Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Sources - objection to wording

I have an objection to the current wording under the subsection Sources [1]. This overemphasizes academic sources, and this could cause problems in the future. Please see the problematic issues with this overemphasis, as laid out in my evidence in this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Financial_conflict_of_interest_in_source_material.

Durova (talk · contribs) commented about this at the Workshop page for Prem Rawat 2 case: Actually, there are occasions where the role of scholarly sources might be overemphasized. Would you trust scientific research about the health effects of tobacco that was funded by tobacco companies? I'd be more interested in an investigative report on the tobacco industry's campaign financing practices, which no academic journal would be likely to cover but a good mainstream newspaper would publish. Not everything worth our attention occurs within the ivory tower.

John Nevard (talk · contribs) also made a pertinent comment: an article on the effects of smoking on heart disease in a journal from several decades ago by a research scientist dependent on funding from the tobacco industry may have questionable value. In the same way, a journal article by a specialized social scientist dependent on good relations with new religious movements might be more clouded by subconscious bias than a well researched feature by a journalist for a heavyweight paper who will be on another story next month. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns raised here by Cirt. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints are covered, and as long as a source is considered reliable by our standards, there should be no problem with usage of a source--especially in cases where the information is readily verifiable by multiple reliable sources. It is dangerous to make generalizations here because situations vary from case to case, and the wording as it stands could be used to subvert the use of legitimate sources. Furthermore, there is a difference between using scholarly sources for a field such as physics or linear algebra, than doing so for social sciences or religious study, which tend to be less rigid. The trouble with such wording was discussed in another ongoing arbitration case: Jayen466 proposed (see "1") a principle for the Prem Rawat 2 arbitration case, citing a Cold Fusion principle as a precedent; Durova pointed out that the principle cited "may not be broadly applicable outside science disputes." ←Spidern→ 07:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a comment on this specific case, nor a response to the objections raised. However, it is relevant to note that a similar principle recent passed unanimously on the Ayn Rand case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Neutral point of view. Vassyana (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked this a bit over a heading of "Quality of sources" and added the "Ayn Rand" principle to cover use of sources, as "Neutrality and sources". — Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ayn Rand principle you cite may not be appropriate in this case. We are talking about a field where (unlike cold fusion or Ayn Rand) the number of engaged academics is relatively small, and the subject of the debate (again unlike cold fusion or Ayn Rand) has made strenuous legal and financial efforts to influence what others say about it.

A case in point: Oxford University Press has just this month published a book called Scientology, a collection of essays by a number of scholars. The first essay is a condensed history of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology by J. Gordon Melton, a controversial sociologist who has been criticised for conflicts of interest such as acting as a consultant and expert witness for the groups about which he writes (including Scientology). His history of Scientology - which he falsely describes as the "generally agreed facts" - is riddled with the most basic factual errors. For instance, he says that Hubbard sank a Japanese submarine during World War II, a claim which Hubbard made but which is supported by no historians of the US or Japanese navies, and was specifically rejected by the US Navy itself, as well as Hubbard's unofficial biographers. Melton mentions none of the contradicting evidence and cites no sources for his claims. It's an atrocious piece of work and I'm frankly amazed that it got through OUP's editorial processes. The problem is that, under the principle you cite, Melton's work could be given a higher standing than most of the (better sourced) works which contradict him, even though Melton is the exact equivalent of the tobacco scientists mentioned by Cirt.

Your principle assumes that academic researchers work to a higher standard of objectiveness and factual accuracy than non-academic sources. The problem is that for this specific topic area, that is not always the case because of the degree to which the Church of Scientology has sought to guide academic opinion (see the quote that begins with "12" at [2]). There is no parallel to this effort in the Ayn Rand or cold fusion topic areas. Failing to recognise that will seriously undermine the integrity of articles in this entire topic area. Your principle also makes no effort to define what "the best and most reputable sources" are, and all I can see it achieving will be merely shifting the argument to what sources editors consider to meet those criteria - I can tell you straight off that there will be very polarised views on this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that ChrisO is one of several editors in this field who have disclosed that they are involved in what scholars term online propaganda efforts against Scientology outside Wikipedia, and/or who have linked to their own sites as sources. Jayen466 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How about responding to questions such as the one I've posed below, rather than attempting to slime people? I might add that the editor whose you're citing was banned for harrassment - I don't think it's an example you want to follow. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you both stop the ad hominem stuff? — Roger Davies ^talk 10:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't the first time that Jayen has made ad hominem arguments when his positions have been challenged. He did exactly the same thing a few weeks ago, without provocation, on Talk:Scientology - see [3]. I had hoped this arbitration would convince him to stop doing this but evidently it hasn't. I regard it as a bad-faith tactic - note Jayen's last line in the diff I've quoted, which reeks of bad faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• As I pointed out to Durova, similar principles were used in two Sai Baba cases. The idea that academic sources are relevant for natural sciences, but don't matter in the social sciences has been voiced before, and soundly rejected. As for the allegation of financially tainted scholarship, this is a matter for the academic establishment to decide, not for us to decide. Fringe groups in all kinds of areas have alleged that the entire scientific establishment is involved in a conspiracy to suppress the truth. That is all fine, but as long as the scholars concerned publish the field's standard reference works via such publishers as Oxford University Press, the Gale Group, Greenwood Publishing and Encyclopaedia Britannica, and their works are required reading in university courses throughout the English-speaking world, I consider any attempt to exclude such sources moot. Anyways, the whole conversation between Durova and myself is here. Jayen466 10:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's a strawman argument. The issue is not that all academic sources are "tainted", as you put it: it's that some academic sources may in some cases be of inferior quality to some non-academic sources. Go back to that specific example that I cited. Melton, the academic source, says Hubbard sank a Japanese submarine. (He gives no citations for that claim). No naval historian supports the claim. The US Navy has specifically rejected the claim. Two non-academic sources, Miller and Atack, also specifically reject it and give numerous citations for their argument. Which source would you cite as authoritative and why? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have not the slightest doubt that some peer-reviewed sources are way better than others and that some authors of some peer-reviewed publications are considerably more partisan than others. However, that is not unique to Scientology and they can only be evaluated on a publication by publication basis. I note what you say about polarisation but this topic is already abundantly polarised and it's the polarisation that makes agreement so difficult not deficiencies in policy. The key thought here is that Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth (whatever "truth" is) and that it is not the job of ArbCom to trash academic reputations: that trashing can be done perfectly well by other academics writing in other peer-reviewed sources. Sorry, but I don't see a magic bullet here for this other than getting the editors to step back a bit. — Roger Davies ^talk 10:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, though, that's begging the question. You're assuming that peer-reviewed sources (and I don't actually know if the work I'm citing has been peer-reviewed) are better than non-peer-reviewed sources. That may be true generally across the full range of all peer-reviewed sources on all subjects, but it isn't automatically true in this particular field, not least because the number of sources is actually quite limited. In the case of the example I quote, you have a possibly peer-reviewed source which lacks citations and asserts facts in opposition to several non-peer-reviewed mainstream sources which do provide citations for their arguments. So what do we do? Do we just roll over and say "even if we know this is a fringe view with no support from any other sources, it's an academic source so must be included"? There has to be some commitment to basic factual accuracy, surely? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You suggest that it is "not the job of ArbCom to trash academic reputations"; please note that nobody is suggesting that you do any such thing. I believe that both academic and other sources can be sufficiently represented in accordance with WP:NPOV. However, giving preference to one over the other has the unintended potential side effect of discouraging the use of otherwise reliable sources, which are abundantly verifiable. For example, on the talk page of Osho, Cirt pointed out that 28 sources described the deportation of Osho. Jayen466 still objected to the word usage of "deportation", and insisted that "more reliable" sources be used in their stead. Ideally, both viewpoints could be represented in a neutral way if in-text attribution of a claim is present. If a source is already deemed reliable by policy, what is the point of precluding or limiting the use of them in favor of views which are held by a handful of scholars? ←Spidern→ 12:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Church of Scientology

This finding of fact is extremely appropriate and warranted. I note that a version of this was already adopted by the Arbitration Committee in the COFS case, namely Conflict of interest, Responsibility of organizations, Multiple editors with a single voice, and most specifically, Use of Church of Scientology-owned IPs.

I question this comment [4] by Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) - and ask upon what evidence Cool Hand Luke is basing this on. For one, I am not a contributor to the Operation Clambake website. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Editors using Church of Scientology equipment are focused on Scientology-related articles, [5] and frequently engage in sockpuppetry to avoid sanctions [6], [7]. The Church of Scientology's influence on articles relating to it on Wikipedia has been widely reported internationally by the media since 2005, damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality (examples: The Guardian, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Der Spiegel, The Independent, Forbes and Reuters).

---

It should also be noted that this is simply a Finding of fact - and that everything stated in this above text is factual, accurate, and backed up by evidence. Cirt (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're a top-notch editor in this area, and I think that many other editors in this case should be given significant sanctions.

I will not impute an irrevocable COI to everyone who has ever edited from a COFS IP address, just as I will not do so for everyone who has ever contributed to Project Clambake. The COI guideline doesn't work that way. I would support a different finding but not one that's setting the stage for an unprecedented IP range topic ban that will permanently subject every pro-Scientology editor to checkuser. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Cool Hand Luke - do you dispute the factual accuracy of any part of this Finding of fact ? Cirt (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact also must be relevant. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of my statement—that many Wikipedia users and admins are prolific anti-COFS contributors off-site? None of these sweeping statements would be included in a proposed decision unless they were operative, and at this time I oppose both and note the apparent bias of the finding.

This finding would not be relevant to the case unless sanctions against the church's IP ranges are proposed. As it turns out, Roger has proposed such sanctions, and I strongly oppose them as well. I would support a finding of fact that users X, Y, and Z have edited from these ranges (and that doing so, in conjunction with using an SPA and POV editing shows the hazards of apparent COI editing). But this finding of fact has no place in the case, and neither does the upcoming remedy.

Tip to editors who have ever used a COFS range: think of something clever to say, because they might be your last words on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)