Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by ~Adjwilley (talk) at 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision

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

• Adjwilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by Adjwilley

I recently stumbled across a dispute centered around Chiropractic, and became aware that the article and subject area are under discretionary sanctions under the Pseudoscience case. My question is: how does the pseudoscience case apply to alternative medicine generally? Where do alt-med (and chiropractic specifically) fall on the spectrum of "obvious pseudoscience", "generally considered pseduoscience", "questionable science", and "alternative theoretical formulations" that is outlined in the case? The case file doesn't seem to mention alternative medicine specifically, but apparently discretionary sanctions are being issued in the area, which is why I am asking for clarification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Kww, Enric Naval: I understand the reasons for Chiropractic specifically being covered; I want to understand the details, and how the pseudoscience case applies to other alt-med articles like Acupuncture which afaict is not sanctioned. For instance, can an administrator impose a topic ban or edit restriction under the discretionary sanctions clause of this case for all alternative medicine articles, or would such a topic ban only apply to articles that have the pseudoscience DS template on the talk page? And what is the criteria for adding the DS template to an article? I don't see a clear-cut answer to this, which is why I filed the request for clarification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Chiropractic is covered because it has has pseudoscientific elements. And it's doubly covered because the sanctions were expanded to cover fringe science, and chiropractic is fringe medicine (fringe medicine being a subset of fringe science). The arbitration case doesn't need to mention alternative medicine.

Sourced proof:

• Joseph C. Keating, Jr., Cleveland CS III, Menke M (2005). "Chiropractic history: a primer" (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. Retrieved 2008-06-16. A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (this source is already in the article!)
• In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (pages 226-227), the Florida State University tried to start a chiropractic course, and it was denounced as pseudoscience by many professors.... but not by all of them. Then it discusses several aspects of fringe medical practices that are labelled as pseudoscience, including chiropractic as one of those practices.

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuraxis. These two sources talk about the current state of chiropractic. They are not "used in a historical context". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic is reliably-sourced as being a Pseudoscience / fringe science, then it should be under discretionary sanctions. The Arbcom only needs to clarify that.

The rest are content disputes, using reliable sources to establish / deny the pseudoscience in each separate article. Arbcom shouldn't decide content disputes in a given article, unless the community has shown that it can't solve the matter. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neuraxis

• User:BullRangifer has twice deleted [1], [2] my comment for a clarifiation request [3] and is now alleging I am edit warring over it! [4]. This is hardly civil or any good faith. It is again another smear tactic which mischaracterizes my comment which was not a straw man argument. Neuraxis (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enric has decided to cherry pick a sentence, used in a historical context. This is a common tactic. However, it ignores the fundamental question: Are manual and manipulative therapy for MSK conditions pseudoscientific and fringe? This impacts chiropractic since it is the largest purveyor of manipulative services, but also impacts on osteopathic medicine, physical therapy who also use manipulation as a means of relieving MSK pain. So, the findings here apply equally to all health professions who use manipulative therapy as a clinical intervention for dealing with MSK pain. While I do agree that the non-musculoskeletal use of manipulative therapies isn't mainstream, given that its only 10% of practice this should not be disproportionately weighed against the fact that 90% of manipulative treatment is directly towards spinal/MSK issues. Given that the mainstream of the chiropractic profession has evolved with a common identity focusing on conservative spine care, the notion that chiropractic practice (and spinal manipulation by extension) is 100% pseudoscientific does not reflect the current reality. This ongoing discussion [5] specifically discusses this very topic and is relevant here. Lastly, we need use a global focus and not just a US-centric POV.

• Residency program for chiropractors in Veterans Affairs [6], and integration in VA in general [7].
• National Institute of Health, viewpoint states "Most research on chiropractic has focused on spinal manipulation. Spinal manipulation appears to benefit some people with low-back pain and may also be helpful for headaches, neck pain, upper- and lower-extremity joint conditions, and whiplash-associated disorders." [8]. This is a mainstream respected organization. The WHO was clear too in this regard [9].
• Whereas most chiropractic schools in the USA are in private colleges, most of the newer schools internationally are within the national university system (e.g. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK). In some of these programs, for example, at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense and the University of Zurich in Switzerland, chiropractic and medical students take the same basic science courses together for three years before entering separate programs for clinical training. [10]. Video proof [11]
• Surveys demonstrate that the primary reasons patients consult chiropractors are back pain (approximately 60%), other musculoskeletal pain such as pain in the neck, shoulder, extremities, and arthritic pain (20%) and headaches including migraine (10%). About 1 in 10 (10%) present with a wide variety of conditions caused or aggravated by neuromusculoskeletal disorders (e.g. pseudo angina, dysmennorhea, respiratory and digestive dysfunctions, infant colic/irritable baby syndrome.)[12].Practice demographics state that the majority (9/10) patients see chiropractors for spine/MSK conditions.
• "These data support the theory that patients seek chiropractic care almost exclusively for musculoskeletal symptoms and that chiropractors and their patients share a similar belief system." [13]
• Back and neck pain are the specialties of chiropractic but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues [14]. The source is Ernst, and the % of non-MSK issues being treated, as the 2013 status report shows is 10%. This was also stated in an earlier study where the percentage was 10.3% [Nonmusculoskeletal complaints accounted for 10.3% of the chief complaints.]
• This [15] source, (also being used at the mainpage but this section isn't allowed to be inserted by skeptical editors states "Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in manual therapy and especially spinal manipulation. The same article also states that "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream.
• Although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers, they are more similar to a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry [16]
• Spinal manipulative therapy gained recognition during the 1980’s by mainstream medicine [17], "As a result of this increased communication between the medical and chiropractic communities, chiropractors were offered and credentialed medical staff hospital privileges and began to co-manage patients with medical physicians" (Ibid.)
• The current advent of the evidence-based medicine era, chiropractic scholars have generated evidence-based systematic reviews and practice guidelines with respect to the management of acute/chronic low back pain,^[1][2] thoracic pain, neck pain,^[3] headache,^[4] radiography,^{[5] [6] [7]} and upper/lower extremity conditions.^[8][9] tendinopathy^[10] myofascial pain/trigger points,^[11] and non-musculoskeletal conditions.^[12]. Collectively, these can be found here [18] which is an evience-based resource for chiropractic management.
• Evidence-based chiropractic generates 234 hits on PubMed [19]. This suggest that, in modern times, evidence-based chiropractic is not a myth, like critics suggest, but a reality.
• There are several evidence-based textbooks of the topic of chiropractic published by mainstream medical publishers [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] and several more by other professions who use MM. MSK MM Science and Practice of Manual Therapy Chiropractic technique and principles An Osteopathic Approach to Dx and Tx Manipulative Therapy: Musculoskeletal Medicine

• Beijing Declaration (2008) "“This congress represented a major milestone for chiropractic” says WFC president Dr. Papadopoulos. “Chiropractic was seen by WHO, government officials from many countries and delegates from other professions as the most developed profession internationally in the field of manual healthcare, and the Beijing Declaration called upon all countries to recognize and regulate CAM professionals such as doctors of chiropractic.” [25]
• Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. [26]
• Pioneering of World Spine Care [27] which is brings together a multidisciplinary group of doctors and therapists to help treat spinal disorders in 3rd world countries and has such notable sponsors as Elon Musk of Tesla and endorsements from the WHO, North American Spine Society, and other leading spine care organizations. "SC is a multinational not-for-profit organization, bringing together the full spectrum of health care professionals involved in spinal health – medical physicians and specialists, surgeons, chiropractors, and physiotherapists. WSC is focused on providing evidence-based, culturally integrated prevention, assessment, and treatment of spinal disorders in the developing world. The flagship project involves developing and initial deployment of a universal model of care for spinal disorders, designed for practical application by front-line health care workers in developing nations worldwide.[28]
• 2013 WHO introduces World Spine Day, [29] was directly related to the efforts of the chiropractic profession to draw awareness for spinal health disorders [30]
• Collectively this small collection of diffs shows that the primary focus of chiropractic care as it currently stands is primarily dedicated to management of spinal/MSK disorders. The outdated one cause one cure has been rejected by the profession 'the monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession ^[13] preferring a holistic view of joint dysfunction/subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in web of causation along with other determinants of health.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but rather a starting point to show evidence that scientific practice and research is not uncommon, but reflects the mainstream of the profession currently. Regards, Neuraxis (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Enric Naval. No, it's not representing the current status. It's describing the Hx, as the title implies. Also, the issues at chiropractic at chiropractic are in are in dispute with no resolution. The evidence suggests the currently, the majority (80%) are practicing under biomedical, scientific norms. BR, QG and DJ are suggesting the opposite is true. Hence, the need for clarification. Do you have any rebuttals for the evidence I posted? Neuraxis (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, you simply seem not to understand. You're making a claim that chiropractic is nonsense but no one here, asides from Enric, with 2, has brought any sources. You're claiming it's pseudoscience through and through and even though I provide you with scientific research that currently shows an 80%/20% in favour of chiropractors practicing according to biomedical science orthodoxy, you're still claiming the opposite. There's a difference between skepticism and cynicism and you're much more of the latter than the former. Skeptics review their position in face of new evidence. Cynics are just as dogmatic as those who are offer unconditional praise. As this thread illustrates, you're not listening when we ask you to stop ducking questions and stop distorting what the sources are actually saying. Neuraxis (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullrangifer, NYbrad, Kww, etc. We do have a RS, that I linked above, that states clearly that Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. [31]. Neuraxis (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullrangifer, you're not bringing anything new to the table. This is 2014 article, it is a RS and MEDRS compliant. I am not trying to white-wash anything, despite your specious and repeated allegations (which hardly assumes good faith on your part). So, I'm going to stick to what the sources say about the preponderance of scientific vs. unscientific beliefs and practices as is 'currently' known. You should also read up on this too [32]. Also, it's not just the Canadians, the same findings were found in America and across the globe . Both concerns seem unlikely, however, given the consistency of the number of dissidents calculated in other investigations of chiropractic [3,22,36].. So it's a global issue. Neuraxis (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, the conclusions aren't specific to Canada, as the article clearly stated in the conclusions. I've mentioned it here[33] to you but it seems you may have missed my comment earlier today here. Also, the comparison with psychoanalysis isn't really applicable, for there is no real research that demonstrates how PA works nor that it is clinically effective. Remember, WP distinguishes b/w pseudoscience, junk science, questionable science and alternative theoretical formulations. We need to be careful with which words we choose. Neuraxis (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the question I posed John Reading and reviewing research is part of my real-life job. The qualifying terms 'seems' is what all good researchers do. That being said, it does not negate the generalizability. You asserted that it's 'only' from Canada and the authors specifically cited other studies that this was not an outlier, but a common finding'. That was the purpose of my clarification. Regarding the word perspective, it must be used in the the context of the paper. Also, the word isn't ambiguous, it's definition is precise: a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.. So, it's a synonym for POV. What am I noticing at ArbCom is the majority of comments seem to be from users who have no expertise in research or methods and thus appraising the literature. If ArbCom commentary does not require one to bring sources and facts and relies on opinions on the topic then the process is flawed. Even in this case, where the statement in the conclusions are so clear, the 'personal interpretation' of the editors are completely irrelevant. If I am factually wrong about the process, then please tell me how I am misinformed. I do not want to waste your time or mine. If my tone is curt, I apologize in advance. What I am noticing that true skepticism will revise opinions based on new facts and data. Despite the multitude evidence of new facts that suggest that the majority of practice internationally is within scientific norms, there seems to be cynicism on the topic. I really don't know what evidence you or anyone would require. I am all ears (eyes!).

Reply to John: The source does not say 'respectability'. The studies that were quoted (which discusses the 'dissidents') were as earlier as 2003. You can state that this study in fact 'reviewed' them. So, the recentism argument doesn't really apply. We agree that earlier areas and 'historically' that was the case. And these, of course should be noted. There is no distinction, between new or old, but it is clear that in 1895 medical physicians were using leeching therapy and in 1895 chiropractors were treating systemic conditions. In 2014, the medical profession has evolved where leeching isn't a primary or common therapy and in 2014 the chiropractic profession has evovled where it has focused on neuromusculoskeletal disorders. I don't see a distinction between old and new medicine, just 'eras' and I think we were are disagreeing on one key point: but neither does it make sense to call someting that apparently clearly was pseudoscience as science because it has subsequently become perhaps more scientific.. This is a false dichotomy analogy. It is either 100% scientific or it is not. That's not the case. Do you realize that 'mainstream' or conventional medicine is not in fact completely scientific or evidence-based? This may be a bit hard to grasp, but there is an excellent discussion here [34] where we discuss this topic precisely. It, IMHO, is fundamental reading about understanding 'mainstream' vs. 'fringe' with respect to health care. I would suggest this: scientific chiropractic is confined to NMSK diagnosis and treatment. Outside those boundaries, all bets are off. Nonetheless, I don't see this as 'all or none' but differentiating between the shades of grey. I hope I've explained myself well. I will post my own comment at ArbCom, you can post your reply, for transparency purposes. Thanks for the collegial discussion thus far. Neuraxis (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer is not talking about anything other than his personal opinion [35]. Despite what the source specifically says, that 80% of practicing chiropractors are practicing within scientific norms, a landslide majority, Brangifer insists through his own original research, that the reverse is true. No amount of special pleading can change the results of the paper. The mainstream of chiropractic is aligned with the mainstream of medicine. The sources states that the unorthodox (aka fringe, pseudoscientific) is against mainstream medicine. The criticism against the profession is aimed directly at the the specific faction, i.e. "straights". We agree this faction is pseudoscientific. The only disagreement we have are about the numbers. The source stated 80% of chiropractors internationally are science-based. Brangifer, put up a source that backs your claim that the straights are the majority or let it go. Neuraxis (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

I don't even see why this is a question. Chiropractic practices are firmly rooted in pseudoscience. That some small subset of their treatments have beneficial effects doesn't mean that the foundation is solid, it's simply an an example of the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" principle. The same reasoning applies to the various alternative medicines.

In a very real sense, these are more important topics than the more esoteric pseudosciences. No one is going to hurt themselves because they believe in cold fusion. They can hurt themselves by forgoing legitimate medical treatment in favour of quackery.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neuraxis's argument is no different than "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" supported with citations. Certainly manual manipulation of misaligned and inflamed joints can be helpful. That chiropractors promote nonsense like vertebral subluxation doesn't break their fingers and their manual manipulations remain effective despite the pseudoscience underlying the treatment method.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYB:Absolutely. The area is rife with sockpuppeting, and beset by a few editors that remind me of Martinphi: ostensibly polite and reasonable, but unfailingly attempting to shift articles towards having a favorable view of nonsense. Acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and chiropracty are the hot spots I'm aware of, but I'm sure that's a woefully incomplete list.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

This is a not unreasonable question regarding the definition of pseudoscience for our purposes, and it might help to have some clear lines of demarkation on this point. One possibility is to go by what people involved in the field of pseudoscience consider pseudoscience. Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is a list I generated some time ago based on articles included in one Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and I find that one of its longer articles specifically is about chiropractic, which would I think be a reasonable indicator of how that particular topic might qualify. I also would believe that, in all likelihood, anything with a separate article or section in that source or other reference-type overview works on pseudoscience would probably qualify under the sanctions. But there is a very big gray area of where pseudoscience, parapsychology, paranormal and occult do and do not overlap, and it might be beneficial if we could have some sort of specific indicator of where the topics do and do not overlap here. So, for instance, some "occult"-ish topics make some sort of claims to being "scientific" in some way, like maybe Taoism's registers, which are effectively theological equivalents of the Tennessee Blue Book and the Official Manual State of Missouri, among others, might qualify as "pseudoscientific" or might not. Other potential gray areas of possible overlap exist between these topics as well. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply commening on the obvious, of course, but so far as I can see nothing in the extremely long section by Neuraxis above seems to deal with the specific point of contention here, specifically, whether chiropractic is a pseudoscience or not. That is an entirely separate point from whether or not it has significant support in any number of areas. For chiropractic to be demonstrated to be something other than pseudoscience, what would be more or less required as per policy and guidelines would be a reliable source which either explicitly says chiropractic is not a pseudoscience, or, possibly, an independent reliable source which clearly states that chiropractic is a science. Pseudoscience has a rather specific definition, specifically, that the topic claims to be scientific but is not accepted as such by the scientific community. That is a completely separate matter from whether it can be or is useful or beneficial. I regret to say that the lengthy postings by Neuraxis above could themselves not unreasonably be counted as refusing to get to the point as per WP:IDHT. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I received a comment from Neuraxis on my talk page here, asking me to review a source for whether it can be seen to establish chiropractic as a science. I have looked at the source in question, and regret to say that I saw nothing which indicates it is not pseudoscience. The most directly relevant quote so far as I can see is "Chiropractic in particular made significant gains toward legitimacy throughout the last few decades," which at least implicitly indicates that chiropractic has yet to achieve legitimacy, as it is still making gains toward legitimacy. I also note that psychoanalytic theory, and by extension psychoanalysis, is counted as a pseudoscientific topic in the encyclopedia I linked to above, and is described as such in our article. It, however, still plays a significant role in the field of psychiatry, and there are at least a few hospitals which have psychiatrists using psychoanalytic methods in their staff. I also note that the article is limited to one particular country, Canada, and as such cannot be seen to be relevant to the profession outside of Canada and that, so far as I saw, it does not say that chiropractic is a science, just that some chiropractors are included in some medical teams, much like some psychoanalytic psychiatrists. Like I said above, pseudosciences are not necessarily useless, and can at least sometimes in some cases be effective. That however does not necessarily mean that they qualify as sciences or as scientific. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, ed. Michael Shermer, ABC-Clio, 2002, ISBN 1-57607-653-9, has an article of over two pages in length on "prayer and healing," which seems to be substantially similar to "faith healing." I am preparing a list of articles and subarticles from the encyclopedic section of that book for inclusion in the page listed above as we speak. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another question on my user talk page from Neuraxis here with my response here, and also another comment and another response. However bizarre it might seem to some to characterize an entire profession as pseudoscience, that too is a conclusion drawn by a single editor, and I don't think we are allowed to use such personal interpretation of the facts to determine our content. Nor can or should we attempt to say that because perhaps a modern version of a discipline might be scientific, that earlier nonscientific versions were also scientific because the current version is. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer/Brangifer

Reply to Adjwilley's Reply to Kww, Enric Naval:

The application of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, and the use of "pseudoscience" terms and categorizations to the topics of chiropractic and acupuncture have much more to do with their underlying philosophies than with actual practice by their members, which can vary widely, all the way from scientific to wildly pseudoscientific, quackery, and operating scams. As long as the professions don't publicly distance themselves from those foundational philosophies, and practices which spring from them, these problems will continue.

Here is a very short list:

• Chiropractic is criticized for its fundamental foundation - vertebral subluxation (VS) and Innate Intelligence (II) - and resultant misuse and overuse of joint manipulation and spinal manipulation

• Acupuncture is criticized for its fundamental foundation - acupuncture points and meridians

Without these foundations, the professions really have no justification for existence, because spinal adjustment without belief in VS and II is merely spinal manipulation, which is performed for very different reasons, and not nearly as frequently, by other professions. Likewise, using acupuncture needles without belief in acupoints and meridians is merely dry needling.

Since what I've just said is irrelevant if RS don't back it up, we must go by what RS say, not what I say. They definitely criticize these two professions and their basic practices for pseudoscientific aspects. It is the reliable sources which dictate what we should write. As long as we cite experts on the topics of pseudoscience and quackery, and use proper attribution where necessary, we are on solid ground. That doesn't mean we should violate undue and weight by letting these aspects totally dominate an article, but they should be given adequate space and mention in the articles.

Topic banning is usually reserved for editors, like User:Neuraxis, who seek to whitewash these aspects from articles and make them seem more scientific than they are. His latest attempt is to eliminate Chiropractic controversy and criticism.

His latest attack on me (above) seems to ignore my edit summaries, which encouraged him to restore his comment in the right spot, after he has edited it properly. I didn't seek to keep it from the discussion at all. Per BRD he should use the talk page to discuss my description of his content as a straw man which would totally redirect this whole discussion toward an agenda of his own, not the subject chosen by Adjwilley. This page is not the place to carry on his battlefield behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Neuraxis:

Although it is off-topic for this discussion, Neuraxis insists on inserting his hobby horse into Adjwilley's Clarification request, so let's just slay that lost animal and get on with the original topic. He asks above:

• "...the fundamental question: Are manual and manipulative therapy for MSK conditions pseudoscientific and fringe?

No, it is their manner of use, and the reasons for using them, which are potentially pseudoscientific. They cannot, in and of themselves, be pseudoscientific and/or fringe, any more than an acupuncture needle can be pseudoscientific and/or fringe. Your question is simply worded improperly, IOW it's a straw man. Stop asking it and rethink the matter, and while you're at it, take it somewhere other than this board. It doesn't belong here. This is not the place to push your agenda, which has been reaffirmed. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Newyorkbrad

We need to be careful not to go down a dead end alley of misdirection, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Our job is not to determine whether or not chiropractic is or is not pseudoscience, but to determine what RS say about that matter. Sources are what it always comes back to, not our opinions. The judgment of "pseudoscience" is a value judgment, an opinion, and we simply quote what RS say about the matter, and often attribute the statements accordingly.

So, to reiterate, any discussion of whether chiropractic is or is not pseudoscience, although interesting, tends to lead us away from following our sourcing policies, IOW it encourages policy violations. Why? Because if we have that discussion and come to a conclusion, then we naturally tend to use that judgment to decide whether or not to use some RS. That's wrong. We must start with the RS and figure out how to use them. The RS should form our opinions, not the other way around.

So let's just stick to the sources. It will always be a matter of opinion whether they are right or not anyway, and we are not allowed to use our own opinions to determine whether to use them or not. That would be censorship and/or whitewashing. If they exist (and they do in abundance), we must determine how to use them in an appropriately framed manner, giving them the weight they deserve. NPOV requires that.

Chiropractic has always been considered the flagship of quackery in the alternative medicine world, and it still has enough controversy attached to it that many RS exist which consider significant aspects to be quackery and pseudoscience. That's not just historical, but now. Our main chiropractic article mentions this, and attempts to tone down or remove such mentions are not proper. Such attempts violate NPOV. Editors who attempt such things should be reminded of the discretionary sanctions, and if they persist, they should be topic banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Thryduulf

Wow! That's very well put: "The suggestion of "if a reliable source about pseudoscience considers it pseudoscientific then it is within the scope" seems like a good starting point for that discussion." -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Neuraxis

"Less than 20% of [Canadian] chiropractors (18.8%) were aligned with a predefined unorthodox perspective of the conditions they treat."[36] How reassuring (not)! And Canadian chiropractors are among the more sensible ones. I'd hate to see such a survey taken among American chiros, where the largest part of the profession practices.

This quote from your citation needs to be factored into your equation, since it represents mainstream opinions about chiropractic:

• "In order to explore the attitudes that may have import to policy making and foster potential barriers to interprofessional relations, additional questions were included regarding conditions deemed amenable to chiropractic care, chiropractic practitioner use of X-rays, and views on vaccinations. These questions were based on a previous survey of orthopaedic surgeons’ attitudes towards chiropractic, suggesting them as areas of concern for interprofessional relations [25]. For example, of the 487 surgeons who participated in that survey, approximately 81% were either undecided or agreed that “Chiropractors make excessive use of radiographic imaging”, 91% were either undecided or agreed that “Chiropractors provide patients with misinformation regarding vaccination” and 93% were undecided or disagreed that “Chiropractors treat in accordance with evidence-based practices” (p. 2821)."[37] (my emphasis)

It's especially ironic that your source actually demonstrates how factions within chiropractic with unorthodox practice behaviors may have compromised interprofessional relations. It doesn't take much to poison the well for the whole profession, but the profession has always tolerated a significant portion of what they call "bad apples". They need to stop tolerating any of them.

It is these opinions which you try to ignore, but NPOV says we must document them too. This is a RS demonstrating mainstream opinion.

Throwing lots of references at us doesn't magically remove numerous other RS which say that the profession still has issues with pseudoscientific beliefs and practices. Also, chiropractic researchers have documented that fraud, abuse and quackery are more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions.[38] Unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of chiropractic have continued to be made by individual chiropractors and chiropractic associations.[39] One of the more recent and dramatic examples of the profession being caught with its pants down is from England when a well-organized skeptical backlash to the BCA libel lawsuit against Simon Singh caused the McTimoney Chiropractic Association to frantically and privately order its members to shutdown their websites and remove any unscientific literature from their clinics. That order was leaked, much to their embarrassment. The skeptics had already downloaded the websites, so the removals were documented and hundreds of complaints filed against them with the authorities. The BCA's response, using a typical "wall of references approach" (something we see on this page. Homeopaths do that too....), was ripped apart. BTW, Singh won the lawsuit. You can read about it here.

Your campaign to whitewash the profession really isn't helping your case at all, and although it's certainly caused this clarification request to get sidetracked, maybe it does serve a purpose after all. Now you know why trial lawyers often don't allow their clients to testify, because once the client mentions a subject, it's fair game. Your actions have focused our attention on chiropractic. (Read about the Streisand effect.)

Your actions here have highlighted the continued problems with chiropractic, and we are still convinced that the profession, as well as most other forms of alternative medicine, still deserve to be covered by discretionary sanctions. When RS stop consistently including chiropractic among numerous other forms of quackery and pseudoscience, then we'll stop thinking of it in that way. The profession has itself to thank, because it has consistently tried to deny the problems, rather than reform the profession.

When the president of the American Chiropractic Association called accusations of quackery a "myth", chiropractic historian, Joseph C. Keating, Jr. (who kindly and cordially helped me do lots of research on the profession before he died) responded by calling his comments "absurd" and stated:

• "The so-called 'quackery myth about chiropractic' is no myth.....the kernels of quackery (i.e., unsubstantiated and untested health remedies offered as "proven") are ubiquitous in this profession. I dare say that health misinformation (if not quackery) can be found in just about any issue of any chiropractic trade publication (and some of our research journals) and much of the promotional materials chiropractors disseminate to patients. The recent unsubstantiated claims of the ACA are exemplary [examples provided]...It escapes me entirely how Dr. Downing, the ACA, MPI, and Dynamic Chiropractic can suggest that there is no quackery in chiropractic. Either these groups and individuals do not read the chiropractic literature or have no crap-detectors. I urge a reconsideration of advertising and promotion policies in chiropractic."^[1] (My emphasis.)

That was from 1991, and those charges still ring true. Reading chiropractic trade literature today makes that clear. While things have improved (that's my OR opinion), the profession still hasn't done enough about fixing its "crap-detectors". I couldn't have said it better. It took an insider, a professor within the profession, to say it. Brangifer (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Carter

John, you wrote: "Nor can or should we attempt to say that because perhaps a modern version of a discipline might be scientific, that earlier nonscientific versions were also scientific because the current version is."

Very true, and we certainly know that most living chiropractors have been educated under a "straight" paradigm (Life University is the largest chiropractic school in the world, and several other schools are also "straight" schools). We can't say that just because some understanding tending toward scientific legitimacy has suddenly alighted into the minds of some of the younger chiropractors, that all those other chiros are suddenly dead or not practicing under the paradigm of their education. They are still at work and their claims are what's making it hard for the newer, more scientific, chiros to gain legitimacy. It's not fair to them, but they have only their own profession to blame for that situation.

Instead of circling their wagons (classic chiropractic and cult behavior), retreating into denial and defensiveness, and attacking skeptics for "not being fair" (sob, sob), they need to vigorously attack their idiot colleagues, no matter if they are the most influential and well established chiros in the business: the ones who own the supply businesses, the ones who patent the techniques, who run the seminars, who own the practice building businesses, the ones who sell very expensive "practice scripts" and contracts (what a scam!), and who own and control the schools.

Here's my plea to science-based chiros: Stop the whining and get your profession to publicly admit its failings and publicly distance itself from all this crap and start disciplining unscientific and quackish chiros. Then you might gain some legitimacy. Those chiros are a ball and chain around the profession. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Neuraxis

All I'm getting is denial, defensiveness, and a lack of understanding and knowledge of chiropractic issues and history, past and present. Are you really going to tell me that Life University isn't the largest (for many years at that), wasn't a straight school (maybe still is), and that it temporarily lost its accreditation in about 2003 because it refused to teach differential diagnosis, but only taught that there was only one cause of disease, and a chiropractor's job was to find subluxations and correct them? We're talking about 2003 and huge numbers of recent chiropractors from that school alone, much less Life West, Sherman, etc.. I don't know whether it's the majority of chiropractors, but it's not a little fraction over in a corner. They are not dead. No, I'm hearing denial instead of reform. You're depending on one source which makes it clear that the profession has not yet achieved legitimacy, although it's getting closer.

User:John Carter is right in his parsing of English grammar:

• "The most directly relevant quote so far as I can see is "Chiropractic in particular made significant gains toward legitimacy throughout the last few decades," which at least implicitly indicates that chiropractic has yet to achieve legitimacy, as it is still making gains toward legitimacy."

Your own edit shows you agree that your source actually demonstrates how "factions within chiropractic with unorthodox practice behaviors may have compromised interprofessional relations.", yet now you backpedal all you can. Odd behavior... You're seeing the results of those "compromised interprofessional relations", and RS have noted that. We use those skeptical sources in chiropractic articles. It makes no difference whether it's a majority or minority who are unscientific, because it has been and is happening, and we're resisting your attempts to hide that fact. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm offering my opinion here as one of the administrators who is active at the enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE), in the hope that this "practitioner's view" may help the submitter understand what may in practice be deemed to be within the scope of the sanctions.

The discretionary sanctions apply to "articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". I understand this to include pages related to any topic that has been discussed in reliable sources as constituting or being related to pseudoscience and fringe science, or which is described in its Wikipedia article or categories as such (including, in either case, situations where the classification as pseudoscience or fringe science is disputed). What the terms pseudoscience and fringe science mean is described in their articles. On this basis, each case would need to be examined individually. I don't think that the entirety of the topics grouped under alternative medicine are within the scope of the sanctions, because our article about this topic says that alternative medicine is defined as being "not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method", which can be understood to mean that it is thought to be outside of the concept of science altogether. For instance, practices such as faith healing do not claim to be and are not normally discussed as scientific practices, and the scientific study of their practice is normally ordinary science (theology, sociology etc.) rather than a fringe science itself. However, I imagine that there are many "alternative" medicinal practices which are discussed in terms of their scientific validity, and these can fall within the scope of the sanctions under the conditions described above.

Also, as a practical matter, the enforcement log shows that editors have in the past been sanctioned in relation to the alternative medicine topics chiropractic, homeopathy (both many times), mucoid plaque and orthomolecular medicine. Past practice, therefore, indicates that administrators have readily accepted these topics as being subject to discretionary sanctions. However, the majority of sanctions seem to focus on issues related to cosmology, energy (cold fusion, etc.) and the ideas of one Rupert Sheldrake, rather than on alternative medicine.  Sandstein  16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I think the most productive use of people's time here is not to determine whether Chiropractic is within the scope or not, but rather to work out how to determine whether Topic X is within the scope or not. The suggestion of "if a reliable source about pseudoscience considers it pseudoscientific then it is within the scope" seems like a good starting point for that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I don't think changing the wording from "pseudoscience" will help (a rose by any other name and all that). It just needs to be made clear that it doesn't matter whether something is or is not pseudoscientific, just that if a reliable source has called it such then the discretionary sanctions authorised by the Pseudoscience arbitration case are available if needed. This status doesn't impact the article contents in any way, so it is irrelevant whether the label is applied by a single reliable source or by the entirety of reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Perhaps we can't avoid having a philosophical discussion about where chiropractic falls on the spectrum between recognized medical science and outright voodoo, or more precisely, where the various aspects of chiropractic fall today or have fallen in the past. But it might be more useful to come at this from a different direction: are there editing problems on chiropractic and related articles that applying the discretionary sanctions to them would help to address? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor input here convinces me that Chiropractic is within the scope of the DS. I am beginning to wonder whether it might be desirable to rephrase or define the scope of the DS so instead of or in addition to the word "pseudoscience" we use a more neutral phrase such as "fields whose status as science is either rejected or significantly disputed in the scientific literature." (I'm sure that can be refined.) The point here being not to put lipstick on any pseudoscientific pigs, but to avoid pointless arguments about the wording, and to take up the suggestion of providing guidance to avoid future disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Sandstein's analysis with respect to the reach of discretionary sanctions is generally correct, though it is interesting to note that faith healing is listed in {{Pseudoscience}}. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also generally agree with Sandstein's analysis. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) at 00:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Falun Gong 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Amendment request: Falun Gong 2 / Motion

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [40]

Information about amendment request

• Amendment request: Falun Gong 2
• Lifting the misbehaving user's indefinite topic ban lead to disruptive behavior, despite promises.

Statement by TheSoundAndTheFury

Last month, User:Ohconfucius appealed to ArbCom to lift the indefinite topic ban that prevented him from editing Falun Gong-related articles.

In his request he stated "Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on [Falun Gong]." He added "if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG." Instead, Ohconfucius said he wanted the ban lifted so that he could return to good standing and stop walking on eggshells when it comes to China-related articles.

On the basis of these promises Arbcom agreed to provisionally lift the topic ban for a period of one year, provided Ohconfucius not relapse into problematic editing patterns. One arbitrator noted the "request that Ohconfucius steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area."

Two weeks later, Ohconfucius returned to POV editing on a controversial Falun Gong article:

• [41] Deletes what appears to be verifiable information on the grounds that he didn't like the source, which he referred to as a Falun Gong "front-organisation." (The source cited was a major Israeli newspaper, but a translation of the article was hosted on a Falun Gong website).
• [42] Alters the source of torture allegations in apparent attempt to make them seem less credible (allegations were actually made by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and confirmed through extensive investigative reporting). Edit summary calls it a copy edit.
• [43] More of same. Edits article to (falsely) depict allegations from third party sources as coming from Falun Gong sources. Again, I imagine the intend was to make the reports seem less credible.

This is not the first time Ohconfucius has reneged on promises to refrain from editing on Falun Gong. He has on numerous occasions said he would stop editing in this area, and once even briefly "retired" with the apparent goal of trying to avoid sanctions (then promptly continued editing under another account). Given the opportunity he seems unable to avoid this subject, I suggest the topic ban be reinstated.

@John Carter: [edited] I would again like to bring to everyone's attention that Ohconfucius's topic ban was lifted on the provision that "[he] steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area". Indeed, it was his original suggestion that he refrain from editing the Falun Gong articles altogether. Cordially, TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: I'm afraid your description of the FLG2 case is not entirely accurate. The three findings of fact against Ohconfucius in that case received overwhelming support; and I suspect support might have been even higher if a more complete and representative selection of diffs as evidence were presented. It is true that the indefinite ban passed only by a margin of 6-5, but this was mainly because several arbs wanted to first try an experimental 'Mandated external review' option. It failed — no one's fault. But eight out of nine Arbitrators voted for mandated external review for Ohconfucius.

I am also not sure what you mean when you say "there were clear indications that he could appeal...after only 6 months on good behavior." The closest statement to this effect was when the drafting Arbitrator noted: "The proposed topic ban against Ohconfucius is an indefinite topic ban. As currently worded, the ban could be appealed at any time, although I don't expect an appeal would be likely to be considered until at least six months to a year down the road." TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Thank you for the clarification. You are right and my comment was not well thought out, as there was no explicit provision in the decision. Let me rephrase: I thought it was implicitly understood that the ban was lifted based on Ohconfucius's promise to not return to editing in this area. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

The committee might decline this on the grounds that they are not usually the first resort for enforcement. I did examine one diff of those submitted here and I agree that Ohconfucius's change was not a good idea. A Wall Street Journal reporter, Ian Johnson, got a Pulitzer in 2001 for a series of articles including this one about deaths of Falun Gong adherents in police custody. His statement that the people died was based on his own reporting. Changing the wording of this to say 'Falun Gong alleged..' seems ill advised. Also it was a bad idea to mark this in the edit summary as 'ce'. I hope that Ohconfucius will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSoundAndTheFury: It is inaccurate to say that Ohconfucius's ban "was lifted on the provision that "[he] steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area". You are quoting from a comment by a single arb who was simply making a request along with his vote. The motion itself didn't restrict Ohconfucius from areas of controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

The article and topic remain under discretionary sanctions, independent of the now-lifted sanctions against Ohconfucius. It is also unfortunate but true that the ArbCom having declared him as basically taking the side of the PRC in the last dispute is something which I can well imagine might leave a very bitter aftertaste for some time in someone accused in such a way. There has been, so far as I can tell from databanks, not much of a newsworthy nature on the topic in the past few years. I also agree that, unfortunately, it is possible for websites affiliated with organizations like FG to misrepresent/misquote sources in a prejudicial way. In such a case, I can reasonably say that it might well be reasonable to remove an alleged quote from a partisan source as being from a partisan source.

I have to say that it seems to me that reinstating the ban might well be ultimately counterproductive to the quality of the FG content here. The Sound and the Fury was not himself sanctioned in the FG2 case, but there was so far as I can remember a preponderence of evidence of he himself being a less than neutral and unbiased editor. That may also be worth considering here. And there is a very real chance that the existence of the discretionary sanctions, and the fact of there being two previous arbitrations on this matter, might well scare off many or most editors not previously invovled.

The edit summaries are and were problematic, and I cannot and will not attempt to defend them. But I do think Ohconfucius would be an invaluable editor to have around to help keep articles on this this highly contentious topic at a reasoanble level of quality. For all these reasons, I oppose the reinstatement of the ban. I think, on such potentially dubious potential misquotes (maybe?) from a group's internal propaganda opublications, such "questioning" of possible quotations is not unreasonable, and that there might also be a few rough spots in returning to edit such a contentious topic. These actions could well be accounted for on the basis of some lingering resentment as being labelled on the PRC side by ArbCom in the last case and "learning the ropes" about the topic again. Would there be, maybe, cause for discretionary sactions of some sort? Yes. A return to a full ban? So far as I can see, no. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Zujnie's points below. First, I question how qualified he/she is to compare the situation before and after Ohconfucius' ban, considering, so far as I can remember, Zujine had not been involved with the content at all prior to Ohconfucius' ban. Second, that he thinks Ohconfucius requested the ban be lifted on the provision he would refrain from editing in the topic, that statement is supported neither by the actual comments made or, even, common sense. Who would go through the effort of requesting a ban be lifted on a topic they would have no interest in editing in? Lastly, at least part of the alleged improvement (which I have not myself actually verified) could well be do to things other than Ohconfucius's absence, such as the reduced number of strident pro-FG POV pushers and, from what I can see in the databanks, a significantly reduced level of news coverage and developments related to FG. Having the topic itself be comparatively stable can and would in and of itself make it easier for the improvement of articles. For compelling reasons for his return, I think the fact that he is the person who played the greatest role in bringing FG's only FA article up to that level of quality is I believe possibly compelling enough reason.John Carter (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply noting that the ruling offering an "indefinite" ban on Ohconfucius only passed 6-5 at the time as per here, and in this case there were clear indications that he could appeal the indefinite ban after only 6 months on good behavior, and that several of the opposes were based on their having not supported the findings of fact against Ohconfucius involved. I am certain the arbitrators involved will review the circumstances of the case before passing judgment, and honestly regret the fact that my saying this seems to perhaps imply that there would ever be any real doubt of that. And noting that Zujnie as per contribution history has been involved in the content relating to human rights in China, including Tibet, to a great degree for some time now, and that includes some involvement in FG related content for much of that time. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius

• @Seraphimblade:It is true that I have been editing, but I can only manage minor editing while my RL workload is quite heavy, but that does not mean I am choosing not to reply to this. I am currently preparing my response in private, so please bear with me for a few days. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I thank the Arbs for their patience. My response is being finalised, and I beg Arbcom's indulgence for another 24 hours. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would start off by apologising for the length of this response, and the time it has taken me to get my thoughts together on the matter.

Falun Gong does not exist in a vacuum, as its leadership is at loggerheads with the PRC regime. Although Falun Gong claim the moral high ground, neither side has the gospel truth on its side although both claim it. FLG is certainly more of the victim in this game, but you can expect a violent reaction if you poke a wild animal enough times. Disliking both in equal measure, I edit without pro-Falun Gong nor pro-PRC government agenda. Other than living in a freer part of the country, I have no interest to conflict with. And because of my political experience and coverage on Wikipedia, I know it's quite possible (and easy) to make both look bad while editing here, albeit to different degrees. I know that that displeases the Falun Gong advocates no end. Falun Gong dislikes looking bad, and dislikes it intensely. I accept that my poor behaviour at times and edit warring that resulted in my topic ban in FLG2 was as a reaction to relentless POV-pushing by FLG proxies. I remain rather upset that Arbcom accused me of pro-regime bias in their FOF. Arbs agreed that my edits have the result of improving the appearance of the Communist Party of China, its members, and attempts by the group to take action against Falun Gong and its practitioners; and to discredit the Falun Gong movement. In retrospect, I ought to have sought to remove this blotch against my name instead of getting the TBan lifted. Maybe there's still time. The blotch hurts me a lot more than not being able to clean up Falun Gong bullshit. Anyone who may continue to think that one makes PRC regime look "good" by making Falun Gong "bad" has fallen into a logic trap that Falun Gong intended. Pity the arbs didn't bother to find some diffs of mine outside Falun Gong articles, where I make the PRC regime plenty ugly – any of the China-related articles listed in my contributions section would have done the job (2010 Nobel Peace Prize, Death of Li Wangyang will do). I'm no more pro- or anti- Falun Gong than I am pro- or anti- Liu Xiaobo or Li Wangyang. As long as there remains the adversarial relationship, there is the tendency to treat NPOV as push-pull zero-sum game, which it is not.

The Falun Gong have a formidable propaganda machine in New York under Gail Rachlin which grew out of the same Cultural Revolution mindset as the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, otherwise known as the "Propaganda Department". In a small way, I'm happy to say Rachlin's operation now qualitatively surpasses the regime's – it's much more reactive, and imaginative on the attack, but it's still paranoid and highly sensitive to criticism, like its counterpart. Operating in exile against a regime that is as brutal as it is opaque, there are no party lines to follow. Shen Yun becomes the vanguard, and propaganda gets dressed up deceptively as art. Li Hongzhi ordered followers to pick fights with the regime while he himself is safely in the US. His footsoldiers irritate the monster and add to their statistics. Ever imaginative, Falun Gong rides on the PRC's abysmal human rights record, their propaganda machine, in addition to hiding behind glossy silky dance performances, generates and spreads stories of Nazi-like atrocities that only a brutal totalitarian regime could conceivably commit. Like all smears, plausibility is key; never let the lack of evidence get into the way of a good story. One anonymous informant hiding behind dark glasses and waiting political asylum, without documentary or photographic proof. A small number of fairly high-profile European and Canadian politicians have been persuaded to hitch themselves to their bandwagon. For western politicians, there's mileage to be had and Brownie points to be earned.

'For' or 'Against'

Pointing to their motto but being cagey about the true and kooky nature of some of their teachings, Falun Gong hold themselves up as virtuous; anyone who dares to utter any criticism is labelled "evil". Their declared primary objective is the overthrow of the Communist Party of China – as can be seen from any issue of Epoch Times. Falun Gong hold themselves up as champions of human rights but actually only care about themselves; they are wary of other human rights defenders who are not Falun Gong. Anyone who dares to criticise them is thus a human rights abuser. Their proselytism is a defining trait, and they seek to discredit anyone who is not totally in support of them. Although the term "enemy" is usually reserved for the any observer who isn't completely on board is considered "the enemy" or a collaborator. They discredited cult-buster Rick Ross, vilified the sceptics He Zuoxiu and Sima Nan; poured scorn over the work of respectable academics like Margaret Singer, Heather Kavan by tarring with guilt by association to the regime. Initially welcoming him, they have scorned Harry Wu – probably the world's foremost authority on Chinese forced labour camps – since he declared that he found no evidence of the organ harvesting allegations. They spread rumours about Wu turning collaborator after his swift release from PRC arrest. Falun Gong editors quote extensively from texts written by "investigative journalist" Danny Schechter, whose discourse concerning Falun Gong is disconcertingly similar in tone and content to Falun Gong propaganda. Another favourite is Ethan Gutman, who writes for the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, and whose storyline repeating FLG allegations of live organ harvesting on FLG practitioners marries well with the journal's US-centric/anti-PRC agenda and rhetoric.

Professor David Ownby was given considerable access to the movement for many years, and is probably the foremost expert on Falun Gong. Ownby's writings are neutral tending to sympathetic, and these have been frequently used selectively as it suits the FLG. Ownby, who deserves much praise for his professionalism and integrity, speaks these words from the heart with the deep sense of frustration that I share:

THE CHARISMA OF MARTYRDOM

I stopped doing systematic fieldwork among Falun Gong practitioners in late 2002, in large measure because of the increasing pressure placed on me by practitioners to play a role in their struggle against the Chinese state. As Falun Gong multiplied its websites and media outlets— New Tang Dynasty Television and The Epoch Times newspaper being the most important—it was to be expected that they seek out the opinions of academic authorities to try to make their case. At the same time, despite my sympathy for the plight of Falun Gong practitioners, it became impossible to deliver any sort of nuanced message through Falun Gong media, or even to have meaningful conversations with many Falun Gong practitioners whose world view had become increasingly dualistic. Many practitioners also became insistent and almost paranoid, adopting an “us against them” mentality which makes interaction with them unpleasant and unproductive, and which, unfortunately, confirms the suspicions of those who all along saw them as a cult. This was rarely the case when I was doing fieldwork between 1999 and 2002.

Unwilling to become the Falun Gong pet expert, or to joust with practitioners as adversaries, as do most journalists, I simply decided to distance myself from them.

— David Ownby, "In Search of Charisma: The Falun Gong Diaspora"
Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 12, No. 2, November 2008

A libertarian with a long track record of interest human rights in my country, I would have been a natural supporter of the movement when I started editing Falun Gong articles in about mid-2007. I am known for being without an agenda (except for compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), and for taking a stand for same, save for differences of interpretation. I have found myself caught in the middle of pro- and anti-Falun Gong factions, and had direct confrontations with self-declared FLG activists like Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) and Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs). But because of my continued research into the topic, and also the particularly bitter and long-running disputes I have had with these editors, I can see the FLG without the rose-coloured spectacles.

Latterly, since the aforementioned have been driven away by bans, more sophisticated undeclared/clandestine FLG advocates who are well versed in Wikipedia's policies appeared. The Homunculus and TSTF edit quite unlike the blunt hammer "must win" approach of Dilip rajeev and Olaf Stephanos. They no tolerate overt untruths as their predecessors did, which is welcome. However, their high degree of sensitivity to criticism (even nuances) – a Falun Gong trait – remains, and their editing and tactics are highly coordinated. Falun Gong editors will almost always attempt to portray critics' views as "outside of the spectrum of mainstream discourse", but they edit little else outside this namespace. And once FLG2 was launched, these have been bust accumulating non-Falun Gong edits to disguise where their true editing interests lie.

In the course of editing the article family and bringing Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to Featured Article, I found many of their edits problematic: there were numerous factual inaccuracies, BLP policies violations, original research, dubious sourcing; they delete notable and reliably sourced information for unclear reasons (and accuse others of the same tactics for stuff they want keeping), misrepresent reliable sources, etc. The version that stands today is a cumulative effect of the two groups, but mainly the later group.

The NPOV premise

It's not likely that Arbcom need reminding that it's easy to edit a subject in isolation. Proper weight can often be achieved simply by counting the number of different sources for any given element. It's a lot tougher when one is wrestling with a polarised situation amidst information deficit and bullshit rhetoric from both sides – most of the conflict that ends here is a result of entrenched and opposite views. Even tougher is when, in this case, Falun Gong activists scrutinise each edit for wording or content that may be prejudicial to perception of the movement.

I do have a compulsion to raise red flags about NPOV wherever I happen to see it. TSTF is not a neutral party in this request – in the previous Arbcom case, I showed that my current accuser, TSTF, is a single purpose Falun Gong advocacy account (or rather there was only a very slim chance that TSTF was not a SPU Falun Gong advocate). We have had undeclared Epoch Times editors editing here before, and Wikipedia's openness makes this likely to continue. I'm not saying that TSTF is an ET writer, but his/her editing stance has all the hallmarks of one. As soon as the case was over, TSTF noindexed my user analysis. [He] uses three edits as evidence of my anti-Galun Gong bias without engaging me in discussion, and sought an immediate reinstatement of my topic ban. But we can exchange diffs about his alleged neutrality too – in one of the more recent edits, TSTF removed the assertion that the PRC government said that the movement is a cult, alleging "factual inaccuracy". But I don't see it. All I know is that the movement is hyper-sensitive to the "c-word".

Although I did not perform the analysis on the edits of Zujine, it is clear this user's main interest is also in Falun Gong. Over a period of time when I was not active on FLG, this "tag team" markedly shifted the balance of the 'Self-immolation' article which I took to FA as well as others; they overweighted with their pet sources and marginalised more mainstream sources that suggest more Falun Gong practitioners involvement in radical/extreme acts than perhaps they would wish. There is no denying the PRC regime may have attempted to propagandise every aspect of Falun Gong being an evil cult, but that does not mean practitioners were definitely involved; yet FLG try to deny Li Hongzhi ever said anything that could have incited the radicals. By the time of the Arbcom case and despite my efforts, most of the Falun Gong articles had reached a stage where the Falun Gong felt was acceptable and contained the propaganda damage. As in any hotly contested area, stability would be easily assured if one side had been left alone to edit them without any buttress or challenge, as has been in this case.

Use of anonymous informants, often single, sources and synthesis

The organ harvesting allegations stem from the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong mouthpiece, when it published allegations of one anonymous "eyewitness" who would be seeking asylum. The fanciful smear against a Malaysian-owned hospital in the PRC specialised in treating thrombosis, Falun Gong spun this imaginative tale of clandestine human-parts factories, and furnaces to destroy physical evidence. There has never been a shred of evidence that this "factory exists" or that FLG practitioners were victims of same, yet the Falun Gong sources continue to bang the drum against the PRC regime which they despise.

Another favourite trick is to credibilise and factualise their own by citing journals or news sites that cite or quote them. We tell our editors not to cite ourselves, yet it's the Falun Gong modus operandum. The circular referencing is dishonest, like money-laundering. How fortunate of them to be able to recruit David Kilgour and David Matas to lend credibility to their campaign to vilify the regime. The investigative report is a supreme act of synthesis even by the authors' own admission, and would have been removed on sight had it been written by Wikipedia the editors. Yet because it was compiled by two individuals with a modicum of credibility and fulfils the dual notions of WP:V and WP:GNG, it is allowed to stand.

Logical inferences and synthesis

Since the PRC regime suppresses critics, petitioners and activists and tortures them, they torture Falun Gong practitioners; since the PRC took organs from dead prisoners, it takes only a little stretch to accuse them of systematically harvesting organs from live FLG practitioners. The various extra-territorial court cases some practitioners mounted on Chinese leaders for torture and genocide, and the act of making them widely known, is intelligent propaganda coup against the regime. It's unheard of that world leaders would answer such allegations in foreign courts, so the default judgement makes them look guilty. Elements like this then get put into Wikipedia articles by Falun Gongsters or their proxies, and defended by heavy lawyering although such allegations would likely have been removed if it were any other Wikipedia biography. Ironically, Arbs accepted this diff to support their FOF that I was pro-PRC and anti-FLG. Humpf!

The edits

It is a well-established that assertions stated as fact should be cited to relevant reliable sources. In this case, highly questionable sources removed are sites controlled by Falun Gong. Why bother to look any further? It's unacceptable, full stop. There is no obligation to allow citations that appear to be dubious irrespective of what underlies. We don't use Rick Ross' anti-cult archive, and we certainly should not use that of a Falun Gong front that selectively stores articles consistent with the Falun Gong discourse. The allegation at the heart is based on one anonymous witness. Even assuming that the document is bona fide and that it has been accurately translated, the single anonymous "witness" does not warrant the weight it was given. I could have trimmed it down to mention of the prohibition directly cited to a Hebrew source, but I decided out-right removal would be simpler.

These three edits were drive-by edits based on old baggage. Although this edit summary was careless and lazy, the edit seeks to remove weasel words and synthesis that is too often used in Falun Gong articles, viz: "Authorities reportedly sanctioned the use of torture..." Falun Gong advocates constantly lay heavy background on how the movement (and not just petitioners and other non-Falun Gong activists who oppose the regime) is suppressed and its members tortured, as a prelude for the main article. The objective was not to make the torture allegations less credible, but more relevant; the live organ-harvesting allegations can be see for what they are so long as the facts are properly laid out.

This edit ought not to be controversial, for it is merely prudent to avoid weasel words, and be clear from whence "concerns" are arising. Until I corrected it, the lead remained unqualified. Perhaps TSTF is denying that Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFA) is a Falun Gong pressure group that lobbies on behalf of the Falun Gong... My edit summary is self-explanatory and I don't see anyone but hardened Falun Gong SPAs would have an issue with correction of such blatant problems. You make unusual claims, and it's only reasonable that you make full and frank disclosure of the key assumptions up front if you are trying to vaunt the claims' merits. K&M openly state that the evidence was all circumstantial and reiterate their findings in spite of it, so I think that detail is important enough for the lead.

Two of my challenged edits corrected obvious problems that are common in FLG articles. My edit could have motivated TSTF to improve the sourcing, but he has instead chose to run straight to Arbcom (well within his rights, you could say), whilst allowing my edits to stand for now. No doubt, they will be reverted once this complaint has been determined one way or another. This course of action would suggest that [his] battleground mentality that existed previously still prevails.

Conclusion

TSTF and Zujine, both of whom did not oppose an appeal to lift the topic ban of their one truest and greatest Teflon foe (used advisedly) probably to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG, must now be rubbing their hands in glee at my apparent stupidity at not being able to keep my nose out. Yet it's plain they are both desperate to have the topic ban reinstated, making what appears to be bad faith accusations of broken promises and unmet expectations. Others commenting here have already drawn attention to these untruths. The Falun Gong SPAs are obviously upset now because of the threat I pose to the stranglehold of Falun Gong orthodoxy on Wikipedia. But retirement is not death. How many times have WP editors retired and come back? How many times have editors disappeared without a word and never come back? Plenty, in both cases. I retired several times from this topic area, and returned only after a relatively long period each time that nobody could reasonably accuse me of deception, yet it amuses me to be accused of breaching undertaking. Whilst I was foolish not to completely stay away from the topic, Arbcom never held me to my offer to stay away. TSTF implies there was a "proviso" to the lifting of the topic ban, but Arbcom never gives anything away, and I suspect TSTF knows it. The true proviso is that the ban can be reinstated immediately if there are transgressions. I failed to heed NYBrad's words of wisdom, and now I do have some regret. TSTF will probably feel he can adequately defend against "anti-Falun Gong" elements if I'm out of the picture indefinitely. With me on the loose, TSTF will never know when the next "unfavourable" change will be, and could feel the need to check on the FLG articles daily, instead of every two weeks, to ensure they retained their glossy veneer.

But in truth, and in summary, I now think having the topic ban reimposed would be a price worth paying in exchange for rescinding the finding of fact 2 (opposed by two arbs). I'm done with making Falun Gong articles compliant. Anyway, I have written much more than I intended, and would thank you for your patience. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zujine

In my view this issue is simple. Ohconfucius stated in his appeal that he would not edit Falungong articles. Based on my reading of the case, it seems the ban against him was suspended on basis of that promise, which he promptly broke. In that sense, the fact his edits were not neutral or accurate almost seems beside the point.

If we want to discuss whether Ohconfucius should be allowed to return to editing Falungong articles, a much more compelling case needs to be made to show, first, that he has recognised his past errors and won't repeat them (not off to a good start); and second, to assess potential risks and benefits to the project. Based on his track record I believe that no benefits could be derived, but there would be real risk for the Falungong topic area to again devolve into a battle ground. Over the last two years since Ohconfucius was barred from editing it has been refreshingly stable. Article quality has continually improved, with some pages achieving GA status. I doubt this could have been accomplished if our collective energies were instead directed toward addressing Ohconfucius' behaviour.—Zujine|talk 03:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John, I've been active in the falungong subject for the better part of five years. Ohconfucius has been banned for two. There was a period in which our editing on these pages overlapped. I was deeply unimpressed by what I witnessed from him in that time, especially his conduct on the FA you referred to. I understand you like this editor and have defended him at ArbCom on numerous occasions, but there was good reason for his indefinite topic ban. Besides, I'm guessing the Arbs are more concerned with recent events than with revisiting old evidence.—Zujine|talk 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statement from OhConfucius. I also would welcome brief comments on whether this should be addressed here or by the admins on arbitration enforcement, though the procedural issue shouldn't get in the way of addressing the merits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also awaiting statements from Ohconfucius. To the issue Newyorkbrad raises, I don't see any issue addressing this here as that's where it's already been raised, but handling at AE would also be fine as the motion specifically allows reinstatement of the ban as an AE action if that were determined to be necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohconfucius: As you've continued editing since being notified but not responded here, I presume you do not wish to make a statement and we can proceed. If this is incorrect, please make your statement here at your earliest possible convenience. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That didn't take long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting statement from OhConfucius. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting statement. Do you have an estimate for when it will be ready @Ohconfucius? NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NF, I've recently discovered that {{ping}} only works when you sign a comment the same time you save the edit. Since you had to fix the ping template above, it didn't actually work. However, I'll fix that: @Ohconfucius:. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, another thing I wasn't aware of with the new ping functionality. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]