to it. Since you listed it as an example of a dispute that hasn't been resolved, I speculate that you were familiar with it.
I will say thank you for at least responding to my request for more information eventhough you thought it was unnecessary. Your response was clear. You deny it. That's a fair answer and I'm sure people can make up their own mind.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
An RFC-as-such cannot result administrative action. You're the first person to mention banning on this page. Furthermore, "admonish" isn't even an approximate synonym of "ban." As an illustration, I presently admonish you to not conflate "ban" and "admonish." Note now that you've not been banned. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to clearly state your desired outcome then? Jeez, or at least state how "to significantly reduce (if not end)" isn't asking for his edits on paranormal articles to end?
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty clear. It is asking for his edits on paranormal articles to end (or, as you have quoted, be reduced). It was thought that the mountain of evidence showing his unending pov-pushing would do something besides inspiring him to self-adulate. Sure, I suppose it was naive to hope that he'd stop editing paranormal-related articles outright and make a foray into other parts of the encyclopedia. A significant reduction, on the other hand, was (at the time) thought to perfectly be reasonable to expect. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I respect that. But you know, you're not being very agreeable with me. You've belittled what I had to say more than once. What if I said I think I'll file an RfC on you and request that you be admonished (not to follow Wikipedia guidelines) (not to stick to the RfC guidelines that say to be respectful) (but instead) to not participate in the discussion at all. See how that sounds? I mean, I don't have a problem with you making fun of my complaint. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. But you're asking him to be directed not to participate. That's a little extreme.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you seriously contend that Simoes filed this RfC specifically with intent to harass or remove User:Martinphi from taking part in ongoing mediation or any other dispute, then you need to show diffs, edits, Talk page posts, etc. anything substantial and conclusive that will support your contentions. The links you provided to the EVP mediation page and an admin discussing Davkal's behavior don't support a "conflict of interest" on Simoes part. --- LuckyLouie 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said possible, and please get it right, I didn't say harass. I don't have to prove anything to comment about it. This is a Request for Comments. That's my comment. I'm basing it on what I already linked to, the admin on the EVP page giving the suggestion that one can be removed through an RfC, the admin saying that it's an easier and quicker process, the timing of that with this RfC, the frustration people were feeling on the EVP page, and the link to the edits showing that Simoes was familiar with the discussion on the EVP page. I never said that it was Simoes intent because there's no way for me to know what Simoes intent was. But my argument doesn't rest on Simoes and isn't dependent on Simoes being aware of the EVP mediation at all. Other editors who are contributing to this complaint, and who endorsed it, definitely have a conflict of interest.
You ask me to be substantial and conclusive, but nothing on this RfC is. This RfC is all about collecting examples of Martinphi's POV-pushing, and getting him kicked from the articles for POV-pushing, when that's dependent on a mediation to determine whether it actually is POV-pushing, something no one bothered to wait around for in the normal dispute resolvement process.
That's my comment. You guys jumped right to asking for a user to be directed to not participate at all instead of going with something softer, like being directed to be more neutral, knowing that there's already a discussion going on that hasn't been resolved. I'm saying you guys collectively because it's more than Simoes who endorsed the complaint and the requested outcome. The editors who endorsed that request knew about the EVP page, knew about the mediation, skipped right over any resolvement there and jumped right to this RfC asking for a pretty extreme request. Even if Simoes somehow didn't know all that was going on, you guys did and you endorsed the extreme request anyway, and you're contributing to the complaint.
I have a comment about that, sorry.
It's an extreme way to get your point across, even if you're not aware that's what you're doing. One one hand you're criticizing Martinphi for forking articles, but here you're forking dispute resolvements, knowing that if you win here you win there. If this RfC is resolved the way it was asked to be resolved, all the editors who endorsed that request get what they want in other disputes, elsewhere. Any dispute Martinphi is involved in on any page, many of which the endorsers here are involved in, are automatically won in the endorser's favor if the requested outcome here is fulfilled. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. I said possible before, I'm saying definite now because I don't have to prove any shady actions for it to be logically true.
It's not even all about Martinphi. A planned or pending arbitration is being talked about against other editors who agree with Martinphi's editing style. A win here benefits that pending arbitration as well, if it ever comes about, because it removes one of the editors who would probably be involved in it. Again it's a conflict of interest. Winning here reduces their numbers. I know it's weird to think of it that way, as armies on a battlefield, but that's sort of what it is and there's more editors involved than just Martinphi. A penalty here is a penalty there, unfairly.
And again, I don't have anything to do with those disputes. My opinions are just about this RfC.
I'll go one further. I'd be happy to withdraw all my comments from this entire RfC if the extreme request that Martinphi be directed to not participate in paranormal-related articles is reduced to something reasonable. Then I don't have anything to say about it because there's no conflict of interest.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy if Martinphi would just stop POV pushing on paranormal articles. But since he insists that his POV edits are neutral, I doubt he's going to change his behaviour on his own (he has even continued to do so since this case was filed). It doesn't help that with his 3RR block, his meatpuppet case, and his posting "welcome" propaganda, he has insisted that he did nothing wrong and had every right to do what he did. It's unfortunate if it comes to that, but when an editor refuses to follow WP policies, sometimes the only option is intervention from admins, arbcom, or the community in general.
Neal, I'd also disagree with your assessment that you're not involved in the situation. The disputes include the articles Psychic and Mediumship, both of which you have been involved with. You're involved (as I'd say all those listing "outside views" so far are), you just happen to agree with Martin more than some other editors do. I am a little worried by your overlooking of the outright policy violations Martin has done - do you really think it's OK that he has revert warred (including violation of 3RR), used a meatpuppet, and sent advocacy messages to newbies? --Minderbinder 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Disputes on the Psychic and Mediumship were resolved amicably, partly because of my involvement. Well, maybe Mediumship isn't fully resolved, but it's real close. I haven't gone through all of the links being offered as evidence, but I wasn't aware either of those two introductions I worked on had much to do with this. If they do, that's fine. My point is that I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the overall disputes, the question of his overall POV-pushing, whether that's actually POV-pushing, revert wars, sockpuppets, I don't have anything against intervention. My sole point (the rest is all about that point) is it's an extreme requested outcome, and that it's dispute resolvement forking. As I said, I do have an opinion about that one. The RfC, for example, could have a requested outcome for him to be directed to not do anything that remotely comes close to policy violation, or anything that looks suspiciously like policy violation. He'd be given the chance, then, to reign in his actions so that they don't look bad at all. Then if he does something that looks suspicious in that direction, then he's requested not to participate, based on the directive given in the outcome of this RfC. That's what I'm talking about, less extreme requested outcomes.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You certainly have helped with those articles, if you hadn't come along and thought of alternatives Martin would probably insisting on the "Psychics are people with powers" definition (which he still is insisting is fine on this very page). Mediumship still doesn't seem to be quite resolved, and Martin has mainly been the one disagreeing with proposed wordings.
As for the outcome, I'm not exactly sure how user RfC's work and what outcomes are possible. My impression is that they are more of an intervention and a chance to document behaviour so that a user hopefully sees that what they are doing is wrong and that their actions don't have community support, and fixes their own behaviour. (if my take is wrong, someone please correct me) I'm less concerned with the proposed remedy (since I'm not sure that a RfC has the power to do things like that) than with actually getting comments on his actions and his interpretations of policy. I agree with your proposed outcome, as I've said before I'd be happy if he just stopped the POV pushing and other policy violations. But based on his uncomprimising insistence that he has done nothing wrong (including 3RR, meatpuppetry, and advocacy messages to newbies) I'm not holding my breath. The POV pushing needs to stop, and if this RfC doesn't get him to do it voluntarily then there will be little alternative to seeking enforcement from a higher authority. --Minderbinder 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really aware of how the RfC process works either, I'll admit. If it's just about airing dirty laundry, that's cool. I wouldn't object to that. My concern for the proposed remedy is based on the admin's comment in the EVP dispute that it works, and works quickly, and can be used effectively to remove an adversary. I'm really concerned that it was an admin who said that. What's the point of other dispute processes if you can just cut right to an RfC? If that's not the case, then, again, there's no conflict of interest and I withdraw my objection. It'd be nice if things were more clear in that regards.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Copied from EVP talk page (speaking to Davkal):
Interesting how you remove comments like yours above as "personal attacks" on your user talk. Tiresome? You have no idea how tiresome I could be if I put my mind to it, I am one of those rouge admins you hear about. I have come here because of complaints to the administrators about your editing. I see that they are in large part justified. Time to stop agitating, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I gave it some time and I apologize if I didn't make my position clear, but can the original complainer who asked for the requested outcome, or the editors who endorsed the requested outcome, please state an intention of whether they plan to change the requested outcome one way or the other, even if they don't take my objection seriously. It can be as simple as a yes or no, or that I wasn't clear. I'm asking that you please acknowledge that you at least are aware that you've been notified that someone's saying there's a clear conflict of interest, even if you don't agree with it. The reason being is that I don't want to beat a dead horse. If you're saying no, I want that on the record. I'm asking nicely, not trying to be a pain, just trying to be clear. I'm actually requesting that it be changed.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[Thank you for everyone who have made edits to clearly state their position on this objection.]
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Neal, I don't see any substantive evidence of a conflict of interest as you describe it. WRT a possible COI, a conflict of interest is only one of the possible interpretations of this RfC. Another posssible interpretation is that all involved editors have endorsed this RfC in good faith. --- LuckyLouie 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that (and appreciate your response). One of the things I'm saying, though, is that even with good faith endorsements, it's become a dispute resolvement forking, even if that wasn't the original intention. My request for a change of the requested outcome would fix that, and it's a simple change. If I'm not using "conflict of interest" correctly, what I actually means is this is a parallel of other ongoing dispute resolvements. If not anything else, it's at least confusing. Where is the dispute actually being resolved? If it's here and not there, that's (in my opinion) lame, because it doesn't have the same spirit, guidelines, etc. that would be available in less extreme dispute resolvement methods on Wikipedia. We can assume good faith, that's completely fine, but it doesn't remove the problem. Hopefully I'm explaining it right.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If you need better commentary that it's become a dispute resolvement forking, look here: [3]. This has nothing to do with the original intention on the part of Simoes, and doesn't necessarily reflect Fyslee's original intention. But Fyslee is commenting on something that isn't just about Martinphi when he says, "Their statements in this RFC will make half the case against them. The other half is already history!" Those aren't my words. It's the words of someone else who realizes this RfC about Martinphi is really about a dispute involving more than one user. I completely agree with his assessment of this RfC. It does, at least in part, define what's going on in parallel dispute processes. So even if that's not what was intended, it's what it has become. Even people who aren't involved in the EVP mediation see an outcome here as defining the mediation.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[Thank you for recent compromise Simoes. I'm content to back off on my objection.]
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Perfectblue97

I note that while Perfectblue97 was not involved in half of the events on which she has commented, she chose to acknowledge this fact and recuse herself from saying anything for only the most blatant of Martinphi's offenses (which, I suppose, she could not avoid giving a negative evaluation). She then concludes in part by declaring, "The only arguments that stand against the user are edit waring." The accusation of harassment at the end wraps up the post fittingly. This is utter nonsense. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This RfC is utter nonsense. And nasty, spiteful nonsense at that.Davkal 20:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My pronoun reference wasn't vague here. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's called an "outside view" for a reason, for including someone who was not involved in "half the events", but has worked with the editor under the RfC or just a view to share:
("This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.")
perfectblue shared it well. Your apparent attempt to discredit her input only serves to erode your own credibility. You shouldn't be "supposing" about any negative or positive evaluations from perfectblue. I have to agree with Davkal about this RfC. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're following my point here. She recused herself from commenting on the worst stuff Martinphi did and then pronounced at the end, "The only arguments that stand against the user are edit waring." Simões (talk/contribs) 22:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, but perhaps she didn't know she could comment on that stuff. But to only suppose she didn't comment because there was nothing positive is quite the nice little skew. Why don't you just ask perfectblue? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Another one, some editors prefer to comment only on those events they were directly involved with, that doesn't mean they think the other events are somehow wrong and they don't want to make negative comments. Your assumption about her motives is skewed and meant only to try and discredit or turn her comments into a negative, when she said nothing of the sort! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
She wasn't involved in most of the items she commented on. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not real clear what you were trying say, more than just your pronoun was vague...or was it actually wrong (he/she?) :) Half? Most? Which? I'm not sure what she was involved with, but I can certainly make other assumptions than one you made. But no assumptions about her motivations should have been made at all, and that's really the point.
And if we look at the post below by Davkal, we're right back to the last paragraph of my original post on this subject, but with 90% coverage from her commentary, and much of the other 10% not commented on, isn't of any major consequence at all, much less "the worst". [4] Dreadlocke ☥ 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly the worst stuff either. If you look at some of the ones PB didn't comment on: 12 seems to be a legitimate request for an admin to look at 3RR but since it was well passed 24hrs, assuming Martinphi didn't make a mistake with the diffs, then this is just such an obvious error that no harm could come of it (in other words, so what). And 13 is a straightfoward example of removing a claim after one week of being tagged and no source being provided (I think that's what you're supposed to do rather than allow unsourced claims to stay there tagged forever). The rest all relate to Martin's 3RRs and edit warring and PB acknowledges that at the end, also pointing out, however, that it takes (at least) two to edit war. All in all, then, a pretty conmprehensive rebuttal of around 90% of the non-case against him.Davkal 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just in case this subject needs it, let me point out that perfectblue also endorsed a bunch of other outside views, which makes her position even clearer than it already is. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I purposefully avoided answering criticism that I did not believe that I had enough knowledge of to answer. Having been criticized for this, I am adding to my original answer to meet all points.

I am also stating rather firmly that I believe that this comment on me violates AFG and is an effort to paint me in a bad way so as to try to discredit the answers that I did give.

This is BAD FORM and violate ad hominem.

perfectblue 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on View by User:Michaelbusch

While I have no problem with Scientific consensus being stated, it must follow WP:V and WP:RS. I find that skeptics are too willing to use commentators, rather than scientists, in this role. For example, citing Skeptics dictionary, or citing people who are not experts in the field.

perfectblue 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to scientific consensus, some points must be noted:
  1. Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability versus correctness: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled as pseudoscience, unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." So we must not write about topics only covered by sources outside the mainstream with undue weight on proponents with no mention of the mainstream. (I note that the strawman argument that some have tried to describe these topics as "rejected" and point out that nobody has tried to label these topics as such in advance of responses).
  2. Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources: If a topic is supported by weak sources, criticism of that support doesn't need to come from sources of a higher standard. Also note Wikipedia:Fringe theories#A note about publication: "while peer review is a necessary feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, it is not sufficient. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." In the case of Electronic Voice Phenomenon, the article uses sources such as this. It seems hypocritical to complain about using Skeptic's dictionary in an article that also uses sources that have a countdown to halloween on their main page.
  3. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." For example, Martinphi has removed Materialization, which has zero citations from sources claiming scientific basis, from a list of pseudoscientific topics. With more obscure and more ridiculous topics, the scientific community either doesn't study the topics or doesn't want to give publicity and credibility to the topics by debating them. To require scientists to dispute all fringe claims, regardless of how poorly sourced, would be to impose a burden of disproof and lead to biased articles.
--Minderbinder 12:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Great as parapsychology is recognized by the AAAS as being a feild of science, this means that we can use parapsychology sources as being the mainstream opinion of parapsychology issues.
perfectblue 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. The American Library Association is an AAAS affiliate, too. And how many parapsychology articles reporting positive results have been published in Science? 0? It's the AAAS journal!
Based on the number of articles that they publish and the number of articles that are submitted to them, the statistical probability alone of them publishing a paper on parapsychology are quite low. Besides, most journals simply won't publish anything to do with the paranormal (neither believing nor debunking) because of editorial bias towards areas of science where there is more interest among scientist or industry. It's the same for all sorts of other things that are far more normal. For example, have you ever tried to get a paper published in any notable journal, on anything that mainstream considers yesterday's news or which won't ever attract a research grant from big business? Journals publish things that will get them regular circulation.
perfectblue 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


To say that parapsychology is even approaching widespread recognition as a science is profoundly implausible. The mainstream may be a bunch of jerks for keeping parapsychologists out, but that's certainly what they're doing. Simões (talk/contribs) 08:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains, the mainstream AAAS recognizes Parapsychology as a science.
perfectblue 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
PB, you're doing a semantic tapdance. Wikipedia says to use the mainstream and majority views. You're redefining those terms as "what most of a minority agree on". Also, regardless of whether "parapsychology" is a science, some of the topics Martin has been pushing to define as "real" don't fall under parapsychology according to him or others discussing these articles - it seems even those within parapsychology don't always agree what the topic includes. If there isn't a consensus within parapsycology that EVP falls under that classification, do we declare EVP to not be scientific? Or does "mainstream" become the consensus of not parapsychologists, but EVPologists? Making it a majority of a minority of a minority? --Minderbinder 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
And to add a small point, if we agree that the opinion of a biologist or zoologist is relevant in the case of bigfoot, shouldn't the "scientific consensus" on EVP include all those studying electronics, transducers, and other audio equipment, and not just anyone who puts tinfoil on a trumpet and sticks it in a closet? If parapsychological claims are made which, if true, would violate the laws of physics (or other laws of science), shouldn't physicists be agreeing as well for it to be considered a true scientific consensus? --Minderbinder 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that zoologists should not have their views on bigfoot included, and nobody is saying that those studying electronics or physics etc. should not have their views on EVP included. Oops, sorry, you are. You are trying to exclude the views of anyone with scientific credentials from: a) having their scientific credentials noted; and in many cases b) having their views expressed. You, and a few others, have systematiccaly gone through the EVP article, for example, and removed the credentials from every person who has said anything positive about EVP and replaced it with "paranormal proponent" or such some thing.Davkal 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have completely misread my statement, I said that we should include the opinions of zoologists and physicists. But we need to base claims of "scientific consensus" on the collective view of all of them, not represent the views of a couple individuals as "consensus". And as far as credentials go, my only objection is when they have been provided with a source that doesn't meet RS or when they have been claimed with no source at all, which has happened many many MANY times in the EVP article. And according to wikipedia standards, information published in fringe publications generally isn't a reliable source - at the very least info should be included with "According to X..." It's also not a good thing to say "X is an expert in Y" when you can say "X is described by Y as an expert in Z" or better yet, provide (with reliable sources) what they have actually done.
Have Macrae's credentials ever appeared in any mainstream publication, scientific or otherwise? He self publishes books now, has he ever had anything published in a mainstream publication? When he had an article published in a journal of the paranormal, how did they list his credentials, or did they? Editors have said that he holds multiple degrees, what degrees are they and from what institutions?
When it's this hard to get verifiable information, we absolutely need to be cautious that descriptions of people and their accomplishments are accurate. --Minderbinder 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
we need to base claims of "scientific consensus" on the collective view of all of them, not represent the views of a couple individuals as "consensus".
hmmm.... we have a dilemma here. The fact, plain and simple, is that most of mainstream science is simply not qualified to comment on EVP. Most scientists know nothing about EVP other than what they see on Ghost Hunter, and most have their expertise in fields that are unrelated to it. Individuals like electrical engineers are WP:RS for talking about RF interference, and psychologists are WP:RS for pattern recognition etc, but mainstream science as a whole cannot be considered experienced enough to present more than a personal opinion.
Asking mainstream science's views on EVP is like asking a classical cellist to critique free form hip-hop. We need to limit ourselves to people with experience in related field such as electrical experts, psychologists and parapsychologists. They are the only people who know what they are talking about.
perfectblue 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You know very well that Macrae working for NASA can be sourced to a book by a noted academic writing about the field he is paid (as an academic) to know about - David Fontana, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University. You know that the same point (Macrae/NASA) appears on the Amazon editorial description of him, you know we have a source from a paper delivered to the SSE, and you know we have about six other sources. Nonetheless this basic piece of biographical informnation, which is in no way extraordinary, is still excluded from the article because we don't have his payslips, or his 40 year old NASA contract, or now (it appears) because we don't have a list of his publications in "mainstream journals" and we don't know which degrees he has and from where.Davkal 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll note that you didn't answer a single one of my questions. I'd appreciate if you did. Thanks. --Minderbinder 14:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Why should I go looking all over the world to try to find out what papers, if any, Macrae has had published in "mainstream" journals, or to try to find out whether some other scientist or whoever has published his credentials, or to try to find out what degrees he has or where he got them or what his shoe size is. Why should I do any of that. I don't want to say Macrae takes a UK size 9, I want to say he worked for NASA, and for that I have numerous sources, including one from a noted academic in a book about subjects within his field of expertise. These further questions that you ask are mere distractions intended to keep someone's credentials out of an article because you don't like them. This is one of the ways your behaviour has been unreasonable. Davkal 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Because those are all relevant to whether he is a reliable source. And even if you want to say he worked at NASA, that's not very useful if we don't have details on when/how long/what he did there. If we can find very little info on this guy, all of it from debatable sources, do we really want an encyclopedia article to talk about him, much less present his views in a way that makes it sound like he has proven the existence of EVP (and the rest of Science just hasn't seen that he's right yet)? The question is, Is this guy qualified to do experiments and draw accurate conclusions from his research? Or is he just a guy who builds gadgets and got one article published because a journal thought it was an interesting read? --Minderbinder 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have already stated when he worked for NASA, who he was a contractor with, and what project he worked on. If anybody is interested he was employed as a Research Associate employed by SRT and subcontracted to NASA during the mid-1960 where he worked on voice communication systems for the space program which were designed to overcome the problems of the helium-oxygen environment that was introduced after the 1966 accident. He also worked on systems for Sealab 2 and the orbital lab program.
perfectblue 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
We're only interested if you can provide reliable sources for the info. And here once again, you list off a bunch of info but fail to provide a source at all. --Minderbinder 13:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


So I have to do about six months background research to say "Macrae, former voice-recognition consultant for NASA..." (probably only to see my resarch still rejected on the basis of WP:OR or the absence of payslips), when I have already sourced that claim to a noted academic writing within his field of expertise. Davkal 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you guys please take this discussion to the article's talk page? -- Fyslee/talk 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the point, which seems to have been confirmed, is that we (including Martin) are required to produce on demand, payslips, contracts, full academic histories, CVs etc. whenever it takes a pseudosceptic's fancy, or else we won't be allowed to include even mundane well sourced points. Is this a correct interpretation of Wiki rules. And is it one of the things Martin is supposed to agree to as a result of this RfC?Davkal 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
How many scientists or scientific journals do you know of of that spend time debunking such topics as crop circles? I do agree that the skeptic's dictionary isn't particularly great source, but what constitutes an expert? Can you call anyone a crop circle expert, on either side of the topic? If not, why can any of them be cited? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
(note to CC - the reversion of the comment move was accidental due to edit conflict. Sorry about that. --Minderbinder 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

I think that point is an interesting one and is at the heart of much of this dispute. The claim is constantly being made that "mainstream science" says X, but when one looks at the source for this one finds not mainstream science, nor even a scientist, but someone like Robert Carroll who admits his book "does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects". Given that Wiki most definately should provide a balanced account of occult subjects, it must in that respect deviate from Carroll's analysis. And yet anytime anyone tries to deviate from Carroll's analysis they are accused of pushing a POV and, more often than not, Carroll (along with a particular interpratation of variety of Wiki rules) is used to make this very point. Wiki has a problem with the paranormal in my view, and the way to resolve it is not to select editors and try to ban them, but to try to get some kind of firm guidlines for the topic. What we have at present is far too open to interpretation and too many things are interpreted as being one thing (science, and about which the rules are fairly clear) when they are clearly, in actual fact, a quite different thing.Davkal 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I've also found that a lot of people disputing the paranormal are disputing areas in which they have no experience. Its one thing to find a biologist or a DVM who says that bigfoot can't exist because of climate X or food supply Y, but its anothing thing entirely if you trawl out a skeptic whose primary field is engineering. You ask what an expert in crop circles is, well, a physicist would be an expert on claims of EM for/causing crop circles, but folklorist would be a expert on their history, and so on. If I produce a zoologist who believes in bigfoot, and you (the metaphoric you) were to produce Robert Carrol, which one of us has the stronger case.
What the wikiregs don't cover, which they should, is the issue of verifiable perception. If 500 people witnessed something and described it as being a UFO, the it should be permissible to day that 500 say that they saw a UFO. It shouldn't matter that non of them are scientists, or that they were reported in the newspapers and not peer review media. Skeptics are all to often using regs designed to keep out small or unsupported scientific opinions in order to suppress information about people believing the opposite to them. perfectblue 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The rules already allow such statements, as long as they are well-sourced. What the rules don't allow is to state that "500 saw a UFO." The qualifier "say" (they saw) is what makes it an NPOV statement. Personal perception is one thing, objective reality is another. -- Fyslee/talk 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That's just semantics. It doesn't change the fact that I've encountered plenty of skeptics on Wikipedia who would simply delete the statement (even with the qualifier) and replace it with a paragraph saying that mainstream science does not support the existence of UFOs, and that all ockham's razor means that witnesses are mistaken, on the grounds that no mainstream peer-reviewed literature supports the existence of aliens. perfectblue 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless that is the case. While such statements are allowed, they may be inappropriate or inadequate for other reasons, so they aren't written in stone. OTOH, POV suppression is wrong, no matter which side does it. Take a look here, especially the "Fundamental principles." -- Fyslee/talk 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And how does Fyslee's first law: "Collaboration makes NPOV work", tally with Fyslee's second law: Ban everyone with a different position, for example, "Their statements in this RFC will make half the case against them. The other half is already history!". Davkal 11:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack above by Davkal crossed out. -- Fyslee/talk 11:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC))
And what do the rules say on this. "Bander claims that Hale wrote a letter to him", or simply "Hale wrote a letter to Bander". The first being the pseudosceptic attempt at NPOV wording and the second being mine. My reasoning, letters are a commonplace. No scientist I have heard of disputes their existence and people are well known to receive them all the time. The pseudosceptical reason for the word "claims" being inserted is simply that the pseudosceptics don't like what the letter had to say, and so doubt has to be cast somewhere. In this case, without any evidence at all, the existence of the letter was chosen to be the thing disputed.Davkal 10:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on View by Tom Butler (moved from main page)

As above, I have seen several examples where skeptics have cited Skeptics dictionary as WP:RS for a scientific topic or scientific information, yet have dismissed citations from scholars or professionals with many years of experience in related fields because they aren't skeptical enough. I've also seen instances where skeptics have demanded impossible levels of proof (in one case, somebody demanded to see payslips from the 1960s as proof that somebody worked for a company), and have tried tried to add doubt into the minute details of certain experiments even when published skeptics haven't questioned them. There is most certainly an anti-paranormal cadre out there. one which believes that the anything other than skepticism is POV pushing.
Skeptics must be pressured to cite sources from people with experience in the field. No more astronomers being used to dispute electronics or writers being used to dispute genetics.
perfectblue 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"somebody demanded to see payslips from the 1960s" Diff please? --Minderbinder 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anybody did actually demand to see pay slips. What was asked for, in this particular case, was a NASA source (and a NASA source alone would do) as a source for someone who worked at NASA. What was rejected as a source was a book by a noted academic whose paid field of expertise covers the individual in question and his work and therefore, to many, was an appropriate source for basic biographical information. What was also requested, some time ago, was that the actual transcipt of a letter be produced before we could cite a quoted and published section of it.Davkal 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So Perfectblue97, which is it? Did "somebody demand to see payslips" or is that another strawman? --Minderbinder 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the point stands either way, regardless of your antagonistic summary. A perfectly reasonable source was provided and rejected, and a request for an almost impossible source was suggested as the only possible solution. The person in question was a consultant for NASA many years ago and we were asked to delve deep into NASA archives to validate what actually was a mundane, and very well sourced, point, in the absence of any contrary information or suggestion, just because a few editors would rather it wasn't so. In other words, it was a wholly unreasonable request made for no other reason than to downplay the credentials of an individual involved in EVP research.Davkal 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The point stands even if it's a lie? If someone said that, there's a diff showing it. I'd like perfectblue to answer the question. --Minderbinder 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The point was about "instances where skeptics have demanded impossible levels of proof". And this stands whether you want payslips, transcripts of actual letters, or 40 year old archived material from who knows where in place of, for example, a clear statement of the point in a book by a noted academic writing about something that he is paid to know about. There was also a case where I asked what evidence you would accept for the JSPR being peer-review, and you said we needed a third-party source, and when I provided it you said you weren't talking about the JSPR. This list, is almost endless.
Also to call what PB said a lie (when if anything it is a mistake) is a clear personal attack.Davkal 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to make claims like "where skeptics have demanded impossible levels of proof" at an RfC, please provide diffs. If PB has made a mistake, there has certainly been pleny of time to correct it - I'd like to hear what she has to say. --Minderbinder 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, and I'd like to ask you to answer these question? Do you accept that we have been asked to provide a NASA source for MacRae working at NASA, and that a NASA source is claimed (by sceptical editors) to be the only acceptable source for this information. 2. Do you agree that a NASA source is the only valid source here. 3. Do you accept that you asked for a third party source for the peer-review status of the JSPR and then immediately claimed to be concerned only with the JSE when that source was provided? Davkal 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the EVP article needs formal arbitration proceedings where these issues can be discussed in detail. The Talk page of a User RfC is not really the appropriate forum to dissect these issues. What's probably more appropriate is to simply say that you disagree with (whatever assertion you disagree with) and leave it at that. -- LuckyLouie 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the point might be that there is a pattern of unreasonable behaviour by editors opposed to Martinphi's position and his "wrongdoing" should be seen in the light of that.Davkal 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Payslip

Here is a link to where a user asks for a 40 year old contractor payslip. [5] This is highly unreasonable. Even If such records were to still exist, they would likely be on paper in an basement archive somewhere, and would require a "paid" FOIA request and 6 months of waiting. Asking for this is a wiling abuse of WP:V and WP:RS.

perfectblue 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on 3RR issues

The 3RR report on ScicneApologist was filed not because I though anything would necessarily come of it, as the charge was iffy (I hoped it would result in dicipline, but I knew that edit warring over time is often not punished). But because past reports seemed to be a factor in my own blocking, I had learned from this that the establishment of a record could be valuable. I wanted to establish a further record for SA, even though it was debatable whether he had broken this very subjectively applied rule.

On the crop circle edit war, the other user was blocked for 18 hours. The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts edit war was a mistake, as it violated the spirit of 3RR. On a technical level, however, it was a very honest mistake, and it is dabatable whether it should have resulted in a block, as it was merely re-removal of material which had been tagged for weeks. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above paragraph was edited after I responded to it. To preserve the original context of my reply, the following is the original text at the time I replied (I realize it's not a huge change, but I do feel it makes my reply out of context): The 3RR report on ScicneApologist was filed not because I though anything would come of it, but because past reports seemed to be a factor in my own blocking. From this I learned that the establishment of a record could be valuable, and I wanted to establish a further record for SA, even though it was debatable whether he had broken this very subjective rule. On the crop circle edit war, the other user was blocked for 18 hours. The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts edit war was a mistake, as it violated the spirit of 3RR. On a technical level, however, it was a very honest mistake, and it is dabatable whether it should have resulted in a block, as it was merely re-removal of material which had been tagged for weeks. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment added later: The user blocked above for 18 hours was Michaelbusch, who has now endorsed this RfC against me. For this edit, among others. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
And he was blocked because he made all edits under his own name, while your violation of 3RR in that same dispute wasn't caught at the time because you evaded 3RR enforcement with meatpuppetry. I certainly think his view of the dispute is relevant. --Minderbinder 12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. In your previous 3RR reports, you actually had made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period and the admins chose to let you off - listing ScienceApologist for reverting over a two week period isn't remotely "debatable" and borders on WP:POINT, particularly when you admit your intention was "establishing a record".
  2. In the case of Crop Circles, the only reason you weren't reported for 3RR was because you evaded the rule using a meatpuppet. The same applies to Psychic, where there's also no question that you broke the rule and would have been blocked except for your meatpuppetry.
  3. Your continued insistence that you only violated 3RR on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts because of "an honest mistake" is troubling since it shows you still fail to understand that three reverts isn't a right, and that revert warring (and editing in opposition to concensus) in general is a bad thing. This has been explained to you by an admin and yet you still seem to feel that you've done nothing wrong. Let's note Martin's strategy for editing, which makes no mention of consensus and seems to include making edits whether other editors agree or not, and the admin response taking issue with Martin's insistence that he was in the right and that his revert warring was OK as long as he didn't exceed 3RR. --Minderbinder 23:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge that I didn't know about the meatpuppet thing. I assumed that one had rights on Wikipedia analogous to rights in normal society. I'd never heard that another user didn't have normal rights because they were sharing a computer. So, my mistake. Sort of. So that takes care of the meat puppet accusations.
Reporting ScienceApologist: He is an inveterate edit warrer, who makes me bow down in utter shame before his edit warring greatness. I didn't report him to make a point. I reported him to get it on his record, so that it will be there when he next violates the rule- by sock puppet or otherwise.
On the List edit warring: it was a last resort. The mistake was more in not going directly to mediation. However, I have said that it is indeed a mistake. I said it violated the spirit of 3RR. What more can you ask? Did you read my post?
I will, however, say that merely editing in opposition to consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. Material which is harmful and unsourced, and which has had a citation request on it for weeks, may be take out, period, as it is the problem of those editors who want it to stay in to source it. I didn't have to seek community agreement to take it out. Rather, you needed to source it if you wanted it to stay in. If you don't agree, ask Simoes. He taught me that. The following applies:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the [citation needed] template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]
Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2] (emphasis added)
This is the guideline I applied, and I was reverted for it. Applying this guideling is what I was doing when I was blocked for 3RR, and from this fact spring my doubts that the block was wholly justified, in addition to the fact that the 4th revert was something done many days or weeks before (I don't recall). Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, per WP:TALK please don't edit your comments after others have replied, it changes the context of the replies. [6] If you have any questions about this particular guideline I'm sure Dreadlocke can explain it to you. --Minderbinder 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change the part they were quoting- a fine point which Dreadlocke has explained to you. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You changed the part I responded to, which is forbidden per the guideline WP:TALK. I've restored your original comments above so my reply may be seen in context. All that Dreadlocke has "explained" to me is that he feels that he is exempt from that guideline and that I may not correct his violations - an issue on which all admins who have commented have sided with me, despite his continued forum shopping. --Minderbinder 11:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not at all what I said, Minderbender, and you know it. I said that you were not allowed under WP:TALK to change other editors talk page posts just because they changed them. That's the issue, and you've done it again. If you read the guideline, it is not "forbidden" but instead "It is best to avoid having to change one's {own] comments". Big difference between "forbidden" and "best to avoid". Please point out where it says forbidden and allows you to revert such changes in another eidtor's post. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess the old version was just copied? Better than editing another user's posts, if so. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
And no admin has agreed that you should have edited my post for the purported violation of WP:TALK, Just the exact opposite, as a matter of fact.. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of your current insistence that your policy violations were justified and you did nothing wrong, I'm letting the admins involved know about this RfC so they may have the opportunity to participate. --Minderbinder 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calling out

I'm sorry, but I am not here to "look bad" or "look good." I am on Wikipedia to participate in an way which is NPOV, useful, and compliant with the rules of Wikipedia. I do not accept the standard of "if you do anything that doesn't look good or looks 'suspicious,' then you can be asked not to participate." No. If I have violated the rules that is one thing. But I have not, (at least not relative to the the major complaints) and I will not be held to a different standard than any other editor.

If you want to go after all of them the same way, fine. Go after ScienceApologist first, as he is the worst violator I know of, as the ArbCom decision attests- but it just so happens he is editing on the so-called "side" of those bringing this RfC. Thus, they don't want to go after him. Is this an accusation that I am being unfairly prosecuted by those who just don't like my edits? Yes. Is this an accusation that those who don't like my edits, and are accusing me of POV-pushing have, by this RfC, raised their own POV-pushing to a new level? Yes.

The POV pushing by persons such as Minderbinder, ScienceApologist, Wikidudeman, Consumed Crustacean, Guy, and others has to be dealt with. They are the ones POV-pushing on the articles. I am not, as my edits most abundantly show - even the ones, among my 1300 plus, which have been brought up on this RfC. The only way these edits can be construed as POV-pushing is if it is assumed a priori that the subjects of these articles are in fact bunk, and proven to be bunk. But such an assumption is not justified within Wikipedia, unless it can be sourced. It is against the rules, because it violates NPOV (and other policies and guidelines). Therefore it must be stopped, or else Wikipedia will be merely a stage for the posturing of the pseudoskeptical community. It will have lost its credibility as a bastion of neutral information.

I stand by my editing record and by these principles. I will not be held to a different standard than any other editor. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note about the kind of thing that is going on here

Through the normal pocess of following links etc., I arrived at the Dowsing article. I made some amendments (the first I have made on that article), and lo and behold, the next day I find myself in an edit war with Minderbinder who has never edited that article before. This, I believe, is called "Wikistalking". Wkistalking notwithstanding, the exchanges on the talk page are illuminating.

Minderbender says re sources:

"Per parity of sources, if the original study wasn't published by a reliable source, it can be refuted by a source of the same quality. --Minderbinder 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)"

What are these sources then. One is the report of a major study undertaken and published by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (which incorporates the Federal Ministry for education and science and the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology) - this was my source. The other was an article published in the general interest magazine of small US advocacy group (CSI)- this was minderbinder's source.

This is the kind of nonsense that one has to dealt with on a daily basis. I would love to see Minderbinder's face (I wouldn't really) if I was to argue parity of sources when refuting the findings of the US National Institutes of Health by reference to the newsletter of Psychic Healers R Us.

I think these kind of exchanges and the example of Wikistalking, throw a significant amount of new light on what is going on with this RfC. What should I do in the face of this. Back down and accept the kind of lunacy cited above re parity of sources, or argue my case believing that Wiki rules do not for one moment support it. And what should Martinphi do when confronted with the same thing on an almost daily basis. Davkal 14:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What you should do? First of all it's not wikistalking. Ever heard of a watchlist? I have nearly 1500 items on mine, not counting talk pages, and I suspect that Minderbender (like myself) also has a number of items which he has never previously edited on his list. That's including articles and other users, which is perfectly normal practice here. So just AGF. Everything's out in the open here, so don't expect your edits to be immune from scrutiny or revision. We are all watching each other....;-) -- Fyslee/talk 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What should I do. I think the answer from Minderebinder below is clear. If I don't accept his nonsense that a small advocacy group = Germany's Federal ministry of education and research in the reliability stakes, and then doff my cap to him, I can expect an RfC of my own. Assume good faith!Davkal 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are highly charged accusations and a huge failure to WP:AGF assume good faith. While I haven't edited the article before today, I have had Dowsing on my watchlist as it had been recommended as a reference in the EVP situation [7]. (and similar to Fyslee, I currently have over nine hundred pages on my watchlist)
In addition, even if I wasn't already watching the page, WP:STALK says: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." If an editor has a history of violating WP policy by POV pushing, I'm certainly going to look at their edits and if I see POV pushing on other articles I will correct it.
As for Dowsing, you first changed the sentence to a statement that was the opposite of the source it was cited to (WP:NOR), then changed the sentence in the opening section to say "While a major scientific study of dowsing concluded that a "real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven", some scientists and skeptics still find no basis for dowsing" which presents the interpretation of one group of scientists of one study as the primary view, and the rest of science as dissenters who are ignoring the Evidence. Are you feeling left out here, Davkal? Your POV pushing actions almost make it seem like you want to have a RfC of your own? --Minderbinder 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue here about the merits of my edits - I happen to think they are far more neutral than the unsourced (and unsourceable as you well know) claim that replaced them, but that is not the point. The point is that on the talk page, you put forward the ludicrous argument that the privately published magazine of a small US advocacy organisation is on a par as a reliable source with the report of a major scientific study undertaken by the German Federal ministry for Education and Research. And the point of that point is, that you seem to regard this as case closed. That is, you have spoken, and anyone who disagrees must now shuffle off and consider themselves told or else stay and breach wiki rules (WP:MINDERBINDERISRIGHT or some such thing). What you have written is nonsense. And it is not good enough to repeatedly point to that nonsense as if it represented a genuine attempt at or means of dispute resoultion the way you point to the nonsense you have written on the EVP page as evidence that Martinphi has done something wrong by not shuffling off as above. Davkal 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Comments by MastCell

I have endorsed MastCell's comments but I belive they point to the heart of the proble. Evryone agrees that minority opinions should not be given the same weight as "widely accepted scientific fields" or put on a par with "the mainstream" community of experts in a given field". But what is at issue in many of the cases under dispute is what is minority opinion. Recent issues from talk pages fall into several categories.

1. In parapsychology the vast majority of people funded to study the phenomenon through mainstream academic institutions probably now accept that there is some scientific evidence for it's existence (even some noted sceptics - Ray Hyman - are far more cautious in their criticism). Against that we have various individuals (some scientists some not) who reject these findings. What are we to say in such cases. Who are the experts in parapsychology - the parapsychologists employed at top universities to study the thing or the hobbyist skeptic and world-renowed geologist who hasn't even read the evidence (because he doesn't need to). Now, my description may be a bit one-sided but the point is clear. What do we say when the only scientists actually studying a phenomenon find in it's favour, but the subject itself is out of favour for one reason or another.

Ray Hyman, who does not believe that parapsychology is studying anything real, nevertheless accepts the positive results of the studies, and thinks that if replicated, they will prove parapsychology's point. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

2. In cases such as EVP and Crop Circles we have virtually no scientific studies/evidence at all, and nothing can be sourced to a peer-review journal. In such cases we have many people (some scientists some not) advocating the paranormality of EVP. Again though, we have the sceptial hobbyists (and professional sceptics) who offer certain naturalistic explantions. Almost nothing here meets any test of scientific rigour. What is the minority opinion and who are the expewrts in these cases.

FYI: Reversal of the burden of proof, requiring those supporting the dominant world-view to provide a specific citation refuting the minor/crank theory, is a recurrent theme in pseudoscience subjects. --- LuckyLouie 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual." Marcello Truzzi
Unusual claims must produce much more and stronger proof before their proponents can reasonably expect to be heard. The same would logically apply to the level of RS required for their inclusion here. -- Fyslee/talk 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Unusual claims only require strong proof is they are being put forward as being scientifically supported/mainstream. A fringe crank only needs to be shown to exist and to be notable in the context of the topic. For example, you don't need to scientifically validate the hypothesis of a madman who kills his neighbor because he thinks that he is an alien, you only need to verify that he was caught and convicted.
perfectblue 07:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but how unusual is it for someone to work for NASA. Not very, but that has been cited as an extraordinary claim (red flagged). And how unusual a claim is it that two old men with planks could make hundreds of complex crop circles in total darkness, when the simple circle they tried to produce in broad daylight turned out to be rubbish. The notion of what is extraordinary is being abused and used to push POV.Davkal 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Davkal, are you seriously claiming that even after people have admitted how crop circles are made and even demonstrated exactly how it is done (on film, so we can all see it done), you're STILL insisting it's an extraordindary claim? I certainly agree that the notion of what is extraordinary is being abused and used to push POV. --Minderbinder 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not claiming that at all. Are you claiming that working for NASA is an extraordinary claim standing in need of nothing les than the production of 40 year old contracts.Davkal 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So what are you saying about crop circles? That is't not an unusual claim? What point is your crop circle statement supposed to make? And I'm claiming that the sources making the NASA claim seem to be poor ones (it doesn't help that some of the sources seem to be getting the info from each other). --Minderbinder 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3. In cases such as "flood geology", we have a main body of scientific research and experts in direct opposition to the claims of the FG's. In such cases we had acknowledged experts writing in their professional fields of expertise and we have 101 peer-review papers we can cite which speak of exactly the same points and are clearly at odds with it. In such cases it is easy to say who the experts are and what mainstream opinion is.

All three cases, then, in my opinion, have significant differences. I do not think the current Wiki rules really deal with these very well. They deal with (3) alright, but when it comes to (2) it is not so clear and in (1) it is hard to know what one is supposed to say. In many cases, then, I think Martinphi's edits are being assessed as if they were about (3) when in actual fact they are about (1) and (2). Is he still wrong?Davkal 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a little outside the scope of the RfC, perhaps, but I'll bite. "Paranormal" phenomena are generally defined as supernatural, that is, occurring outside the explanations and predictions offered by science. For instance, the Journal of Parapsychology defined paranormal as a "term for any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." So almost by definition, these paranormal phenomena are occurring outside the scope of the scientific method or scientific proof/explanation. This makes them "fringe" subjects by Wikipedia's guidelines, at least in my reading of them. That doesn't mean that paranormal phenomena don't exist, or that people at big-name universities aren't studying them; it just has implications for how we deal with them on Wikipedia. Geology is different, in that it's of enough general interest to the scientific community that a peer-reviewed literature exists which can be used to rebut "flood geologists". But the same is not true of crop circles or EVP. This doesn't mean that they're necessarily inherently more valid or less "fringe" than flood geology though - just that they are topics which have not attracted critical independent scientific analysis for a variety of reasons. MastCell Talk 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology is in the same situation as astronomy when dealing with dark matter. It is not outside science, but it deals with an unknown quantity).
All of that is fine. But what it doesn't mean is that in cases where there is no scientific consensus, non-scientific speculation by other agencies/individuals attains scientific status by default. But this is what is happening, and so to continue the analogy, scientific papers are cited in the flood geology article and non-scientific speculation is cited in identical ways (and with identical authority) in the crop-circle and EVP article. Indeed, in the EVP article we are even now prevented from saying that there is no scientific literature on the subject. Nobody, as far as I can see, objects to a statement in these articles setting out their fringe status clearly, but what some of us do object to is equally fringe untested claims being cited as scientific fact in virtue of the lack of scientific study. Davkal 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seraphimblade's comments

I think seraphimblade's comments represent one of the most balanced attempts yet by anyone criticisng Martinphi. I think the conclusion is worth citing here:

“In conclusion, I strongly urge Martinphi to accept that minority views must be clearly treated as minority views even when they also happen to be one's own, to use only the standard welcome template to welcome a new user and not send such users to material that coaches them how to disrupt (whether that material is in his userspace or offsite), and in general to moderate his combative attitude. Sometimes working cooperatively with those who disagree with you is hard, but for those who wish to edit here, it's the only acceptable way.”

On these points I would say, from previous talk pages and the discussion here, that I think Martinphi accepts that minority views should be treated as minority views. However, there is a genuine difficulty in many cases in identifying what the minority view is - especially in cases where mainstream science has nothing whatsoever to say. I think these problems should be dealt with by policy as I think what we currently have is far too open to interpretation and this interpretation lies at the heart of many of the disputes. Secondly, I think he now knows about the welcome statements and simply did something he shouldn't have but had no idea at the time that it was wrong (who would?). I would be astonished if he did that again. As for his combative attitude, I think that is in large part down to the lack of clear guidance referred to above. That is, it is not, it seems to me, that Martinphi rides roughshod over the rules, but rather that he does not consider the rules to have been correctly interpreted by those who cite them. Again, clarification would resolve this far better than sanctions against one editor.Davkal 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If mainstream science has nothing to say about a topic, that's a pretty strong indication that it's not a mainstream field and should be treated according to the WP:FRINGE guidelines. MastCell Talk 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely tend to agree there. Else, I can just say right now that I have a theory that the world is a giant pink beach ball, and mainstream science hasn't bothered to argue with me on that one. As to Davkal's statement, I don't think anyone's advocating sanctions. As I stated in my endorse for MastCell's statement, when I handled the sockpuppetry case, it very much appeared to be an honest mistake, so I warned rather than blocked. The idea of an RfC is not to sanction. If sanctions were sought, this would be at WP:CN. It's the hope of any RfC (but especially this one, I think Martinphi has a lot of potential to make excellent contributions) that the user will take the advice of those who comment, learn from it, and we'll never hear about it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the two sides making comments are so divided that even if I were in the mood to give up all my own opinions, I wouldn't know which side to take. I'd end up being somewhere between the two extremes. In other words, I be just where I am. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Martin, your comments worry me. They reveal attitudes that may nearly ensure that this RfC ends up badly for you:
  1. You don't seem to be "in the mood" to change your opinions;
  2. You don't know which side is right;
  3. You will remain where you are.
That means that you aren't learning from this RfC, which is a primary goal. A positive outcome for you is based on the condition that you learn and change. Lacking evidence of such learning and change, there is only a negative prognosis for your stay here.
Keep in mind that while RfCs aren't designed to end with blocks and bans, they certainly can end very abruptly for any and all parties who participate, including blocks, topic bans,and even indefinite bans. Admins have the right to do so at any time they deem necessary. Larry Sanger's words should be kept in mind, when he says: "show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." [8]
You may not be one of them, but your attitudes are creating much trouble here, poisoning the atmosphere, and wasting our time. You risk that an admin will follow that advice right here and now, since there is no need to wait and see if you will learn, if you already evidence that you (a) haven't learned, or (b) don't intend to learn, or (c) aren't capable of learning. If you don't immediately start providing such evidence, your fate may be sealed. -- Fyslee/talk 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In other words, "Say my side of the debate is right. Then you will have learned." And if you "learn," then we won't get you banned. Yeah, really nice. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martinphi- reply to MastCell and Seraphimblade

MastCell wrote a very good opinion. One thing with which I particularly agree is this:

Wikipedia is not a vehicle to defend or advance minoritarian beliefs; it is a vehicle to describe those beliefs in the context of their level of acceptance by the "mainstream" community of experts in a given field. (emphasis added)

This is of course a perfect reflection of policy, and it is what I have been attempting to do. I have been presenting the view of the "given field" of parapsychology. The disagreement here is over Wikipedia policy. Is parapsychology a field of science or not? According to Wikipedia policy, I believe it is. If it is merely a fringe group, not a scientific field, I am wrong in many of my edits. This is the crux of the disagreement and this RfC. But MastCell put it perfectly. In fact, he put it in exactly the way I have put it many times, in defense of my edits. If you look at my essay Paranormal Primer (which is not a finished piece of work), and the Parapsychology talk page, you will be up to date on the issue.

The basic analogy that I use on this issue is that you don't ask a botanist about quantum physics. And you don't ask a chemist about parapsychology. Even if you did, polls show that the chemist might very well believe in the paranormal. I have absolutely no desire to act as if a minority view in the relevant field of science should be given equal weight with the majority view.

Seraphimblade seemingly did not read the page I posted on the new user's talk page. The page does not, in any way, endorse the behaviors it describes. From the viewpoint of its author, it is describing the way he was treated by the pseudoskeptics on Wikipedia- and the way I have been treated (although I don't endorse every particular on the page). Anyone who fully reads the page would know that these behaviors are what the author is complaining about, and that he is in no way recommending them to anyone. It may and may not have been "nice to Wikipeida" to give that link to a new user. But so far as I know, it broke no rules, and the page was highly relevant to the situation of that particular user. I don't know why people are acting as if it broke some rule. There was a link posted on the issue on my talk page by Minderbinder, but I did not see how it applied. The admin who admonished me for it did not cite any rule I broke. If I broke any rule, I apologize and I won't do it again. No one has so far shown me how I did break any rule. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The link I provided was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Karmafist#Welcoming_new_users in which ArbCom said "Editors who welcome new users are likely to be seen as representatives of Wikipedia. Their welcomes should thus be friendly, helpful, and reflect the priorities of the encyclopedia. Welcome messages are also an exception to the community's general dislike of internal "spamming". Since new users are as yet unfamiliar with Wikipedia's functioning, such welcomes should not be used as a vehicle for advocacy of any kind." That applies perfectly to what you did, Martinphi. If you read further down you'll see that the committee banned that user from making any further advocacy "welcomes". It should be obvious that what you did is wrong, whether it technically broke a rule or not, and your continued insistence that you did nothing wrong is troubling. If someone received arbcom sanctions for doing something, it's probably a bad idea to do the same things they were sanctioned for - I got a sense of deja vu looking at Tommysun's edits to Crop Circle as mentioned above.
I agree that the definition of "mainstream science" and "experts in a given field" is a crucial part of this dispute. If anyone has a suggestion on how to get a definitive "ruling" on this, it would go a long way toward resolving this.
Personally, I think the rest of NPOV makes it clear that Wikipedia's mission is to first present the mainstream opinion, and not what a tiny group agrees on. To take Martin's logic to the extreme, should Time cube only reflect the "consensus" of Time cube experts, namely those who have studied it? Wouldn't limiting an article to only "experts" (particularly when "experts" in some of these cases is a fringe group whose work is barely notable and hasn't been scrutinized by the mainstream) lead to many articles consisting of a fringe view with no counterpoint, simply because the topic is either obscure or after an examination of avialable evidence considered too ridiculous by mainstream science to even respond to? I can't imagine that's wikipedia's intention, particulary with the statement: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." Also, NPOV says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." It doesn't say represent the view of the small group studying a topic, nor the view of just one branch of science, it says to represent the majority (scientific) view. Interpreting it otherwise seems like wikilawyering and twisting semantics to change the definiton of "majority". Where does WP say this in a way that "field" can be open to interpretation? Credibility via obscurity, or credibility through lack of disproof simply aren't compatible with wikipedia policy. --Minderbinder 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what you think I was advocating- that is the only part of the text which might remotely apply. You are the one who welcomed the user. I did say welcome, but I was not extending a formal welcome, as the first person to do so. I have never done this.
I did make her aware of the Paranormal project. I did make her aware of the essay and the outside page. This was relevant to her edits.
I did not know that there would be any problem with this whatsoever. I'm still not sure that there is, though I could see the point much more clearly if I had been the one to greet the user first. Since I was not, and my post was relevant to edits the user had already made, I'm not sure I agree that this was wrong.
Just how many entries would have had to be on the talk page before I was not "Welcoming a new user?" If there had been 4, instead of 2, would it have been alright? Is the "Welcome" heading sufficient reason here? I am not averse to saying I am wrong on the matter. I did not have any reason to think there was anything wrong with it at the time.
Anyway, re your other comments:

I think the rest of NPOV makes it clear that Wikipedia's mission is to first present the mainstream opinion, and not what a tiny group agrees on

All fields of science are tiny groups. The size is irrelevant.
The consensus of those who know about, and have to some degree researched, Time Cube, is that it is bunk- and anyway, it comes under obvious pseudoscience. However, one must look at the academic and institutional standing of a field to know whether it is science or not. One must also look at whether the field's critics treat it as a science. In both instances, Parapsychology comes out as a science.
Thus, your reductio ad absurdum argument, which seemed extremely good on the surface, actually fails, as I am not actually making the straw man argument you cited.
I repeat that when it says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." This means the consensus of scientists within a field. The entire crux of the matter is whether parapsychology is a field of science. Your interpretation that this means we must represent the overall ideas of scientists in general just has the opinions of botanists as relevant to quantum physics. This is an absurd argument.
Here is where Wikipedia guidelines say that only the opinion of scientists in a particular field are relevant:

Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.

And here is the definition of scientific consensus:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time.

Wikipedia presents the scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field. Are you really willing to dispute this guideline? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This is begging the question that parapsychologists are scientists and their field a science. I'm sure intelligent design enthusiasts have all sorts of consensus among themselves, but you won't find a Wikipedia article stating that there's a consensus in the field that an intelligent being created all life on the planet. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Martin, I will exercise GF and believe that you "did not have any reason to think there was anything wrong with it at the time." We have all made our newbie mistakes and not always been aware of certain written and unwritten rules here. That was then, and now we're here. Now you need to adopt what is being taught to you. Now is your chance to learn and change. Now is your chance to learn that Wikipedia is not the outside world and that other rules apply here. This is not the place for advocacy for your POV, or to push it on articles. Please, right now, make a radical change in your thinking about your purpose here. You know alot about these subjects. That means you have great potential. But it also means that without radical change right now, you can also be a great liability to Wikipedia and such a great drain on our resources that it just isn't worth having you around, at least not without being placed under certain restraints. (BTW, please reformat your indents above.) -- Fyslee/talk 08:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to repeat above, if mainstream science has nothing to say on a topic, that's a pretty clear indication that it's outside the mainstream. If a field, such as the paranormal, actively defines itself as encompassing phenomena which defy scientific explanation, then it's pretty clearly outside the scientific mainstream. In such cases, WP:FRINGE should apply regarding notability, and WP:WEIGHT indicates these should be described as non-mainstream or minority views. MastCell Talk 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to repeat what I've already said, the AAAS accepts parapsychology as a science, so it is clear that a good parapsychologist (not a hobbyist, I may add) is as valid a a source any other scientist. Equally, you're argument is self defeating. If the world's most respected mainstream scientist were to get together and experiment with ESP their work would immediately fall into parapsychology by pure definition. Thus it would not be mainstream regardless of who did the experiment or how mainstream they were.
perfectblue 07:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly why I said Wiki rules don't deal with things very well. The point being that we have verious levels of scientific involvement in "paranormal" topics. Parapsychology is accepted now (by the AAAS) as a science, while astrology, presumably, is not. And to provide a fair balanced account of these two subjects we simply cannot invoke one catch all rule. There are subtleties with every different article and, in my opinion, all people are doing here is throwing about words like "paranormal" or "supernatural" or "science" or "pseudoscience" as if that, in and of itself, made the case clear. It does not. And when one looks at the way the rules are applied in actual articles, it is clear that Wiki rules are being used to push POV in a way that is clearly against the spirit, if not the letter, of Wiki law. We are not allowed to say someone worked for NASA (is that an extraordinary claim), we are not allowed to say the someone received a letter (paranormal or what!), we are not allowed to say someone is a scientist, or an academic. In short, the rules are being invoked way past their intended scope and this won't be resolved by banning one or two (it looks like three is the target at the moment) editors from engaging in the debate.Davkal 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Wiki rules do handle this one. And this is one I agree with Martinphi on completely. Forget the AAAS. Forget all the other stuff. If parapsychology is so obviously a pseudoscience, why is it that the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts only has two sources for it, one of them a PDF that doesn't even use the word parapsychology, and the other coming from Quackwatch.org, an obviously pro-skeptic site (ie. not mainstream). Was that question ever answered? Because, seriously, I want to know. The pseudoscience guidelines say to use the word sparingly. It is a pejorative word used to dismiss things outright, that's why it's supposed to be used only on obvious things like astrology, palmistry, and so on. Mainstream is straight down the middle by definition. If this pejorative term is so applied to parapsychology by mainstream science, where's the sources? There should be plenty.
It's a negative term and parapsychology isn't in the list of obvious pseudoscience, the guidelines there say to use it sparingly, so the position of using it is one that you guys have to defend, and it certainly needs a really good source since it's a pejorative term. Wikipedia doesn't like to say negative things about anything without solid sourcing. All you guys sourced was a PDF that didn't say anything about parapsychology and a Quackwatch.org article. Quackwatch.org isn't even the original source of the article. It's a reprint from Skeptical Inquirer. Skeptical Inquirer is not a scientific journal, it's a pop skepticism magazine sold for profit at Barnes and Noble. Over there in the discussion, the article tries to say it comes directly from the Russian Academy of Sciences. Excuse me for being skeptical, but reliability is sort of weak when it passes from the RAS to the Skeptical Inquirer to an online resource like Quackwatch.org. So much room for tampering there. The word "parapsychologists" is only used once, right along with witches and shamans. Anyone could have put that in there just as their own revision. Where's the link to the original Russian version? I have translation software.
I completely don't understand this one. If it's such a mainstream view it should have been a lot easier. I wasn't aware of this article when all this was going on. If I had been I would have cried foul too. It's not POV-pushing to require a higher standard for dismissive, negative terms.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That article is quite interesting since the talk page is supposed to contain evidence of the attempts to resolve the dispute that led to this RfC. Looking at the talk page one thing stands out. For many weeks Martin has been trying to get people to properly source parapsychology as a pseudoscience. He has put fact tags in, deleted the claim when no sources were forthcoming etc etc. and all that seem to have happened in response is that the unsourced stuff has been reinserted and an ever increasing volley of argument/abuse has been directed at Martin. No argument is needed here, get a source. Of the sources offered at the moment, as Nealparr notes, one doesn't even mention parapsychology at all and the second, well, if anybody knows what to make of that let me know. Davkal 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"all that seem to have happened in response is that the unsourced stuff has been reinserted" That's absolutely not true since items have been added back with sources. Personally I have added ones sourced to the National Science Foundation. I did add Materialization under obvious pseudoscience, is there an objection to that? --Minderbinder 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an objection to tagging materialization as that because it doesn't seem as cut and dry. The parapsychology one involves actual people, versus a subject, who consider themselves to be real scientists involved in real scientific work. I mean, we don't call scientists who study the impact of religion on society pseudoscientists just because religion isn't science. Even if materialization is totally bogus, that doesn't mean these people aren't applying real science to a bogus topic. So the difference is Wikipedia is calling a group of people, not just a topic, something completely negative and dismissive. That's pretty bold for a neutral site considering we can point out how small the field is, and how removed from widespread science, without making a negative and dismissive statement. At least that's my take on this one. That's why I endorsed Annalisa's outside comment. Whoever went so far as calling the ASPR journal a "journal of pseudoscience" [9] is guilty of POV-pushing too.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Where's the source for Parapsychology - none. The materialisation source - it's not even clear what that's a source for: the rubbish definition, the "fact" that it is part of parapsychology, ot the "fact" that it is pseudoscience. And given that you don't have a source for the category it is in (parapsychology - see above) it's not clear that any of them should be there until the main one is sorted. Is that article really supposed to be evidence of efforts to resolve a dispute - add some really dodgy sources that don't even mention the thing they're the source for and then tell anyone who disgrees they are in breach of wiki rules. Dear oh dear oh dear.Davkal 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to moving Materialization from under parapsychology back to the obvious pseudoscience section. If editors insist that Materialization (parapsychology) doesn't fall under parapsychology, then the article on it needs fixing (since wikipedia currently defines it as part of parapsychology), including a rename. Or do you object to characterizing materialization as a pseudoscience at all? --Minderbinder 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There were some other things I didn't agree with in the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts discussion that I forgot about. They were equating parapsychology with paranormal as a broad term, when the scope of parapsychology is very limited. That was the reasoning that was given for using the PDF as a source. They said because it said paranormal, it says parapsychology, eventhough parapsychology isn't actually said. The non-equation of parapsychology with paranormal is verifiable by simply checking the scope. How can one say anything definitive at all about something (especially applying negative terms to it) when they aren't at least familiar with the scope of it? Again, it doesn't make any sense to me. On one source we have no actual mention of parapsychology, a verifiable miscategorization that equates a limited scope with something broader. On the other source, it isn't direct at all. I didn't see that covered over there, but it should have been. It's not direct from the Russian Academy of Sciences. It's filtered from the Russian Academy of Sciences through both the Skeptical Inquirer and the online Quackwatch.org. Forget something lost in translation, there's a chain of custody problem with the source. I'm not going so far as to say there's no source out there anywhere. I'm saying the two listed currently (and what people were fighting over) have real problems with them, especially when they are being used to apply a dismissive, negative term on a group of people.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, am I getting this right? First they equate parapsychology with the paranormal - highly dubious at best, and at worst just plain wrong. Then they find a source that calls some paranormal things pseudoscience, and hey presto, parapsychology becomes pseudoscience. And all this on a page that is held up as a model of good practice.Davkal 19:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my understanding of the talk page for List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (something I just recently got around to reading). They were saying that the PDF is a good source for a mainstream view on parapsychology because 1) it says paranormal and 2) the Parapsychological Association says paranormal. That's the reasoning behind that source (as I understand it). My objection is that if you explore (just a little bit) further, on the Parapsychological website, they clearly define a limited scope of just some paranormal subjects, none of which were listed as obvious pseudoscience (like astrology). My greater concern for the whole thing is, again, they don't equate. Even if parapsychology did shine science on astrology in pop culture (which it doesn't at all), it's not astrology itself. When parapsychology does shine science on psychics in pop culture (which they do actually do), parapsychology doesn't automatically become psychic pop culture. That's what I agree with Martinphi on (just talking about this one issue). For Wikipedia to take the extreme position of applying a dismissive, negative term to something that it's already mischaracterizing, it's bad form. Wikipedia can make mistakes, of course, but it's supposed to strive for neutrality first. Rock solid sourcing is the way to get around neutrality, but it's the only way to do it proper. I don't necessarily agree with Martinphi's actions (I don't recall ever reverting an article myself unless it's spam or something), but his reasoning against slapping pseudoscience on parapsychology is sound. There's living people involved.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, for clarity: The reason I don't believe that's a mainstream view is that it equates the study with the subject. I don't think that's the mainstream view of science to equate study with subject. For example, telekinesis was mentioned over there (nevermind that it's called psychokinesis in parapsychology), where telekinesis might be considered pseudoscientific, that doesn't automatically make the study of telekinesis pseudoscientific. Empirical science can be applied to subjective response in art, for example, without it being pseudoscience. We can objectively do an experiment to see what parts of the brain have the subjective response without elevating the subjective response itself to objectivity. It's not necessarily equative. Mainstream views understand that. It's fringe views that do the equating.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Neal, that (last half) was actually very well put! Hat off to you. -- Fyslee/talk 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
One other thing, and then I think I've said all I personally have to say on this particular subject (parapsychology as pseudoscience). It's being characterized as both a fringe science and pseudoscience. Logically, it can't be both. If it's a fringe science it can't be pseudoscience because it's still scientific inquiry, eventhough it may depart significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories (that's how fringe science is defined). Likewise if it's a pseudoscience it can't be fringe science because it never actually was scientific inquiry to begin with. Both applicable Wikipedia guidelines can't be applied. It's wrong to do so. In the various arguments, you have to pick one or the other. I think the more neutral (for all the reasons I've stated) would be fringe science and thus applicable fringe science guidelines would be applied, stopping short of labeling it pseudoscience for no other reason than it can't logically be both. See how the two terms are compared without being equated: [10]
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Neal, interesting points. I think it's natural for most people to associate parapsychology with the paranormal. Even the Parapsychological Association says on the front page of their website "We are the international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of 'psi'’ (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition" and in their glossary defines parapsychology as "...the scientific study of paranormal or ostensibly paranormal phenomena, that is, psi..." I guess the objection is the assumption that any paranormal notion falls under parapsychology? And it's an interesting question about whether the act of studying a topic that is considered pseudoscientific is itself pseudoscientific. The case of parapsychology is fairly complicated:
  • Parapsychology does study some topics which are widely considered to be pseudoscientific.
  • Parapsychology may not study some of the more obscure or idiosyncratic paranormal topics, but people may assume that it does.
  • Different people within parapsychology (as well as outsiders following the field) may not agree which topics fall under it.
  • Some studying parapsychology may be using strict scientific methods.
  • Some may be using poor methodology or draw logically unsound conclusions which would be considered pseudoscientific.
  • The organizations and publications of parapsychology may have high standards for the articles they publish or may include articles that would be considered pseudoscientific.
It seems like to some degree it's a semantic debate. Is the study of the pseudoscientific pseudoscience? And if something covers multiple topics, some of which are pseudoscientific, it's less of a question if parapsychology is pseudoscientific, but how pseudoscientific is it (more specificially, is it pseudoscientific enough for an encyclopedia to say so)? --Minderbinder 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
And one thing that we shouldn't let distract us - we're not having this RfC just because of a dispute over whether parapsychology can be catagorized as pseudoscientific. This is only one of a number of topics that Martinphi has insisted on removing mention of pseudoscience, such as dowsing. --Minderbinder 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Good questions Minderbinder. I think I have a fair answer to that. Without saying they are perfect guidelines, look at the fringe science article and how it describes how a science moves *from* fringe *to* pseudo- or junk [11]:
Fringe science can be distinguished from some similar-sounding, but pejorative in nature, categories as follows:
  • Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is notoriously lax in rigorous application of the scientific method. Reproducibility is typically a problem. This is not so in fringe science.
  • Junk science - Junk science is used to describe agenda-driven research that ignores certain standard methodologies and practices in an attempt to secure a given result from an experiment. Fringe science, as in standard methodology, proceeds from theory to conclusion with no attempt to direct or coax the result.
If we assume those are fair enough guidelines, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, we have to prove a lax in rigorous application of science to show pseudo- and prove an agenda to show junk. The keyword there is *prove*. We have to make a case for it and can't go by an assumption that it's obvious. Certainly none of the articles here have proven that it's pseudoscience and certainly none of the sources listed have proven it either. There's a very simple reason for this. It's an ongoing debate. The debate was initialized by CSICOP in the 1970s and it's never been resolved conclusively. CSICOP has their fringe opinion, and paranormalists have their fringe opinion. Mainstream stays out of it. The key points are that it is ongoing, there are two fringe sides, and that we try to remain neutral even if we're wrong. We can report on the debate. We can source statements from both sides. The one thing we aren't supposed to do is determine the debate.
In other words, Wikipedia shouldn't move parapsychology *from* fringe *to* pseudoscience because it can't on it's own meet the requirement showing the guideline of a "lax of rigorous application of the scientific method" on it's own. To do so would require an essay. We don't write essays. It's a fair enough assessment to call it fringe and treat it as a fringe science, but we'd have to "prove a point" to make it pseudoscience. We can't just say it is.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of the situation.
I also want to reiterate Minderbinder's sentiment that this RfC does not reflect one way or the other on parapsychology and pseudoscience. It's just about Martinphi. That's why I raised the earlier objection of parallel disputes. One shouldn't determine the other. This should only be about Martinphi.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is still wanting to discuss their qualms with the list article, feel free to continue on the article's talk page. I'll be happy to join the discussion there. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm technically on Wikibreak. I might take it up in the future, though, because I think the problem can be easily solved by replacing the word "parapsychology" with "paranormal". Simple change of wording that doesn't reflect either way on a specific group of people, and doesn't even need a source because "paranormal" is so broad it can't be seen as pejorative against a specific group. I don't have the time to follow up on that, though. I'm sure it will take more than a simple request of wording change. I don't make WP:BOLD edits : )
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actually, no

Few of my edits or actions would be in question if parapsychology were acknowledged to be a field of science. Thus, this RfC is almost totally about the status of parikipedia follows the scientific consensus in a particular fieldapsychology. My behavior makes total sense if parapsychology is a field of science. If parapsychology is not a field of science, most of my edits are POV pushing. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin is right. Parapsychologists do consider their field a science and the majority of them are very qualified to conduct good science. Wikipedia is not the place to determine whether it is or not and I find it intellectually arrogant and irresponsible for faceless people hiding behind screen names to even consider making an official decision about a field of study. What are your qualifications? 75.54.119.206 01:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Tom Butler 01:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone arguing about whether the field is a science or not. The key concern is whether the field is generally considered a legitimate science by the mainstream scientific community. I'd cite parapsychologists and their supporters saying that this is not the case before citing scientific skeptics. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia presents, as I keep saying, not the general thoughts of scientists, but the consensus of scientists in a particular field. This is very, exceptionally and totally clear from the rules. Most or all of my edits which you consider POV come out of this understanding. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If this were true, nothing could be called pseudoscientific here (is there anyone who thinks this about their own field?). So that's not really a plausible interpretation. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It might sounds absurd to you but you have to follow policy as it states. If you think policy is wrong, propose to change it on Village Pump, don't push your POV here. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll note that I gave a negative evaluation to his interpretation, not the guideline itself. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wooyi, Simoes's comments are completely in agreement with policy, and you've admitted that your views (and Martin's) disagree with NPOV, particularly WP:Undue weight.

I should have said "scientific field," not field. You would call Astrology or creationism as pseudoscience, because there is a scientific consensus that they are pseudoscience. The debate is over whether parapsychology is a scientific field. If it is, then we present the consensus within it. But there are many other non-scientific or pseudoscientific fields which you would present as "minority views," that is to say, as pseudoscience. In actual point of fact, my interpretation of NPOV is probably the same as yours, we just disagree on whether parapsychology is a scientific field. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is not really that complex. I wouldn't call parapsychology a "pseudoscience", especially without a solid source to back me up. But even so, it's not a widely accepted, mainstream scientific discipline, AAAS notwithstanding. It's just not. It shouldn't be presented as one. Arguing that WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT mandate presenting paranormal topics as mainstream or majority/consensus science is Wikilawyering, and it concerns me that maybe we're not making any headway here. MastCell Talk 04:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, and I never did that. However, the skeptics are arguing that a) it must be presented as pseudoscience. And b) the general attitude of scientists in other fields is relevant to the specifics of parapsychology. In other words, what a botanist thinks about an experiment in parapsychology is actually more important than what a parapsychologist thinks. And we aren't making progress here, because people are asking me to say that I believe the skeptical POV, or else get banned (see Fyslee's threats above). I don't believe it. Neither do a lot of other people who have put opinions on here. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Martin gets to the heart of the issue here. What he is being asked to do is accept the sceptical editors' take on the rules as being correct. However, we are discussing this in the context of the worst of Martin's edits (albeit, not a particularly shocking list of examples). Nonetheless, we are looking at Martin's worst edits as produced by his opponents and he is being asked to change his ways on account of them. The problem is that Martin has made hundreds of other edits that are spot on NPOV wise and which have done much to tone down the pseudosceptic rhetoric and bring balance to a lot of articles. Yet, if he agrees here he will be prevented from making doing this in future.
The point being that if Martin agrees here, things will go something like this: sceptical editor inserts some extraordinary POV claim; Martin objects; Martin is directed to this RfC; the extraordinary POV claim remains in the article. It is not good enough, then, to look at Martin's worst edits alone. We need to see the context of those edits. And when we look at the articles Martin has been involved with we see horrendous POV pushing from the (pseudo)sceptics. One example, in the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts I recently removed the following: "Shamanism is a New Age movement that often involves questionable marketing practices, cultural biases, and plain fraud". That was it, that was "Shamanism". Unfortunately for Wiki, no it isn't. It bears no resmblance to what Shamanism is, as can be seen by the Wiki article Shamanism.
To recap, then, Martin has made some POV edits. But 99% of what he does helps attain NPOV. If some people don't want to have their editing disrupted then my suggestion, rather than ban Martin or force him to kowtow before James Randi (or whatever else they have in mind), is to not write things like "Shamanism is a new-age movement..." in the first place. As long as such contexts develop (and such nonsense is included in articles), it is essential for the credibility of Wiki to have editors like Martin. The occasional POV edit is a small price to pay.Davkal 09:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The status of parapsychology is a factor, but I'd say a relatively minor one in terms of his edits. He seems to think that declaring parapsychology a science is grounds for defining anything covered by that field as fact, which is absolutely contrary to wikipedia policy. Look at articles on topics within Physics or other fields of science. Theories which are only supported by a small group and have only been "proven" by a couple experiments, which haven't received scrutiny by others or reproduced by third parties are presented as minority opinions, not as established, accepted facts. A fringe concept doesn't become mainstream just because it is declared to fall under a particular "field of science", it is shown to be mainstream by wide reference of acceptance in mainstream sources. Not to mention that with a topic like EVP that involves electronics, radio waves, and other concepts falling under physics and other fields of science (particularly when claims are made that contradict accepted laws of physics and other sciences), we should only consider the concept to be accepted if the physicists accept it as well. It should also be noted that Martin's insistence that NPOV means by "scientific consensus" the consensus of only those within a particular field, in this case parapsychology, doesn't come from any wikipedia policy but from a definition in a wikipedia article. Based on what NPOV, FRINGE and other policies actually say, it's clear that it is talking about mainstream scientific opinion and not what a fringe group agrees on. Mastcell is spot on - interpreting "majority/consensus" as "majority of a minority" is wikilawyering, plain and simple. There seems to be a strong consensus at this RfC disagreeing with Martin's interpretation of NPOV - Martin, what will it take to convince you that your take on it is not what NPOV intends? This is what the "threats" are addressing - here at this RfC many editors are evaluating your edits and your take on NPOV and giving you advice on how to improve your interpretation of it and editing habits. If you refuse to listen to what other editors have to say and insist on continuing to violate NPOV, arbcom isn't going to give you friendly advice. They are going to force compliance with policy with blocks, bans, and other sanctions. It's up to you which method is used to stop your policy violation. --Minderbinder 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Martin's insistence that NPOV means by "scientific consensus" the consensus of only those within a particular field, in this case parapsychology, doesn't come from any wikipedia policy but from a definition in a wikipedia article. - Agree. The EVP example is a perfect illustration of his misunderstanding. In the case of EVP, the fields of Psychology and Physics (and subspecialties such as electronics, rf propagation and signal processing) directly apply, yet Martin insists that only Parapsychologists are appropriate to evaluate EVP ("You don't ask botanists about nuclear physics quantum mechanics"). From what I have seen, Martin is a highly intelligent person. For him to advance a basic logical fallacy such as the above is puzzling. -- LuckyLouie 17:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does Martin say that only parapsychologists' views are valid in relation to EVP?Davkal 17:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

He argues the equivalent. For examples, you can start with this, [12]. -- LuckyLouie 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I never never never said that. EVP is a completely different case. It is not part of any scientific field including parapsychology. Almost all my edits are on pages which probably fall under parapsychology. But the EVP article is a totally different case, and its connection to science is much weaker. There I merely argue that we should state only what the sources say. I also argue that we should give quite a bit of weight to the peer-reviewed articles published on the subject. But this is almost irrelevant to my overall editing history. Please don't get the EVP article mixed up with the parapsychology-as-a-science debate. I at one time argued that we could as editors decide to say that EVP falls under parapsychology- but I changed my mind. Even Tom Butler says this is not parapsychology.
As far as the other arguments above, they reveal a misunderstanding of parapsychology.
Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus in a particular field of science. This part of my argument comes directly from a guideline- follow the links I already gave. The definition of "scientific consensus" is the only part that is from another wikipedia article, and it is pretty standard. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From LuckyLouie "The EVP example is a perfect illustration of his misunderstanding. In the case of EVP, the fields of Psychology and Physics (and subspecialties such as electronics, rf propagation and signal processing) directly apply, yet Martin insists that only Parapsychologists are appropriate to evaluate EVP". Well, I suppose Martin did really say something a bit like this if you ignore what the words he used actually mean and invent your own meaning and put them in their place whcih we're entitled to do according to WP:IJUSTMADEITUP. Anybody know where WP:INTEGRITY is because I feel like citing it right now.Davkal 02:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Davkal. I'll grant you that Martin did retract his assertion that "parapsychologists" are the ones who study EVP. So now I honestly don't understand which "field" he believes studies EVP (and which "field" is the defining authority). -LuckyLouie 02:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What is it around here that keeps people from reading what others write? Here is what I just said: "I never never never said that. EVP is a completely different case. It is not part of any scientific field including parapsychology." What part of that is not clear????? Is there even any point in putting things in bold? Would a Vulcan mind meld help?? Would you listen if Randi came and said it? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
My point with EVP is that since conventional science hasn't studied EVP specifically, it is OR to act as if EVP has been decided- we just have to present what the proponents say and what the skeptics say- fully explicate both and let it stand at that. We fully explicate both equally, because this is an article on EVP, and EVP doesn't exist except it is a paranormal phenomena. So if we are going to write an article on a subject which only exists if it is paranormal, we have to give at least equal time to the paranormal claims. We cannot, however, just come out and say "this is bunk." We also cannot say "this is bunk" by innuendo. That is all I really have to say on this article: just don't decide things for the reader by any means other than the presentation of evidence itself. There is no question of parapsychology or of "fields", parapsychological or otherwise- I'm never interested in "fields" other than scientific ones, because they are irrelevant to the Wikipedia rules.
What I'm basically saying with that article is that we not give any weight at all to either side. That is because if we give any weight, to the paranormal claims or to the normal claims, we are doing OR. Still, this is the first case I've taken on like this. It is a case about which I've done less thinking. I am probably on much less firm ground with this argument than others, because there is the requirement that we don't give equal weight to small minority theories (which are not covered by their own scientific field). The problem here which makes the rule in need of interpretation is: Where is the majority, when science has totally ignored the subject?
And I reserve the right to change my opinion on this in the future. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE says: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." To do otherwise is to grant credibility through obscurity. What you call "not giving any weight" is another name for giving equal weight to both sides. We should only do that if both views are equally accepted by the mainstream, which is an assumption we can't make, particularly since one view makes extraordinary claims that contradict accepted scientific principles. And to talk about saying "this is bunk" is a strawman argument - nobody has proposed saying that. We just want to follow WP:Undue weight and not present topics as if they are accepted concepts when we have no evidence of that. It comes down to burden of proof - if something has weak evidence, it may be charactarized as insufficiently proven (in WP, insufficiently sourced) - it's not necessary to "disprove" it.
I note that you watered down the text in Dowsing [13], giving it a POV push in the direction of sounding more accepted. In the case of that article, the entire case for the topic having scientific acceptance is made by two studies, one published by the organization who did the study, and one which nobody seems to be able to figure out where it was published. --Minderbinder 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

JoshuaZ, you said, "I'm also profoundly disturbed that the website in question appears to be written by another user here who seems to engage in POV pushing. JoshuaZ 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)" Seraphimblade took that quote out of context. The title of the section is: "Techniques Used by Editors to Get Their Way." and it is a collection of what I have learned from the skeptical editors. I will add a few words to make that clear.

Nevertheless, I did write the article and I believe it is accurate. As I have stated before, I am looking forward to the day that I can change it to say that the skeptics have learned to negotiate in good faith. In the meantime, of course I am pushing POV by your interpretation of the POV rules. Since what is POV is a fundamental disagreement for almost all edit wars, a rational person would have to agree that there is something wrong with the way the rule is written. In fact, I think the skeptical editors are pushing a POV that is simply faith based fear of change, and I base that on my understanding of the rule. Your next move is to say that I obviously do not understand the rule, and I say back at you and the flight is on again.

Now, none of this has anything to do with the good work of Wikipedia, except to disrupt the work at hand and drive off good talent. I fear that the disruption will go on forever, because for each editor you all bump off, others will come along to want the articles changed. You must really like fighting. 75.54.119.206 01:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Tom Butler 01:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fact tag bombing

I note Minderbinder has added "fact tag bombing" to his list of complaints. Here are the examples provided (all from one article) with my analysis of the defintions in bold:

Séance is the act of gathering information from spirits. Simplistic, stupid, wrong

Materialization is the supposed creation of matter from nowhere and out of nothing by somebody's will power or concentration. Stupid, wrong

Spiritualism is the belief that communication with the dead can occur through the powers of individuals called mediums not bad, bit more detail and still needs source

Parapsychology is the study of purported paranormal phenomena stupid, wrong

Channeling is a supposed special ability of a person to receive information from a supernatural source simplistic, probably wrong (ie ESP could meet this defintion)

Dowsing is a paranormal ability to garner a simple, yes/no answer to almost any question. Stupid, wrong

I don't know what else one should do when coming across an article like this. Delete the lot and start again? Minderbinder also suggests that Martin was uncooperative and uncivil in his edit summary becuse he said he wasn't prepared to fix it and his previous deletions/changes were reverted. I ask again, when one comes across something as bad as this, what should one do?Davkal 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that you're calling things "stupid" and "wrong", might you explain how you came to those conclusions? Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they're stupid and wrong. Follow the links to the main Wiki articles and you can see why for yourself.Davkal 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same way these are:

Evolution: process whereby monkeys turn into men.

Physics: study of small things (occasionally big things as well).

Chemistry: study of how matter turns into other things or doesn't as the case may be.

Biology: things that are alive

Davkal 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the point of why I've mentioned these - if these need fixing, they should be fixed. Instead of improving the definitions or providing sources, he just dumped a load of fact tags along with edit summaries making it seem like he was doing it to make a WP:POINT. On an article like this, it's also not clear if the fact tag is asking for a source of the definion or a source saying the topic is pseudoscience, so tagging without explanation just leads to confusion. --Minderbinder 16:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point. The article is rubbish. It has been up for deletion and if I'd known I'd have supported deletion. Martin had already tried numerous ways to have things changed and the end result was this RfC and the nonsense you see above. And this raises another central point, it's really not a good idea to have articles dominated by a group of editors who know nothing about the subject matter. A quick glance at the Skeptic's Dictionary simply isn't going to give anyone the in-depth knowldege needed to write an article. And yet people who do actually know about such subjects are being driven off by promoters of what Carroll admits is not an attempt to provide a balanced account. The result is the kind of stuff you see above, and without the intervention of someone like Martin, stuff like that would have remained for who knows how long. Martin may be no saint, but Wiki is a better encyclopedia with him than it is without him. And that, surely, is what should be at issue here. Davkal 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"...- if these need fixing, they should be fixed." I have seen you war over such tags, so when you say something like that, shouldn't you end it with (Except for mine)?
I agree with Davkal assessment of the tags he listed. They are usually applied by people who only know the subject from such sources as the Skeptical Dictionary, and their use is often evidence that they do not understand enough about the subject to know whether it compares in that way.
This is looking like an inquisition because all of the reasons we are here now are being played out here. One of the complaints made by JoshuaZ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Martinphi/Paranormal_primer is precisely what is at the center of this discussion. That is, his complaint includes that martin wrote "Parapsychology is a scientific field" in his primer. There are statements in the EVP discussion to the effect that EVP cannot be spoken of in scientific terms because it is impossible and cannot exist. That viewpoint has put a wall up between those who think these subjects need to be explained as just how they are defined and those who wan to use Wikipedia to prove they cannot exist.
You who are just here supporting your skeptical buddies and really do not know what is going on, go to the EVP article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voice_phenomenon and do a word count for how many words are spent denouncing EVP as oppose to those saying what it is said to be. That article as about as unbalanced as any I have seen. Tom Butler 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I explained on the main page why I put the fact tags on the article. Basically, I did it because I have no reason to believe any edits I make to that article will not be summarily reverted. So I saved myself the trouble: I just put in the fact tags, and used the summaries to say what was wrong with the text- or give enough of a hint that even someone who doesn't know the subject could fix them. If anyone wants to tell me to AGF, go read WP:SPADE. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, if you're so adamant that cold reading doesn't fall under parapsychology, it looks like you need to set Annalisa straight (I thought you said you considered her an expert on parapsychology?). --Minderbinder 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I sent her an email, and will let her respond. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I think on that issue: Cold reading is not a pseudoscience or a pseudoscientific concept- for those of you who don't know, it is a magical method. It is studied by parapsychologists, true, but only so they can distinguish it from the things they truly want to study. It did not belong in the list. Thus, I took it out, and the change was reverted. BTW, if cold reading is a pseudoscience, you are accusing James Randi of being a pseudoscientist. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology is as much the study of psi as it is the study of 'what is not psi, but looks like it'. This means that in addition to psi, parapsychologists are interested in belief in the paranormal, subjective anomalous experiences, as well as the psychology of deception (i.e. magic techniques and Barnum effects)...among other things. You'd be surprised how we fill our little journals of pseudoscience.
Minderbender, if you have any questions as to my level of expertise, you are welcome peruse my CV. If you are familiar with academia, you might notice that my level of expertise in psychology is roughly equivalent to that that of a grad student. The only thing that I'm really an 'expert' at is teaching music.
I don't appreciate being dragged into this argument. That list of pseudosciences is one of the most hackneyed pieces of POV pushing that I've ever seen. The items on that list are so ridiculously random that I'm surprised that I haven't found my mom on there. Seriously, let this cold reading thing go, I'm halfway tempted to revert it back myself because having it on there makes the list look that much more thrown together and less likely that anyone will take it seriously. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Resist the temptation to add things just to make a point. --Minderbinder 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you are talking about. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was probably self-referential and is best ignored. Davkal 15:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

People are following this, right? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The link Martin includes here gets to the heart of the issue. In that discussion some poeple are arguing that the Wiki rule:

"If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance"

means that

"If reliable sources have not been found to indicate that mainstream science accepts an idea, mainstream science rejects it."

Now, it seems to me that there is a massive difference between these statements. However, I may be wrong, and so if Seraphimblade is correct, then I suggest we change the rule to make the point explicit. If, on the other hand, Seraphimblade is wrong and the rule does not mean that at all then it is clear that some of those who feel Martin has been engaging in POV editing and needs to understand what the rules mean, are only saying this because of their lack of understanding of those rules. Whatever the truth of the matter, Martin has either simply got the wrong end of the stick on account of an extraordinarily badly written rule and therefore has not done anything wrong deliberately, or else he understands the rules fine well and it is those who criticise him who need to amend their interpretations.Davkal 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

About "cold reading" - the way I understand it, cold reading is a technique used by purported psychics to make it appear that they are getting information from the subject by paranormal means. Thus "cold reading" itself is not paranormal or pseudoscience. It is a "normal" technique used to make it appear that there is really something paranormal. Bubba73 (talk), 21:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. Totally agree. However, having the Paranormal category on it would imho make sense, as it is linked strongly with paranormal claims (categories are supposed to group together related topics, not label a topic as being one thing or another); the pseudoscience category honestly doesn't make sense to me, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what the reference is to categories, but I agree. So it didn't make sense to have in in under the heading of parapsychology as a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific concept. Which is why I took it out. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I took it out. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
...from under parapsychology. I figured if you wanted to call magic pseudoscientific it really didn't hurt anything -no one would believe that-, but don't put it under parapsychology. See these edits: take it out from under parapsychology [14]. Change is then reverted, and I put in a citation retuest. Then Minderbinder actually wants to argue that cold reading is a pseudo science or concept, so he puts in a source [15], and Simoes later completely removes it on his own, aparently realizing that it should never have been there in the first place [16]. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You asked for a citation and I gave you one. If your intent wasn't to get a citation, you have been misusing the tag. It is intended to get a citation, not serve as a "I don't like this, but I'm out of reverts" tag. --Minderbinder 12:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Fact tags serve several purposes. It is a perfectly legitimate use of a tag to identify something that is highly contentious prior to removal. Especially if it has been reinserted after a prior removal. In this case, it seems to me, the whole rigmarole could have been avoided if the pseudosceptical side hadn't been hell bent on reverting virtually everything Martin does just to wind him up. Cold reading should never have been there.Davkal 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not a legitimate use of a fact tag. A fact tag means "provide a citation for this item"; it should not be used to flag "controversial" or disputed items. There are a wide range of other inline tags besides the fact tag (see here, for instance) which can be used to tag disputed items; use those instead. It makes it clear to other editors what the problem is. MastCell Talk 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So all this stuff from Wiki rules is just made up nonsense to be ignored then:

"If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing [citation needed] after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the [citation needed] tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. 2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material."

Davkal 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how that supports your claim that [citation needed] should be used to indicate that something is "highly contentious". Actually, what you've cited supports exactly what I'm saying - use [citation needed] to tag things which lack a source. If no source is forthcoming, you can go back and remove the item. If an item is both unsourced and potentially harmful, then don't bother with the tag and just remove it. If you think something is "contentious" or POV, then there are several approaches to deal with that, none of which involves the [citation needed] tag. MastCell Talk 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The rule states explicitly that if a claim is doutbful and unsourced you should tag it or remove it. That is exactly what Martin did. I think that once again, then, we see a fundamental muisunderstanding of the rules from those who are accusing Martin of breaking them. Both Minderbender and MastCell seem to think that it is inappropriate to ask for a source for unsourced contentious material when that is EXACTLY WHAT THE RULES SAY ONE SHOULD DO. Davkal 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And before we go down the horrendous equivocation route about the words "contentious" and "doubtful", lets look at the citing sources in a nutshell rule:
This page in a nutshell: Include citations to reliable sources to ensure verifiability when you add or verify content, especially regarding contentious issues and biographical material about living people.
Davkal 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying Martin shouldn't ask for sources. Milo was objecting to what he considered an overuse of fact tags to make a point - a process known as "fact-tag bombing". I'm not commenting on whether he's guilty of this or not, but I do think that the use of fact tags as a weapon in a content dispute is discouraged. That's all. MastCell Talk 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So, if Martin gets into a dispute with someone, he should just let them fill up the article with any old unsourced rubbish they feel like. Now we're back to the "doff your cap to me and go about your business otherwise we'll get you banned" argument. Martin was absolutely right to tag the dubious material and in this instance there is simply no case to answer.Davkal 18:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right. If people won't accept that their POVs or OR do not belong in the article, and are unwilling to source them on request, and are unwilling to let them be removed; and thus there is no possibility to attain consensus- what next-step option do you suggest besides fact tags? I don't have time to go to mediation or RfC for every sentence.
Secondly: If it were possible to provide a citation that cold reading is a pseudoscience or a pseudoscientific concept, then I would have been open to it. I thought it impossible, but I could have been wrong. So the citation request was used properly: it said, "this is a doubtful claim which needs a source." And of course the additional meaning that if no source is given it may be removed without any consensus.
What actually happened is that Minderbinder added a source which said that it was a term used in the field of parapsychology- but gave no indication that it was a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific concept. It was thus not a good source, but I let it slide anyway, rather than argue or delete the source and replace the tag.
As far as what MastCell says, if it is harmful just remove it, well, you try that on these articles. Any POV will do for reverting.
Overuse of the fact tag: yes, I use a lot of them sometimes, but that is an attempt to designate all the points which need sources; it is a guide to the sourcer that each item must be addressed. It is also an attempt to say that the thing should not simply be re-added -reverted- when I come back later and take it out.
I use these methods as a resort. My first action is to change or improve the article, if I think that will be allowed. Then I add citation requests. Then I come back and remove again. Then I threaten mediation- which is what worked with the List article. They didn't want mediation, because they knew I was right.

I should also say that I made the mistake of edit warring over this once, when people were trying to revert-in material which had had citation requests on it for many weeks, and after I had asked multiple times for sources on the talk page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Both Minderbender and MastCell seem to think that it is inappropriate to ask for a source for unsourced contentious material" Once again, you've ridiculously misrepresented what I said. As I said, I think that it's inappropriate to ask for a source for unsourced contentious material, and then be pissed when someone provides the source requested. Don't add a tag asking for a source if getting a source isn't what you want. --Minderbinder 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"So the citation request was used properly: it said, "this is a doubtful claim which needs a source." You say "used properly" but yet your use of it wasn't clear whether the request was for a source saying it was pseudoscience or whether it fell under parapsychology. Perfect example of what's wrong with just dumping a bunch of tags on an article without explaining the intent of them - it just causes confusion and wastes everyone's time. --Minderbinder 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's wholly appropriate to tag dubious (nonsensical claims), and then keep arguing once a non-source has been provided. A "non-source" being one which is cited but doesn't actually back up the point made in the article. And, if you don't know exactly why a fact tag is there, you could always use the talk page to ask. And and, your whole fact tag bombing complaint pretty much shows that you do think it inappropriate to tag in the first place. Remember your list, here it is again with my summary in bold afterwards:

Séance is the act of gathering information from spirits. Simplistic, stupid, wrong

Materialization is the supposed creation of matter from nowhere and out of nothing by somebody's will power or concentration. Stupid, wrong

Spiritualism is the belief that communication with the dead can occur through the powers of individuals called mediums not bad, bit more detail and still needs source

Parapsychology is the study of purported paranormal phenomena stupid, wrong

Channeling is a supposed special ability of a person to receive information from a supernatural source simplistic, probably wrong (ie ESP could meet this defintion)

Dowsing is a paranormal ability to garner a simple, yes/no answer to almost any question. Stupid, wrong

What would you have us do when confronted with nonsense like this? Wiki rules are quite clear - get rid of it, but Martin tried that and it came straight back. Then he fact-tagged it, and that was cited here as wrongdoing. Once again I think this is a clear example of the kind of unreasonable behaviour Martin has had to contend with on an almost daily basis. Davkal 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave the reason for the citation request in the summary. And in a sense you gave one. However, I assumed too much. I assumed that you would give a source that said not only that parapsychology has something to do with cold reading, but that it tries to study same as the primary object of research. Much the same as I would ask for a source if you tried to say that city lights are studied by astronomy. Sorry. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, technically "cold reading" has a listing in this book [[17]]. Here's a links that discuss cold reading with a couple of other parapsychological topics [[18]]. Also Chris Roe's CV on the PA site has him studying cold reading [[19]]. So I guess it isn't a primary object of research, but an object of research for parapsychologists (or at least the one above). Shot info 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It is an object of study, but the same way city lighting is for astronomers. But, it is not a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific concept; you would have to say it is a non-pseudoscientific concept covered by parapsychology. Or something. Anyway, it never belonged on the list. The fact tag should have communicated that. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered that it appears on the list because it is used as a technique by user's of pseudoscientific principles? (ie/ say John Edwards as an example). This is one of the points of WP's use of lists, to list items that have relevance. The article doesn't say cold reading = pseudoscience (the category below doesn't mean the same per WP:CAT before you start down that path) so why are you suggesting that it's appearance on a list means cold reading = pseudoscience? BTW, I was just offering some info based on your last comment rather than attempting to discuss more overarching questions, so forgive me if I seem to be jumping in and/or covering old ground. Shot info 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a better example: should radio-carbon dating be considered a pseudoscience under the category; Shroud of Turin?Davkal 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be justified that way in accordance with the intro. But that is not the way people are actually populating the list. And it should have been there on its own, not subbed under parapsychology. John Edward, for instance, isn't a parapsychologist. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, your citation request said "Request citation that cold reading is covered by parapsychology". When I gave a source showing that (from the PA website), now you insist that your intention was to ask for a citation demonstrating that cold reading is pseudoscience and that I somehow did something wrong by giving you exactly what you asked for instead of reading your mind? The more you go on about this, the more you demonstrate why dumping a bunch of fact tags causes more disruption than improving the article. --Minderbinder 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I assumed too much. I assumed that you would think that perhaps the source needed to explain why cold reading is covered under parapsychology, when parapsychology is included as a heading in a list pseudo's. City lights don't really belong in a "list of astronomical subjects," even if they belong in a list of "topics sometimes studied by astronomers." And if you and others allowed me to improve the article in a normal way, I would be more than happy to do so. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You gave a reason for the fact tag in your edit summary, and now you are insisting that your reason was different and that others should have somehow figured out that you meant a different reason from the one you said. Let this one go, and make your edit summaries clear in the future. --Minderbinder 11:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
On this point, let nobody be mistaken into thinking that Minderbinder did provide a source as he claims. The actual source he provided to say cold reading was part of parapsychology was simply a glossary of commonly used terms. Also on that list were agent, chance, control, electroencephalograph, goat, hallucination, hypnagogic state, hypnosis, intuition, judging, qualitative experiment, quantitative experiment, random number generator, sheep, veridical. So, even if Martin's edit summary was about providing a source for the cold reading claim, that point has still to be properly addressed.Davkal 12:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
My source was the glossary on the website of the parapsychological association [20]. Their description of that list is "Key Words Frequently Used in Parapsychology". If you disagree that cold reading isn't covered by parapsychology, you should take your beef to the PA. --Minderbinder 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I know it was, that's where I got the other terms above. And by reference to some of the things on that list, e.g., "agent", "control", or "judging", we can clearly see how wrongheaded it is to take that list to be a list of topics covered/studied by parapsychology. It is, by contrast, exactly what it says it is: a list of "key words frequently used in parapsychology".[21] If you have a beef with this, I suggest you start a campaign to have the meaning of "glossary" changed.Davkal 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Minderbinder, but what I've been trying to say in a really nice way is that I expected the person who filled the citaion request to exhibit some common sense. I've been trying to say that by giving examples. But the fact is that I could have been clearer, but I didn't know it wasn't clear. My bad, sort of. Again, if you came to a glossary on terms commonly used by astronomers, and it had "fog" listed, you wouldn't say that astronomers are engaged in the study of fog, or that the study of fog is astronomy. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So I guess you consider common sense=figuring out that you asked for one thing but really wanted another. You made a specific request and I provided exactly what you asked for. Your bad. Not "sort of". Your bad. Period. --Minderbinder 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. At this point I have to agree with Radiant's comment below - this RfC is not making anymore forward progress toward the goal of establishing harmony. I'd support closing it, and as the issues involved appear unresolved, pursuing another venue for dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at village pump

For those who haven't seen it already, I'd recommend reading the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#"Undue Weight" on NPOV policy, if for nothing else than examples of Martin's increasing hostility and unwillingness to accept the opinions of other editors. --Minderbinder 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you do go there - make sure you read Minderbinder's comments as well. Hostility, nastiness, equivocation, misquotation etc etc. Davkal 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely read the comments for all parties. I believe they speak for themselves. --Minderbinder 13:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Especially Seraphimblade's. And note that Minderbinder will not try to clarify the rules to reflect the interpretation he and other pseudoskeptics have been following, apparently because he knows they are not really the rules. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, it doesn't help discussions using phrases such as "he and other pseudoskeptics" at RfCs (and RfArb and the like). It is better to name the editors in question or not to use "and other....". Shot info 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to stoop to personal attacks like this, that discussion is over. --Minderbinder 16:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the final piece of posturing - as always. Once the argument has been lost, accuse the other of personal attacks and refuse to discuss the matter further. Let's face facts, for a long time now many of Martin's critics have been saying he will not follow the rules. Then it transpires that those critics are fundamentally mistaken about the very rules they keep citing. At what point is integrity going to surface here and the case be conceded, or do we really have to keep on arguing about whether the "not" in "not rejected" can safely be ignored such that it actually means "rejected". We all know that "not rejected" means something quite different from "rejected" but this is the level we have currently stooped to. Davkal 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Martin isn't going to be convinced regardless of what any number of editors have to say, which means that going to arbcom is probably inevitable. And are you really going to defend statements like this as not being personal attacks: "You taught me all I know about wikilawyering, and I would absolutely love to be half as good at it as you are, because I could really put to good use the power it unfortunately gives one around here. Coming from you, really, it is a compliment that you would think me capable of it, so thanks." --Minderbinder 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Let us look at things from Martin's point of view for a second. An RfC was launched against him by editors because of an alleged refusal to follow rules. Then, when the rules are clarified, it turns out that those accusing Martin are fundamentally mistaken about those very rules. How would anyone feel if they were harangued for weeks on end for saying that "not rejected" means something quite different from "rejected". It does mean something quite different, and it doesn't matter how many editors refuse to accept it. This is a simple fact that anyone with a cursory understanding of English can tell you. And now, rather than concede the point, the focus has turned on the "outrageous" personal attacks Martin is supposed to have made. And, looking at those supposed personal attacks they don't come close to half the stuff that has been directed at Martin by the accusers here. Give it up. Davkal 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So is that a "yes", you're defending that statement? --Minderbinder 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I am saying that "not rejected" differs in meaning significantly from "rejected". And secondly, I am saying that I have seen a hundred times worse from those accusing Martin.Davkal 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Davkal, I think you're losing sight of the actual reason for the RfC: his pattern of tendentious editing driven by his advocacy. The fact that he has a unique interpretation of WP:NPOV which is not shared by a consensus of editors, and which he refuses to abandon, has only complicated matters. --- LuckyLouie 20:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that you're defending that personal attack, since you feel that others have made worse statements and that's a valid reason for Martin to ignore WP:NPA? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your statement. --Minderbinder 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Re LuckiLouie's point. Maybe, but when his "tendentious" editing turns out to be ensuring Wiki rules on NPOV, Undue Weight, Fringe etc. are followed rather then horrendously breached then the word "tendentious" simply seems to be fall by the wayside. The answer here, IMO, is for those accusing Martin to read the rules and then, when they stop breaking them, Martin's edits in this particular area will no longer be required.
Re Minderbender's point. Of course you are misinterpreting me. In law there is a notion of precedent, and in that respect I am defending Martin's comments. That is, I am saying that if Martin has breached NPA, then his offence pales into insignificance alongside those that have been committed against him.Davkal 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the next step for this RfA?

There seems to be a clear consensus that Martin is misinterpreting NPOV and FRINGE, and that many of his edits have violated those policies. Martin has made it clear that he feels his interpretation is correct and he has done nothing wrong. He has also made it clear that he has no intention of changing his behaviour and it seems that no amount of feedback from other editors is going to change his mind.

At what point do we admit that this RfC has accomplished all that it can, and move on to the next stage of dispute resolution? If this isn't going to result in Martin stopping his policy violations, do we have any alternative ways of getting him to do so other than moving forward to the next phase of DR? I don't have much experience with RfC's so I'd appreciate input from those editors who do. Thanks. --Minderbinder 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus (def): agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole. So, if we ignore everyone who disagrees then it's a consensus alright. Or, maybe, the same rule that turns "not rejected" into "rejected" is being applied here. Please clarify.Davkal 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, Minderbinder, that after calling me a wikilawyer, twice, when I say that you are the one who taught me to be, then it is a personal attack. But it wasn't a personal attack when you called me a wikilawyer, something I've never called you. Not that I haven't heard it from multiple sources by email, even from editors who are considered totally neutral and help out in disputes as neutral parties. If you mean the "I'm calling you out on this," part, well, I'm calling you out on your interpretation of the rules. Get them changed, or stop mis-interpreting what is there.
No, you called me a wikilawyer, twice, and I just said that it is pretty rich of you to do that when you are worse. Saying that is not a personal attack. It's just the truth, and it it is also the truth that what I know of being a wikilawyer I learned from you, mostly, and others like Simoes. And in fact, I genuinely think that such true skill, -and I mean that, you are a real Jedi of the wiki- such true skill cannot go without its pride. So I think that it is a compliment from you. And I genuinely thank you. I may not like you and you may not like me, but at the same time I'm a gentleman, and I can see your skill and I can appreciate the compliment when you recognize skill in me. AGF!
What can I say that Davkal didn't? "At what point is integrity going to surface here and the case be conceded, or do we really have to keep on arguing about whether the "not" in "not rejected" can safely be ignored such that it actually means "rejected". We all know that "not rejected" means something quite different from "rejected" but this is the level we have currently stooped to."
No, I'm not going to be convinced that the rules say what Seraphimblade said they do, unless that is added to the rules. This should be easy if it is a correct interpretation. Please let ArbCom or any mediator note that I would be convinced if it were added to the rules.
My position in a nutshell: I edit out of my interpretations of the rules. I think it is obvious that either I am right, or the rules need clarification. And it is obvious that it would be easy to clarify the rules, if the interpretation held up by others is correct. My edits are justified under my interpretation of the rules, an interpretation which I share with others.
The accusations of tendentiousness are only the result of other editor's mis-interpretations of the rules. That is the sole reason I am accused of tendentiousness. Thus it is the other editors in this dispute who are truly disruptive and POV. Let me repeat -and here I am talking to mediators or ArbCom- that if the rules are made to clearly state the interpretation which those editors are upholding, then I will concede totally, and I will change my manner of editing. But I will not concede before, because NPOV and ATT are not subject to community rule. They are basic to Wikipedia, and without them Wikipedia does not exist.
I welcome the attention of a mediator, or ArbCom, on these issues. There is absolutely no case against me if I correctly interpret the rules. If I do not correctly interpret the rules, then the rules need to be amended for clarity. Here is the statement which should be added to WP:FRINGE according to Seraphimblade, which is the interpretation which others here have been following:
If reliable sources have not been found to indicate that mainstream science accepts an idea, mainstream science rejects it.
Other disputes with rules: see above; my statements involving the scientific status of parapsychology, and the way Wikipedia determines a scientific consensus, are not quite totally formulated to add here yet. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what other editors have to say in reponse to Martin's comments that he will only change his editing habits if the rules are changed. --Minderbinder 12:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a slightly disingenuous characterisation of Martin's point. Let us note that Martin is definitely not saying that he wants the rules changed in his favour or he will keep on disruptively editing until they are. And let us note that he is saying that if the rules are clarified such that his previous method of editing would have breached those clarified rules then he will immediately desist.Davkal 12:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's correct. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. There are WP:5P (which more often then not need interpretation), but otherwise the real rules of Wikipedia are crafted by precedent and meritocracy. Not to mention the possibility of vetoing everything by the WMF or Jimbo. So, if I'm still withing the consensus of the cabal behind this all, I'd say that evidence should be assembled and the whole issue escaleted to WP:RFAr. --Pjacobi 12:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But the dispute is about application of the 5 pillars, with one side editing out of a interpretations which are clearly in contraversion of the rules. They know this (at lest in the case of WP:FRINGE), or they would just make the rules clear- it's only a simple edit. Per Davkal below. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but interprting "not rejected" as meaning "rejected" stretches things beyond breaking point. This is why Martin is saying that he has no objection to the rules being changed to say "rejected" if that's what was actually meant - and if they are he will immediately follow those new/clairified rules. But when the rule currently says "not rejected" he will not be convinced by any number of editors that "rejected" is a suitable/plausible/possible interpretation as things stand.Davkal 12:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct on all points: I won't be convinced that a clear rule means its opposite. The rule needs to be changed or obeyed. The disputes over whether Parapsychology is a field of science and and whether we present the views from within a scientific field, or present the views of botanists as relevant to quantum physics, also needs to go to ArbCom. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole "rejected" = "not rejected" thing is a moot point since nobody has ever edited any of the articles in question to say that the topic has been rejected (If I'm wrong, correct me with a diff). The policy in question says that in the absence of scientific sources, we should assume "not accepted" which is how many editors have been trying to edit these articles, in contrast to Martin (and a few others) who want these articles to be written from the fringe/minority point of view. --Minderbinder 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It is absolute nonsense to say nobody has edited to act as if "not rejected" = "rejected." Look at EVP. Also, since we write from the majority POV, the article according to the current rule should be written primarily from that POV, (without taking sides on whether the phenomenon is real), and the skeptics relegated to their own section whose weight should be commensurate with their prominence, which is rather small in the case of EVP. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As a neutral outsider, it would seem to me that there are lot of people who have problems with Martin's behavior. I would suggest going to the community sanction board and requesting a topical ban, prohibiting Martin from editing pages related to paranormal issues for the next few months, and requiring him to instead discuss his view on the relevant talk pages. This matter seems reasonably clear-cut, and with some more experience talking to people Martin may gain better understanding of such Wikipedia values as NPOV. >Radiant< 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You think I haven't talked to people? Look at the talk pages. It is clear cut if you ignore opposing views. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
At this point we need to decide if CN or arbcom would be more appropriate. While CN would solve the immediate problem of Martin's NPOV POV (correction, sorry for the typo) editing on these topics, he has made it obvious that he has no respect for the opinions of other WP editors and is simply convinced he is Right and the majority is Wrong. I'd like to think that talking to people might help him realize that he is misinterpreting policy, but I suspect it may take someone in a position of authority to spell it out for him before he admits that he has been POV pushing. Thanks for your opinion, I'd like to hear what other editors feel about CN versus arbcom. --Minderbinder 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Minderbinder, I think that editors are worn down by the sheer volume of backbiting, rhetoric, spin, and counter-spin, and at this point are probably no longer reading the pages and pages of debate this RfC has generated. Give it a couple of days, and if there is no admin response here, pursue the arbcom option. Arbcom is preferable to CN in that there is continued attempt to shift focus away from user misbehavior and onto interpretation of WP policy. -- LuckyLouie 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you describe my editing as NPOV, Milo. The truth will out. Our unconscious minds sometimes get the truth in edgewise, the more so when we are attempting to deny it outwardly. Shifting this to interpretation of policy is what I want (since all my edits proceed from this interpretation). I'd just love to see what ArbCom thinks of Seraphimblade's interpretation. I'd just love to see if they really think EVP is not biased toward a minority. I also want their decision on the status of Parapsychology. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"It is absolute nonsense to say nobody has edited to act as if "not rejected" = "rejected." " That should be easily demonstrated. Show us a diff of someone editing the article to say that EVP is rejected by mainstream science (or any of the other articles in dispute, for that matter). And if you're so eager to go to ArbCom, you can certainly make the request for a case there yourself. --Minderbinder 21:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That isn't exactly what I said. Davkal explained it perfectly above. The articles are written that way by givng not-so-subtle hints, sometimes even as obvious as "there is no scientific evidence of...," and by giving a huge ammount of undue weight to the skeptical position. But maybe someone could take some time and come up even with diffs you want. As for why the above formulation is not correct, it has to do with what is scientific evidence. Because basically, science isn't about journals, but about experiments. Also, saying "there is no" is OR. One could say "Any evidence for [EVP] is not generally recognized in the scientific literature" or some such, and that is what we the horrible paranormal POV pushers have been trying to say. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget, we are in WP, where WP:RS and WP:V apply. This tends to bias all articles to the published scientific viewpoint (especially RS). Shot info 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
So Martin, you admit that the articles haven't said that the topic was rejected, your objection is that it implied rejection, which is a personal opinion and interpretation on your part. Yet the policy says we can and should make clear that science hasn't accepted the topic - statements like "there is no scientific evidence of..." is both accurate and consistent with that policy when the sources support statements like that (and in this case they do). Rejection would be something along the lines of "scientific evidence shows that X doesn't exist...". As for undue weight, if we follow policy and make the necessary assumption that mainstream science hasn't accepted the topic, that is the mainstream position and the one that should be given prominent weight in the article. And while "experiments" are important, we can only accept the results of those published by reliable sources, so yes, "journals" are important. Or are you saying we should violate WP:RS and use unpublished/self published/unreliably sourced experimental info? You keep insisting that your edits are based in policy, but when you're pressed for details, you admit that the "rejection" you've been alleging is really just "not accepted" filtered through your biased POV. --Minderbinder 22:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The articles do say it, for example, the EVP article said for a while (until we changed it, repeatedly) that there were "scientific explanations for EVP", and the Dowsing article (the one that was on your watch list for months unchanged) said, "despite scientific refutation...". The simple fact is that at every stage the pseudskeptical minority view is being presented as scientific consensus. Davkal 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There are "scientific explanations for EVP" (sourced in the article) and I don't see what's wrong with saying that. That's not the same as "science rejects EVP" or "science has disproved EVP". The fact is, explanations have been proposed based on scientific principles and based on ghosts and aliens. And it's a reasonable assumption (and one that WP says we should make) that the mainstream accepts the explanations that follow the laws of science over the ones that contradict them. With dowsing, "despite scientific refutation..." was cited with an example of refutation based in science (although I'm sure you dispute that). And I'll note that you edited Dowsing to say "While a major scientific study of dowsing concluded that a "real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven", some scientists and skeptics still find no basis for dowsing, many people continue to believe in its efficacy." (Ironically describing this reversal of what the source says as "aligning with what the sources say") So let's look at that. Based on one experiment, you lead with a statement about the topic being "empirically proven", then follow it with "some" scientists and skeptics dispute that? --Minderbinder 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Until scince says "X" in a peer review journal science hasn't said it. To say there are scientific explanations for EVP is simply not true. You may feel, after having read a few science books that you can come up with something that explains EVP but, fortunatelyt, scinece requires a bit more than that.Davkal 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the diff shows the manner in which you tried to capture the essence of the only modern day scientific study into dowsing. You pretended it didn't exist - you removed all mention of it and instead focused on a statement from a pseudoscpetical magazine of your liking.Davkal 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Which diff shows I removed all mention of which study? --Minderbinder 23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This edit here, which removes my horribly pro-paranormal account of the scientific evidence ("inconclusive"), and replaces it with a blanket statement of scientific rejection from the Church of ScientIsm's (CSI) magazine, while at the same time conveniently not mentioning that the only scientific study (the one the CSI article is about) concluded strongly in favour of dowsing. [[22]] Davkal 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
My edit was a revert of your calling the consensus "inconclusive" based on ONE disputed study which doesn't seem to be peer reviewed, not reproduced by others, and you sourced it to the article giving detailed arguments of why it was flawed. After the revert of this unacceptable POV, I followed it up with improved wording shortly after [23] (gee, there's the "not accepted" wording FRINGE recommends). If it only takes one questionable study to call a topic "inconclusive" you might as well go to Earth and put the Flat Earth theory in the opening paragraph, I'll be they have at least as many sources insisting they're "proven" right as the dowsers. The whole "church of scientism" rhetoric doesn't really elevate the debate either.
And your diff doesn't show any removal of mention of any studies. Did you paste the wrong diff? --Minderbinder 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole ordeal is really too much for me to deal with due to my busy schedule as well as the fact it's unlikely to make any real difference. I think a RFA would make more sense.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Minderbender, you asked for diffs. Here is a link to the EVP article as it was a few days ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_voice_phenomenon&oldid=118048052 You will note the following.

"Different scientific and naturalistic explanations have been put forward, including..." and

"Paranormal explanations for claimed instances of EVP are generally rejected by those outside the paranormal community..."

Which means that science has offered explanations (it has not) and the paranormal explantions have been rejected (they have not). And, if you care to look at the Dowsing article from a few days ago, you will see that it said "Despite scientific refutation" (there has been none). This is an ongoing claim that is made almost everywhere on the basis of a few articles published in (pseudo)scepti magazines.. Davkal 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Davkal knows a lot more about the specifics than I do, as he has been more deeply involved in the EVP article. But don't forget the undue weight. The skeptics deserve about 5% or at most 10% of the article, not the huge sections they have now. However, I would not be opposed to large criticism sections, if the rest of the article were not subtly biased. For instance, those who record and investigate EVP are called "enthusiasts" instead of experimenters. It isn't like an experiment is always scientific. I could come up with a lot more if I went and looked closer at the article, or previous versions. One version said:
"Some who believe in the paranormal say that the sounds thought to be EVP are caused by psychokinesis or the voices of spirits, but mainstream explanations of claimed instances include such things as pareidolia or radio interference. [8] According to psychic enthusiasts Alexander MacRae and Judith Chisholm, EVP is a probe of the fifth dimension where spirits reside[9][10] [6].[7]. Claimed instances of EVP are typically brief, the length of a word or short phrase, though longer examples are also claimed.[11] They are, without exception, in a language understood by those present at the time of recording.[6]
As with all paranormal phenomena, the existence of EVP is disputed by skeptics and the scientific community and the research programs devoted to EVP are described by the mainstream as pseudoscientific. [12] To date, attempts to replicate EVP under laboratory conditions have generated a variety of inconclusive data and null results, and no peer reviewed literature exists to validate its existence. [8]" Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circle

This debate appears to be going around in circles by now. I would indeed suggest taking it to another forum, and from the above it would seem that mediation is unlikely to help, so that leaves CN and the AC. >Radiant< 09:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. MastCell Talk 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems obvious that Martinphi is not willing to accept any recommendations made here. Is there a way to officially close RfC's, or does it just sit here while the next stage is moved on to? --Minderbinder 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't solve this by banning me. Take it to ArbCom and have them decide the policy issues. All my edits are from policy. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no official protocol for closing an RfC. Someone just moves it to the archive, as long as no one feels strongly that it should remain open. I think asking ArbCom to take on the case is a logical next step; hopefully, they will agree to do so. MastCell Talk 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed. Either people decide to take the issue elsewhere and move the RFC to the archive, or debate eventually dies out and someone uninvolved will move it to the archive at some point. >Radiant< 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom

A case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. I assume additional editors may want to add themself or others as involved parties, otherwise participate, or follow along. --Minderbinder 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)