Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:30, 10 November 2010 (Archiving 29 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Archive 1.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comment by User:Iamthebob, semi-involved (in a sense)

Note: This is the first time I had ever made a section like this. I hope I have not made a mistake with dividing my comment into sections or having placed any sections in the wrong place.

Background Information

Summary: my interest in this argument and how I got involved in the pseudoscience argument in the first place

My relation to this topic does not originate in the "creation of the universe" debate, but rather a debate I had with User:Tommysun in Talk:Crop circle regarding much of the same issues: pseudoscience, NPOV, undue weight, and so on. On the way, I picked up much of what I will present now through my own research from WP:NPOV, Pseudoscience, the research I did on crop circles, and what Tommy said. Most of the things that I know about the subject of cosmic infaltion, tired light, etc. come from what I read in the past two days; I do not have comprehensive knowledge in this area. The examples given in this section may not be accurate in terms of what actually happened, but are there serve to make a point about pseudoscience and Wikipedia. This was written over a period of hours throughout the entire day in periods of free time.

Pseudoscience is not well defined

Summary: the idea of pseudoscience is objective, and is based of what a person believes.

Problem: Look at its talk page and you see what I mean; there is no agreement on what exactly is pseudoscience and what is not, everyone thinks what they are doing is correct. People who are studying what most scientists would consider "pseudoscience" believe the opposite, as do the people who read their works and believe in what they do. Meanwhile, the people who side with mainstream science have difficulty why the pseudoscience is in fact pseudoscience and not just something that they are not willing to believe in because it seems implausible. And that is exactly the case, there is no real definition of pseudoscience. What happens is that when a person studies something carefully and in depth to the point where he/she believes all arguments about it, all contradicting view immediately becomes plain out incorrect and stupid, and as a result pseudoscientific, since science does not do things that are stupid and incorrect.

Policy on WP:NPOV is not specific

Summary: there is a lot of ambiguity about what viewpoints are significant and what sources are reliable.

Problem: The controversy over NPOV lies almost exclusively over this single sentence, found in WP:NPOV#Undue weight:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

The following problems exist:

  • What viewpoint is "significant?": Everyone thinks their own viewpoint is the most correct, and is significant. But when a person thinks that another person's view is incorrect, he believes it to be insignificant (since it is "obviously wrong"). This prblem leads to the next one.
  • How prominent is each point of view?: We are supposed to "represent all significant viewpoints … in proportion to the prominence of each." How prominent is the Big Bang theory as compared to other theories? What is prominence, anyways? The general population believes in very different things than the scientif community (take the topic of evolution, for example). In addition, each point of view requires description of the point of view; keeping two POVs in a single article either requires excessive explanation of the majority POV—or insufficient explanation of the minority POV. There isn't really a good way of designation of how much of each POV to put any given article.
  • What is a "reliable source?": Exactly what the questions asks, how reliable does something need to get to be reliable? It's obvious that a personal website on Geocities or Tripod is not reliable, but what is reliable? Does it need to be published in a scientific journal? Which scientific journal? Many viewpoints aren't published in scientific journals because they are thought to be pseudoscience. Does that mean they really are pseudoscience? What about websites in general? Is the website of a anti-inflation group a reliable source? What about a site written by a pro-inflation author? For that matter, are major news websites like CNN reliable? And books? If a book is published, does that mean that it is reliable? Books are often highly POV in order to sell well. "Reliable source" is a purely subjective term and should probably be replaced with something more specific.

Extremeists are all the same

Summary: the problem with people and Wikipedia is that edit wars will occur whenever opposing sides believe strongly in an issue.

It doesn't matter whether you take someone who takes a point on a majority view, or a point on the minority view, if the person holds strong to their beliefs, no productive work will get done on the Wikipedia article due to edit wars. People are not willing give away article space to the other viewpoint, they are not willing to listen to others, but boldly stide around proposing that their own viewpoint is correct. This is with both sides in this argument, both with people who support the big bang theory, and with those that oppose it, and it is what causes the massive edit wars, which is fueled even further because of the NPOV policy of undue weight. This is a problem with all of Wikipedia, not just this specific instance of it, because when people see that they can edit the encyclopedia that is read by millions of people, they add their own viewpoints to it and improve on it, while people on the other side refuse to let the viewpoint be heard. I have no idea what to do with this problem, though.

Request for Clarification Feb 2009

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Xasodfuih

It has been recently pointed out to me that "ArbCom does not rule on content". Is this a newer policy that invalidates/vacates the pseudoscience decision which allows for the categorization (and presumably sub-categorization) of pseudoscientific claims and theories?

Diets making pseudoscientific claims are often described as fad diets by scientific associations; for instance, the American Dietetic Association has a list here. In a recent discussion however, the fad diets category has been deleted with the main argument that it's "not NPOV because what is fad is inherently POV" (not an exact quote). Surely, the same argument can and most likely was made about the more general pseudoscience category before the ArbCom previously. So, does the pseudoscience decision still stand? Is it WP:NPOV to have Category:Pseudoscience? Is it WP:NPOV to have sub-categories for pseudoscience, such as Category:Fad diet if major scientific organizations use them? Thank you for your time. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I've read Wikipedia:Arbitration policy carefully, and I don't see a limitation on the scope of ArbCom rulings to content, but only a caveat that you usually don't rule on it: "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." Since a prior content-related decision has been made in this area, I think that clarifying it will not violate the current policy. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Risker: User:Good Olfactory was the closing admin for the original Category:Diet and food fads discussion, and the admin who speedily deleted (G4) my (inadvertant re-)creation of Category:Fad diet. User:Jmh649, who like me has not taken part in the (unadvertised to relevant WikiProjects) original discussion, asked Good Olfactory to reopen the discussion, but the admin declined without further commentary. I don't see how the unexpressed thoughts of the closing admin override the rationale(s) given in the original deletion discussion. As for redundancy, surely we have Category:Science, but that does not make more specific categories such as Category:Fringe science or even Category:Pseudoscience redundant; I think the reasoning same applies to diet topics. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example (possibly clarifying the difference between this issue and the other related request on this page): Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that the potentially derogatory term "fad diet" is attributed (to ADA) in the wiki article's text, not given as a bare fact. I don't see however a practical way to do that for Wikipedia categories. I assume the 2006 decision struggled with this matter too, hence the wording "generally considered pseudoscience". I'm all for discussing whether a certain diet meets the "generally considered" standard for categorization, but the deletion of the category preempts any such discussion from taking place. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2: The finding I'm citing from the famous 2006 ArbCom has been incorporated into Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories. (I'm surprised that nobody pointed this out to me.) So, there's probably not much else that the Committee can do in this matter. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was added to NPOV on Feb 12, 2009, that's why many don't know about it. Thanks, John! Xasodfuih (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

Other current discussion related to that CFD exists at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23#Category:Fad diet. GRBerry 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

To be honest, this has puzzled me as well. ArbCom traditionally don't rule on content or validate policy and guideline apart from the main summary of the non-negotiables (e.g. the main gist of NPOV, BLP, and NFC). A little bit of clarification would be nice. Sceptre (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

  • Archiving in approximately 12 hours--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment to Xasodfuih: Have you discussed the closure of this CfD with the administrator who closed it? The closure of that CfD may have nothing to do with the term "fad" and may be related to the fact that the articles within the now-deleted category were all present in Category:Diets, as noted by one of the other participants. Risker (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment below in the context of the previous request for clarification of this same decision, is also generally applicable here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two clarification requests at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience that may be helpful to read. 1 2 Following the most recent of those clarification requests, the Pseudoscience section of NPOV was lifted from the FAQ. Note that a similar section was moved from the NPOV page to the new FAQ subpage in mid-2006, and the Arbcom ruling was included there in March 2007. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversial category names are tricky. The specific example of "fad diets" should be left for deletion review to take care of (though is it not possible to use another name for such things, or subcategorise diets another way?). The general approach to controversial categories should be to improve the articles first so that it is clearer (with source) as to whether the articles should be in such categories. And if the category is deemed appropriate, to come up with a category definition to keep things under control. Not quite sure what diets have to do with pseudoscience, though. They may claim to have a scientific basis, but that doesn't make them a science or pseudoscience. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, I feel this is no longer a matter for the Committee to clarify or handle. The "pseudoscience" section of policy predates the arbitration case. The reference to the principle formulated during the case was added to official policy almost two years ago by normal policy editing.[1] It appears the community has taken ownership of the principle, or rather that it has been incorporated into policy by normal means. Thus, it should be handled like any other point of policy. (Additionally, I am concerned that remaining open to ArbCom clarification on the principle turns the Committee into a content adjudicator for disputes surrounding it.) Discussions about its appearance and application in policy should be discussed at the neutral point of view talk page and/or policy village pump. Requests for input and clarification regarding its application to specific cases should be discussed at the NPOV noticeboard and the appropriate article talk pages. Dispute resolution should be used to help resolve any impasse. Vassyana (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

  • Not really applicable: see below. Post made at WT:NPOV.

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

This case is quoted within WP:NPOV, which makes this slightly awkward wording unfortunate:

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I'd suggest that this be changed to something such as:

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a significant following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Obviously, clear pseudoscience exists where one or two supporters could be considered (broadly) part of the scientific community. For instance, Michael Behe is a university professor in biology, and a supporter of intelligent design, which huge numbers of sources confirm to be pseudoscience. His colleagues have even put up a webpage on the university server ([2]) stating that intelligent design "should not be considered scientific". A little clarification here would prevent wikilawyering. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seddon

It is ARBCOM's responsibility to ensure that thier statements cannot be misinterpreted so in this aspect, ARBCOM does have a duty to correct a proposed principle in thier case. It is the professional thing to do. Especially as the community relies on the commitee to assist in such difficult areas of the project. I do however caution the community on using arbitration principles as case law.

Vassyana is however correct that the wording of policies like WP:NPOV, remains in the hands of the community and therefore the duty lies with the community to ensure that policy does not allow such wikilawyering. Changes in the policy should be taken then.

In short, both ARBCOM and the community have duties here that they must fulfill.

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment - I've always been uneasy about the practice of quoting ArbCom principles in policies, especially very old principles. Either quote the arbitration case accurately, or don't quote it at all. If the wording from the arbitration case is insufficient, then remove it and use a wording agreed upon by consensus on the policy talk page. But please don't ask ArbCom to participate (from RFAR) in the editing of policy, especially not one as key as neutral point of view. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The community has long ago taken ownership of that language by integrating it into policy. Any modifications thereof should be handled through the community in the form of normal policy discussion and editing. --Vassyana (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several paragraphs of the Pseudoscience decision that venture more closely to content or policy rulings than would normally be found in one of our decisions. The case was decided in 2006, and not a single arbitrator who participated in the case is still serving on the committee, so it would be more than a little artificial for us to purport to "clarify" the principle in question. Therefore, on the substance of the matter, I agree with Vassyana and Carcharoth. But I also suggest that the former arbitrator who wrote the decision should be contacted, if he hasn't been already, and asked for his view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Pseudoscience

Initiated by GDallimore (Talk) at 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle 15
  2. Finding 9
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

None

Amendment 1

Statement by GDallimore

Following this decision, the WP:Fringe guideline was modified to quote the above passaged: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience

It is also highlighted as notable pseudoscience: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Examples

This has essentially foreclosed any possibility of discussion on whether or not Time Cube is pseudoscience: [3][4]

In my view, it is a particularly poor example and should not be highlighted in the guideline. Specifically, it is not science, pseudo- or otherwise, but a semi-religious rant and Internet phenomenon. Labelling it pseudoscience actually gives it more credence than it deserves.

The requested amendment leaves the content of the statement unchanged, but removes the (arguably) inappropriate example.

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

If this statement is amended to remove time cube as an example, another suitable example should be substituted. Otherwise, what standard should editors use to judge what is obvious pseudoscience? I suggest Nibiru collision as pretty obvious pseudoscience. Also, the statement should be made grammatically correct. It currently ends, "... categorized as such without more." More what? Move evidence? LK (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2
  • Request change as follows: "Wikipedia contains articles such as Time Cube (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a theory of time, on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics. In the case of Time Cube, an anonymous editor, "Time Cube Guy," frequently reverts to his favored version."

Statement by GDallimore (2)

For the reasons given in amendment 1, referring to time cube as a [pseudoscientific] theory of time gives it more credence than it deserves. This part of the statement should be removed.

The reference to Time Cube Guy is out of place. He was not discussed or mentioned anywhere else in the decision and no remedies against him were proposed.

The amendment removes the (arguably) inappropriate example and needless mention of a particular editor but leaves the content of the statement unchanged.

Statement by Enric Naval

I searched in google books "time cube" pseudoscience and "gene ray" pseudoscience and I got zero relevant results. Other searches in google found only really weak sources and mirrors of wikipedia. So, yeah, by the policy of verifiability, Time Cube has turned out to be a bad example because there aren't really any reliable sources supporting its pseudoscienting status, and it seems that no book on pseudoscience lists it, not even as part of a name-check. It should be striken out as suggested.

Statement by other editor (3)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am favourably disposed towards both of these amendments for the reasons given. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, I will propose a motion effecting both of these amendments. Steve Smith (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Steve, both of these requests appear to be good ones, although I'm a bit surprised that an example cited in the case would continue to carry enough weight to motivate them. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My guess is that it's because it's considered funny and funny Internet things always end up getting more prominence than they deserve (surprised it's not mentioned in WP:BIAS). People will always go the extra mile to ensure funny things are included. Usually it's harmless and fun to learn about these weird and wonderful things, but sometimes the joke can go too far. When I saw this article on the psuedoscience template alongside aids denialism and homoeopathy I decided it was time to reduce its prominence. GDallimore (Talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point made in this request for amendment is well-taken, but what is obviously happening here is that undue weight is being given to what was clearly a throwaway remark in this three-and-one-half-year-old case. (I wish as much attention were paid to the core principles and findings of all of our cases.) Therefore, I am not sure that a formal motion to amend is necessary, though I will not oppose it. It would be courteous to notify the former arbitrator who wrote the Pseudoscience decision, Fred Bauder, and see whether he has any comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lesson here should be that formal motions probably shouldn't contain throwaway remarks. Steve Smith (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Steve Smith (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm not convinced this motion is really necessary, per my comment above, but since it is here I will go along. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It would have been good, I suppose, to also sort out the strange wording in Principle 15, ("may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Without more what?)  Roger Davies talk 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't mind, given that the decision stands in substance with the amendments. I should point out that Time Cube had the desirable property of being unambiguously bogus and unrelated to the pseudoscientific fields where there are significant content disputes on Wikipedia (so that nobody is unfairly singled out, even if just as an example). — Coren (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. I think Time Cube is not a terrible example, but I can also see that this example a content ruling. Torn; would gladly change it with the original drafters consent. Certainly a different category from homeopathy and the really influential pseudoscience. Incidentally, does anyone else think the image on Time Cube is inappropriate navel-gazing? Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the visual style of the Time Cube related website is part of their notability. Certainly, they are distinctive and bear some illustration. Bug resounding "meh" from me on that. — Coren (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I tend to think this is not necessary, but not willing to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

Initiated by Ludwigs2 at 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Directly involved

Others are involved in the conversation and will be notified, but I don't want to commit anyone outside the direct discussion. (General notifications at the two below-noted discussions of this issue - [5], [6].)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Clarification is needed on the use of skeptical sources in general, and the use of Stephen Barrett and QuackWatch as sources in particular. The current dispute centers around assertions of 'expertise' in skepticism. The pseudoscience decision does consider expert editors, but does not deal with similar assertions of expertise by editors about sources.

See the discussions at:

Barrett in specific

In the specific case, ScienceApologist (and others) argue that Barrett can be used to critique the work of a minor historic scientist Weston Price as pseudoscience, despite the facts that:

  • Price's work would not have been considered pseudoscience at the time he was a publishing scientist.
  • Barrett's critique is actually aimed at the Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization ostensibly formed around Price's (in current times) discarded theories, but which Price was never to my knowledge directly associated with.
  • Barrett himself has no special training in the philosophy of science or the history of science, but is primarily notable for running the website QuackWatch.

The argument being used is that Barrett is considered an expert in the "field of quackbusting" ([7] assumedly by virtue of running QuackWatch), and this is defended by reference to the wording of Self-published sources [8], through the assertion that the following phrase:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

implies that Barrett is an expert because he has been published in reliable third-party publications.

The obvious problems with this arguments (from my perspective) are:

  1. There is no scholarly or academic 'field' of 'quackbusting'
  2. There are no objective criteria for determining expertise in quackbusting, even if such a field could be argued to exist.
  3. Publication is reliable sources does not automatically confer the status of 'expert'
  4. There is no reason to assume that Barrett (a retired psychologist) has any particular training or skills that qualify him as an expert at scientific practice or methodology, aside from having once been a practicing scientist.

Barrett is certainly notable (though his notability is largely due to self-promotion and self-publication through his website), and certainly reliable as a noteworthy proponent of the skeptical point of view, but (IMO) should not be defended as an authoritative expert in a non-existent field for which he has no specific training.

Skeptical sources more generally

This type of problem occurs to a greater or lesser degree across a broad number of articles. A variety of skeptical sources - including individuals such as Barrett and collected materials or journals such as The Skeptic's Dictionary or the Skeptical Inquirer - are used as though they were authoritative experts on all fringe topics. I'd like to propose that the following clarifications be made to address this problem:

  1. Skeptical sources can be defined as follows:
    • They are sources which advocate against pseudoscience, fringe theories, alternate theories or other viewpoints that they considered unscientific.
      • Different sources may use any of several definitions of the term 'scientific'.
    • They are comprised of people, usually with scientific backgrounds, working as generalists rather than working in a particular field for which they are trained.
    • They use scientific arguments for refutation and often compile and use scientific research from other sources, but do not generally do research of their own and are not subject to peer review, accreditation, or the other systems that assure accuracy and objectivity in mainstream scientific research.
  2. Skeptical sources should not be taken to be scientific experts, but should be treated (depending on context) as:
    • Equivalent to informed journalistic sources.
    • As primary sources advocating for a particular viewpoint.

In general, this would mean that editors who use skeptical sources would have a raised bar with respect to clear attribution, specific quoting and verification of claims, neutral and balanced language, and in other ways be obliged to stick more closely to proper encyclopedic methods and style. This should result in a general improvement of the quality of fringe articles across the project. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Just as a response to ScienceApologist's claim that this is beyond ArbCom's remit... A few points:

  • This is not a mere content dispute on a single article - Barrett's is mentioned in 120+ mainspace articles, QuackWatch in 220+, and The Skeptic's Dictionary in 181. Almost all of those are examples where these sources are used as supposed experts.
  • The use of these sources is always defended under the ArbCom pseudoscience ruling, citing the need to present mainstream sources as prominent, and then using the specious claims of expertise to argue that a skeptical source represents the mainstream viewpoint.

ArbCom had the remit to deal with sourcing issues in the original ruling, therefore it has the remit (and I would argue the obligation) to clarify its ruling. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by ScienceApologist

This seems to me to be a content dispute: mainly beyond arbcom's remit. I include, below, a rationale for why Ludwigs2 is incorrect in specific claims he made above only for completeness as I do not expect arbcom to actually agree to post any clarification on the issue except maybe to clarify that they are not permitted to adjudicate sources (c.f. this amendment to the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration case).

Click show to see why Ludwigs2 is incorrect
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:SPS gives us a guide as to how to determine whether certain sources can or cannot be used. In particular, primary source documents of experts can be excepted when they are commenting on their area of expertise. Expertise is determined, according to the self-same policy, by publication record and evaluations of the status of the author by external reviewers. In the particular dispute referenced by Ludwigs, I noted that Stephen Barrett could be considered an expert on alternative medicine claims since he has a publication record in the field: [9], [10], [11], and a record of accolades from other experts who have evaluated his work: [12], [[13]. These are only illustrative examples. A more complete evaluation can be read at his Wikipedia biography.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BruceGrubb

In this specific case, the claims of Barrett regarding Price can be shown to be incorrect or out of date using reliable sources.

  1. Barrett's claims regarding what Price ignored are contradicted by Price's own book (published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) (see Talk:Weston_Price#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words as well as in a 1923 publication by Price called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic
  2. Barrett's claims regarding focal infection theory are shown to possibly out of date by
  • Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; pg 188
  • Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009) Textbook of Endodontology; Wiley page 135-136
  • Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33
  1. With the exception of the focal infection none of Berrett's claims regarding Price have a reference.

This for me raises a lot of WP:RS issues regarding the use of Berrett in a biography of a man who died in 1948 when the understanding and state of dentistry and nutrition was much different than it is now. Price's work might have been perfectly good for his time but later research may have showed underlying premises common to his time were flawed or simply wrong. The problem is with no references we can't tell if these claims regarding Price are just Berrett's opinion, were the view of Price's contemporaries, or were the view of later researchers critiquing Price. Coupled with the idea the focal infection statement may be out of date, lack of information as where most of the claims are coming from, and apparent contradiction with Price brings up the issue of "if this is flawed then what else in this article is flawed?" putting WP:RS in the ICU.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by BruceGrubb

I would like to add another reason for ArbCom to reconsider its remit; one editor seems to be using WP:BLP as a Censorship hammer to squelch meaningful challenges to Stephen Barrett's expertise.

  1. It has been used to call another editor a drunk ([14])
  2. It in conjunction with WP:BLP has resulted in apparent Wikipedia:WikiBullying (see Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, Griswaldo and BruceGrubb)
  3. It has been used to claim that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett, Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_9#copied_from_Ronz.27_talk_page, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett are off topic in the BLP noticeboard (an archive of the BLP Noticeboard is not on topic for the BLP Noticeboard? SAY WHAT?!?)

In short because of a lack of the requested clarification we effectively have possible conduct issues going on and will likely see this kins of problem in the future; I seriously doubt ArbCom had this mess in mind when it made its ruling. We really need to have clarification on how sites like can be used and if owner is the author how WP:BLP applies to them in the talk pages.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard has decided there was a conduct issue (with administrator User:Looie496 saying and I quote "It's a textbook case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taken to an extreme.") I must again again ask for ArbCom their position.

If it is still ruled that it was only a content issue then we MUST also say if a statement by a living person is shown vis reliable sources to be grossly inaccurate then it cannot be used per WP:V and people cannot throw up WP:OR to keep inaccurate information in an article. Similarly cannot have WP:CRYBLP being used as a amazing magical censorship hammer.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ronz

This is purely a content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Itsmejudith

It seems to me that we reasonable people on FTN rapidly reached a realistic consensus about Barrett/Quackwatch: a useful source in some circumstances but with limitations that need to be respected. That's true of any source, really. Although SA continues to demur from this, we can discuss such sources case by case like grown-ups. I can't see much that ArbCom can add. I agree with Ludwigs that "Quackbusting" isn't an area of expertise. The UK writers like Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh develop the phenomenon beyond Barrett's starting point. They make a point of referring to recognised experts, so we can use them as starting points and follow the cite trail to excellent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Founders Intent

It appears to me from sources in the Price article that Price was quite respected during his time. In fact he occupied a chairmanship position in research with the ADA, is the credit with several major technological breakthrough for his time. Furthermore his research in nutrition among aboriginal tribes in several regions is consider unique and rare due to the fact is could not be reproduced today, simply due to demographic changes. No one has been able to successfully determine that his work is flawed. At the time of his work, two opposing views in dentistry were being debated that of nutrition based the concept that caries were caused by system disease, and due to local infection from bacteria. Caried caused by local infection won the argument, and has guided dentistry for the most part since. Barrett's critique does not account for the context (time) of Price's research, and compares it to modern criteria. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, I may have a potential breakthrough/course of action to discuss with you. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griswaldo

User:Itsmejudith summarizes the situation well from my point of view. It is also unfortunate that it has needlessly escalated to this point. While Quackwatch is probably a good critical source for determining how some contemporary medical practices deviate from the current mainstream scientific consensus, Stephen Barrett is not a reliable source on the history of dentistry, nor is he a reliable source on the cross-cultural history of nutrition (and these facts have been well established in the various discussions of the topic over the last few days). It appears to me that some editors are unwilling to parse the reliability issues of Quackwatch on a case by case basis in line with relevant policies like WP:SPS, and instead choose simply to defend the publication in its entirety at all times. In the end this is a reliability issue which can be settled on the relevant talk pages and noticeboards. I welcome Newyorkbrad and anyone else's input as editors in any of those venues.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We're not going to rule on what is essentially a content dispute here, I see no conduct issues that need to be looked at. SirFozzie (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Fozzie. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The good news is that I don't see any significant misconduct in the history of this disagreement so far. The bad news is that does leave the matter in the category of "content dispute, ArbCom can't help you." If you want my individual thoughts as an editor, feel free to ask me on my talkpage after this request is closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As everyone's said, this is something that needs to be handled via the usual community discussions. Shell babelfish 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed a content dispute, though reading the comments made here may help. While not commenting directly on this specific content dispute, I will say that it should be obvious that any person's work needs to be considered in the context of the times and places in which they lived, worked and published. There are numerous examples of this in the history of science. Ideally, if it exists, find a published and reliable assessment made by a historian of science (or medicine, in this case), rather than relying on those who write mainly on contemporary issues. Care is also needed to avoid Wikipedians engaging in original research and giving their own opinions on what the verdict of history should be here. But please don't mix up historical issues with contemporary ones. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly a content dispute, and I agree with my colleagues here. On an editorial note, however, I do see a rather significant reliance on this particular reference source over a wide range of topics, and editors might want to consider whether the absence of similar information from other sources is or is not significant to individual subjects; if there are indeed other sources (as I suspect there are) then constant use of one reference source may be creating a perception of over-reliance on that source. Risker (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience&oldid=395898037"