(Personal attack above by Davkal crossed out. -- Fyslee/talk 11:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

As above, I have seen several examples where skeptics have cited Skeptics dictionary as WP:RS for a scientific topic or scientific information, yet have dismissed citations from scholars or professionals with many years of experience in related fields because they aren't skeptical enough. I've also seen instances where skeptics have demanded impossible levels of proof (in one case, somebody demanded to see payslips from the 1960s as proof that somebody worked for a company), and have tried tried to add doubt into the minute details of certain experiments even when published skeptics haven't questioned them. There is most certainly an anti-paranormal cadre out there. one which believes that the anything other than skepticism is POV pushing.

Skeptics must be pressured to cite sources from people with experience in the field. No more astronomers being used to dispute electronics or writers being used to dispute genetics.

perfectblue 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"somebody demanded to see payslips from the 1960s" Diff please? --Minderbinder 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody did actually demand to see pay slips. What was asked for, in this particular case, was a NASA source (and a NASA source alone would do) as a source for someone who worked at NASA. What was rejected as a source was a book by a noted academic whose paid field of expertise covers the individual in question and his work and therefore, to many, was an appropriate source for basic biographical information. What was also requested, some time ago, was that the actual transcipt of a letter be produced before we could cite a quoted and published section of it.Davkal 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Perfectblue97, which is it? Did "somebody demand to see payslips" or is that another strawman? --Minderbinder 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point stands either way, regardless of your antagonistic summary. A perfectly reasonable source was provided and rejected, and a request for an almost impossible source was suggested as the only possible solution. The person in question was a consultant for NASA many years ago and we were asked to delve deep into NASA archives to validate what actually was a mundane, and very well sourced, point, in the absence of any contrary information or suggestion, just because a few editors would rather it wasn't so. In other words, it was a wholly unreasonable request made for no other reason than to downplay the credentials of an individual involved in EVP research.Davkal 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point stands even if it's a lie? If someone said that, there's a diff showing it. I'd like perfectblue to answer the question. --Minderbinder 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was about "instances where skeptics have demanded impossible levels of proof". And this stands whether you want payslips, transcripts of actual letters, or 40 year old archived material from who knows where in place of, for example, a clear statement of the point in a book by a noted academic writing about something that he is paid to know about. There was also a case where I asked what evidence you would accept for the JSPR being peer-review, and you said we needed a third-party source, and when I provided it you said you weren't talking about the JSPR. This list, is almost endless.

Also to call what PB said a lie (when if anything it is a mistake) is a clear personal attack.Davkal 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make claims like "where skeptics have demanded impossible levels of proof" at an RfC, please provide diffs. If PB has made a mistake, there has certainly been pleny of time to correct it - I'd like to hear what she has to say. --Minderbinder 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and I'd like to ask you to answer these question? Do you accept that we have been asked to provide a NASA source for MacRae working at NASA, and that a NASA source is claimed (by sceptical editors) to be the only acceptable source for this information. 2. Do you agree that a NASA source is the only valid source here. 3. Do you accept that you asked for a third party source for the peer-review status of the JSPR and then immediately claimed to be concerned only with the JSE when that source was provided? Davkal 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Payslip

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

perfectblue 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Comment added later: The user blocked above for 18 hours was Michaelbusch, who has now endorsed this RfC against me. For this edit, among others. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he was blocked because he made all edits under his own name, while your violation of 3RR in that same dispute wasn't caught at the time because you evaded 3RR enforcement with meatpuppetry. I certainly think his view of the dispute is relevant. --Minderbinder 12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. In your previous 3RR reports, you actually had made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period and the admins chose to let you off - listing ScienceApologist for reverting over a two week period isn't remotely "debatable" and borders on WP:POINT, particularly when you admit your intention was "establishing a record".
2. In the case of Crop Circles, the only reason you weren't reported for 3RR was because you evaded the rule using a meatpuppet. The same applies to Psychic, where there's also no question that you broke the rule and would have been blocked except for your meatpuppetry.
3. Your continued insistence that you only violated 3RR on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts because of "an honest mistake" is troubling since it shows you still fail to understand that three reverts isn't a right, and that revert warring (and editing in opposition to concensus) in general is a bad thing. This has been explained to you by an admin and yet you still seem to feel that you've done nothing wrong. Let's note Martin's strategy for editing, which makes no mention of consensus and seems to include making edits whether other editors agree or not, and the admin response taking issue with Martin's insistence that he was in the right and that his revert warring was OK as long as he didn't exceed 3RR. --Minderbinder 23:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I didn't know about the meatpuppet thing. I assumed that one had rights on Wikipedia analogous to rights in normal society. I'd never heard that another user didn't have normal rights because they were sharing a computer. So, my mistake. Sort of. So that takes care of the meat puppet accusations.

Reporting ScienceApologist: He is an inveterate edit warrer, who makes me bow down in utter shame before his edit warring greatness. I didn't report him to make a point. I reported him to get it on his record, so that it will be there when he next violates the rule- by sock puppet or otherwise.

On the List edit warring: it was a last resort. The mistake was more in not going directly to mediation. However, I have said that it is indeed a mistake. I said it violated the spirit of 3RR. What more can you ask? Did you read my post?

I will, however, say that merely editing in opposition to consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. Material which is harmful and unsourced, and which has had a citation request on it for weeks, may be take out, period, as it is the problem of those editors who want it to stay in to source it. I didn't have to seek community agreement to take it out. Rather, you needed to source it if you wanted it to stay in. If you don't agree, ask Simoes. He taught me that. The following applies:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the ^{[citation needed]} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]

Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2] (emphasis added)

This is the guideline I applied, and I was reverted for it. Applying this guideling is what I was doing when I was blocked for 3RR, and from this fact spring my doubts that the block was wholly justified, in addition to the fact that the 4th revert was something done many days or weeks before (I don't recall). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn't change the part they were quoting- a fine point which Dreadlocke has explained to you. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the part I responded to, which is forbidden per the guideline WP:TALK. I've restored your original comments above so my reply may be seen in context. All that Dreadlocke has "explained" to me is that he feels that he is exempt from that guideline and that I may not correct his violations - an issue on which all admins who have commented have sided with me, despite his continued forum shopping. --Minderbinder 11:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not at all what I said, Minderbender, and you know it. I said that you were not allowed under WP:TALK to change other editors talk page posts just because they changed them. That's the issue, and you've done it again. If you read the guideline, it is not "forbidden" but instead "It is best to avoid having to change one's {own] comments". Big difference between "forbidden" and "best to avoid". Please point out where it says forbidden and allows you to revert such changes in another eidtor's post. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the old version was just copied? Better than editing another user's posts, if so. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no admin has agreed that you should have edited my post for the purported violation of WP:TALK, Just the exact opposite, as a matter of fact.. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I stand by my editing record and by these principles. I will not be held to a different standard than any other editor. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minderbender says re sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are highly charged accusations and a huge failure to WP:AGF assume good faith. While I haven't edited the article before today, I have had Dowsing on my watchlist as it had been recommended as a reference in the EVP situation [7]. (and similar to Fyslee, I currently have over nine hundred pages on my watchlist)

In addition, even if I wasn't already watching the page, WP:STALK says: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." If an editor has a history of violating WP policy by POV pushing, I'm certainly going to look at their edits and if I see POV pushing on other articles I will correct it.

As for Dowsing, you first changed the sentence to a statement that was the opposite of the source it was cited to (WP:NOR), then changed the sentence in the opening section to say "While a major scientific study of dowsing concluded that a "real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven", some scientists and skeptics still find no basis for dowsing" which presents the interpretation of one group of scientists of one study as the primary view, and the rest of science as dissenters who are ignoring the Evidence. Are you feeling left out here, Davkal? Your POV pushing actions almost make it seem like you want to have a RfC of your own? --Minderbinder 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: Reversal of the burden of proof, requiring those supporting the dominant world-view to provide a specific citation refuting the minor/crank theory, is a recurrent theme in pseudoscience subjects. --- LuckyLouie 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual." Marcello Truzzi

Unusual claims must produce much more and stronger proof before their proponents can reasonably expect to be heard. The same would logically apply to the level of RS required for their inclusion here. -- Fyslee/talk 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual claims only require strong proof is they are being put forward as being scientifically supported/mainstream. A fringe crank only needs to be shown to exist and to be notable in the context of the topic. For example, you don't need to scientifically validate the hypothesis of a madman who kills his neighbor because he thinks that he is an alien, you only need to verify that he was caught and convicted.

perfectblue 07:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but how unusual is it for someone to work for NASA. Not very, but that has been cited as an extraordinary claim (red flagged). And how unusual a claim is it that two old men with planks could make hundreds of complex crop circles in total darkness, when the simple circle they tried to produce in broad daylight turned out to be rubbish. The notion of what is extraordinary is being abused and used to push POV.Davkal 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal, are you seriously claiming that even after people have admitted how crop circles are made and even demonstrated exactly how it is done (on film, so we can all see it done), you're STILL insisting it's an extraordindary claim? I certainly agree that the notion of what is extraordinary is being abused and used to push POV. --Minderbinder 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not claiming that at all. Are you claiming that working for NASA is an extraordinary claim standing in need of nothing les than the production of 40 year old contracts.Davkal 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you saying about crop circles? That is't not an unusual claim? What point is your crop circle statement supposed to make? And I'm claiming that the sources making the NASA claim seem to be poor ones (it doesn't help that some of the sources seem to be getting the info from each other). --Minderbinder 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is getting a little outside the scope of the RfC, perhaps, but I'll bite. "Paranormal" phenomena are generally defined as supernatural, that is, occurring outside the explanations and predictions offered by science. For instance, the Journal of Parapsychology defined paranormal as a "term for any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." So almost by definition, these paranormal phenomena are occurring outside the scope of the scientific method or scientific proof/explanation. This makes them "fringe" subjects by Wikipedia's guidelines, at least in my reading of them. That doesn't mean that paranormal phenomena don't exist, or that people at big-name universities aren't studying them; it just has implications for how we deal with them on Wikipedia. Geology is different, in that it's of enough general interest to the scientific community that a peer-reviewed literature exists which can be used to rebut "flood geologists". But the same is not true of crop circles or EVP. This doesn't mean that they're necessarily inherently more valid or less "fringe" than flood geology though - just that they are topics which have not attracted critical independent scientific analysis for a variety of reasons. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology is in the same situation as astronomy when dealing with dark matter. It is not outside science, but it deals with an unknown quantity).

All of that is fine. But what it doesn't mean is that in cases where there is no scientific consensus, non-scientific speculation by other agencies/individuals attains scientific status by default. But this is what is happening, and so to continue the analogy, scientific papers are cited in the flood geology article and non-scientific speculation is cited in identical ways (and with identical authority) in the crop-circle and EVP article. Indeed, in the EVP article we are even now prevented from saying that there is no scientific literature on the subject. Nobody, as far as I can see, objects to a statement in these articles setting out their fringe status clearly, but what some of us do object to is equally fringe untested claims being cited as scientific fact in virtue of the lack of scientific study. Davkal 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If mainstream science has nothing to say about a topic, that's a pretty strong indication that it's not a mainstream field and should be treated according to the WP:FRINGE guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely tend to agree there. Else, I can just say right now that I have a theory that the world is a giant pink beach ball, and mainstream science hasn't bothered to argue with me on that one. As to Davkal's statement, I don't think anyone's advocating sanctions. As I stated in my endorse for MastCell's statement, when I handled the sockpuppetry case, it very much appeared to be an honest mistake, so I warned rather than blocked. The idea of an RfC is not to sanction. If sanctions were sought, this would be at WP:CN. It's the hope of any RfC (but especially this one, I think Martinphi has a lot of potential to make excellent contributions) that the user will take the advice of those who comment, learn from it, and we'll never hear about it again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the two sides making comments are so divided that even if I were in the mood to give up all my own opinions, I wouldn't know which side to take. I'd end up being somewhere between the two extremes. In other words, I be just where I am. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, your comments worry me. They reveal attitudes that may nearly ensure that this RfC ends up badly for you:

1. You don't seem to be "in the mood" to change your opinions;
2. You don't know which side is right;
3. You will remain where you are.

That means that you aren't learning from this RfC, which is a primary goal. A positive outcome for you is based on the condition that you learn and change. Lacking evidence of such learning and change, there is only a negative prognosis for your stay here.

Keep in mind that while RfCs aren't designed to end with blocks and bans, they certainly can end very abruptly for any and all parties who participate, including blocks, topic bans,and even indefinite bans. Admins have the right to do so at any time they deem necessary. Larry Sanger's words should be kept in mind, when he says: "show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." [8]

You may not be one of them, but your attitudes are creating much trouble here, poisoning the atmosphere, and wasting our time. You risk that an admin will follow that advice right here and now, since there is no need to wait and see if you will learn, if you already evidence that you (a) haven't learned, or (b) don't intend to learn, or (c) aren't capable of learning. If you don't immediately start providing such evidence, your fate may be sealed. -- Fyslee/talk 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "Say my side of the debate is right. Then you will have learned." And if you "learn," then we won't get you banned. Yeah, really nice. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The link I provided was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Karmafist#Welcoming_new_users in which ArbCom said "Editors who welcome new users are likely to be seen as representatives of Wikipedia. Their welcomes should thus be friendly, helpful, and reflect the priorities of the encyclopedia. Welcome messages are also an exception to the community's general dislike of internal "spamming". Since new users are as yet unfamiliar with Wikipedia's functioning, such welcomes should not be used as a vehicle for advocacy of any kind." That applies perfectly to what you did, Martinphi. If you read further down you'll see that the committee banned that user from making any further advocacy "welcomes". It should be obvious that what you did is wrong, whether it technically broke a rule or not, and your continued insistence that you did nothing wrong is troubling. If someone received arbcom sanctions for doing something, it's probably a bad idea to do the same things they were sanctioned for - I got a sense of deja vu looking at Tommysun's edits to Crop Circle as mentioned above.

I agree that the definition of "mainstream science" and "experts in a given field" is a crucial part of this dispute. If anyone has a suggestion on how to get a definitive "ruling" on this, it would go a long way toward resolving this.

Personally, I think the rest of NPOV makes it clear that Wikipedia's mission is to first present the mainstream opinion, and not what a tiny group agrees on. To take Martin's logic to the extreme, should Time cube only reflect the "consensus" of Time cube experts, namely those who have studied it? Wouldn't limiting an article to only "experts" (particularly when "experts" in some of these cases is a fringe group whose work is barely notable and hasn't been scrutinized by the mainstream) lead to many articles consisting of a fringe view with no counterpoint, simply because the topic is either obscure or after an examination of avialable evidence considered too ridiculous by mainstream science to even respond to? I can't imagine that's wikipedia's intention, particulary with the statement: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." Also, NPOV says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." It doesn't say represent the view of the small group studying a topic, nor the view of just one branch of science, it says to represent the majority (scientific) view. Interpreting it otherwise seems like wikilawyering and twisting semantics to change the definiton of "majority". Where does WP say this in a way that "field" can be open to interpretation? Credibility via obscurity, or credibility through lack of disproof simply aren't compatible with wikipedia policy. --Minderbinder 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what you think I was advocating- that is the only part of the text which might remotely apply. You are the one who welcomed the user. I did say welcome, but I was not extending a formal welcome, as the first person to do so. I have never done this.

I did make her aware of the Paranormal project. I did make her aware of the essay and the outside page. This was relevant to her edits.

I did not know that there would be any problem with this whatsoever. I'm still not sure that there is, though I could see the point much more clearly if I had been the one to greet the user first. Since I was not, and my post was relevant to edits the user had already made, I'm not sure I agree that this was wrong.

Just how many entries would have had to be on the talk page before I was not "Welcoming a new user?" If there had been 4, instead of 2, would it have been alright? Is the "Welcome" heading sufficient reason here? I am not averse to saying I am wrong on the matter. I did not have any reason to think there was anything wrong with it at the time.

Anyway, re your other comments:

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

All fields of science are tiny groups. The size is irrelevant.

The consensus of those who know about, and have to some degree researched, Time Cube, is that it is bunk- and anyway, it comes under obvious pseudoscience. However, one must look at the academic and institutional standing of a field to know whether it is science or not. One must also look at whether the field's critics treat it as a science. In both instances, Parapsychology comes out as a science.

Thus, your reductio ad absurdum argument, which seemed extremely good on the surface, actually fails, as I am not actually making the straw man argument you cited.

I repeat that when it says "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." This means the consensus of scientists within a field. The entire crux of the matter is whether parapsychology is a field of science. Your interpretation that this means we must represent the overall ideas of scientists in general just has the opinions of botanists as relevant to quantum physics. This is an absurd argument.

Here is where Wikipedia guidelines say that only the opinion of scientists in a particular field are relevant:

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

And here is the definition of scientific consensus:

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

Wikipedia presents the scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field. Are you really willing to dispute this guideline? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is begging the question that parapsychologists are scientists and their field a science. I'm sure intelligent design enthusiasts have all sorts of consensus among themselves, but you won't find a Wikipedia article stating that there's a consensus in the field that an intelligent being created all life on the planet. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I will exercise GF and believe that you "did not have any reason to think there was anything wrong with it at the time." We have all made our newbie mistakes and not always been aware of certain written and unwritten rules here. That was then, and now we're here. Now you need to adopt what is being taught to you. Now is your chance to learn and change. Now is your chance to learn that Wikipedia is not the outside world and that other rules apply here. This is not the place for advocacy for your POV, or to push it on articles. Please, right now, make a radical change in your thinking about your purpose here. You know alot about these subjects. That means you have great potential. But it also means that without radical change right now, you can also be a great liability to Wikipedia and such a great drain on our resources that it just isn't worth having you around, at least not without being placed under certain restraints. (BTW, please reformat your indents above.) -- Fyslee/talk 08:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just to repeat what I've already said, the AAAS accepts parapsychology as a science, so it is clear that a good parapsychologist (not a hobbyist, I may add) is as valid a a source any other scientist. Equally, you're argument is self defeating. If the world's most respected mainstream scientist were to get together and experiment with ESP their work would immediately fall into parapsychology by pure definition. Thus it would not be mainstream regardless of who did the experiment or how mainstream they were.

perfectblue 07:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I said Wiki rules don't deal with things very well. The point being that we have verious levels of scientific involvement in "paranormal" topics. Parapsychology is accepted now (by the AAAS) as a science, while astrology, presumably, is not. And to provide a fair balanced account of these two subjects we simply cannot invoke one catch all rule. There are subtleties with every different article and, in my opinion, all people are doing here is throwing about words like "paranormal" or "supernatural" or "science" or "pseudoscience" as if that, in and of itself, made the case clear. It does not. And when one looks at the way the rules are applied in actual articles, it is clear that Wiki rules are being used to push POV in a way that is clearly against the spirit, if not the letter, of Wiki law. We are not allowed to say someone worked for NASA (is that an extraordinary claim), we are not allowed to say the someone received a letter (paranormal or what!), we are not allowed to say someone is a scientist, or an academic. In short, the rules are being invoked way past their intended scope and this won't be resolved by banning one or two (it looks like three is the target at the moment) editors from engaging in the debate.Davkal 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wiki rules do handle this one. And this is one I agree with Martinphi on completely. Forget the AAAS. Forget all the other stuff. If parapsychology is so obviously a pseudoscience, why is it that the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts only has two sources for it, one of them a PDF that doesn't even use the word parapsychology, and the other coming from Quackwatch.org, an obviously pro-skeptic site (ie. not mainstream). Was that question ever answered? Because, seriously, I want to know. The pseudoscience guidelines say to use the word sparingly. It is a pejorative word used to dismiss things outright, that's why it's supposed to be used only on obvious things like astrology, palmistry, and so on. Mainstream is straight down the middle by definition. If this pejorative term is so applied to parapsychology by mainstream science, where's the sources? There should be plenty.

It's a negative term and parapsychology isn't in the list of obvious pseudoscience, the guidelines there say to use it sparingly, so the position of using it is one that you guys have to defend, and it certainly needs a really good source since it's a pejorative term. Wikipedia doesn't like to say negative things about anything without solid sourcing. All you guys sourced was a PDF that didn't say anything about parapsychology and a Quackwatch.org article. Quackwatch.org isn't even the original source of the article. It's a reprint from Skeptical Inquirer. Skeptical Inquirer is not a scientific journal, it's a pop skepticism magazine sold for profit at Barnes and Noble. Over there in the discussion, the article tries to say it comes directly from the Russian Academy of Sciences. Excuse me for being skeptical, but reliability is sort of weak when it passes from the RAS to the Skeptical Inquirer to an online resource like Quackwatch.org. So much room for tampering there. The word "parapsychologists" is only used once, right along with witches and shamans. Anyone could have put that in there just as their own revision. Where's the link to the original Russian version? I have translation software.

I completely don't understand this one. If it's such a mainstream view it should have been a lot easier. I wasn't aware of this article when all this was going on. If I had been I would have cried foul too. It's not POV-pushing to require a higher standard for dismissive, negative terms.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article is quite interesting since the talk page is supposed to contain evidence of the attempts to resolve the dispute that led to this RfC. Looking at the talk page one thing stands out. For many weeks Martin has been trying to get people to properly source parapsychology as a pseudoscience. He has put fact tags in, deleted the claim when no sources were forthcoming etc etc. and all that seem to have happened in response is that the unsourced stuff has been reinserted and an ever increasing volley of argument/abuse has been directed at Martin. No argument is needed here, get a source. Of the sources offered at the moment, as Nealparr notes, one doesn't even mention parapsychology at all and the second, well, if anybody knows what to make of that let me know. Davkal 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"all that seem to have happened in response is that the unsourced stuff has been reinserted" That's absolutely not true since items have been added back with sources. Personally I have added ones sourced to the National Science Foundation. I did add Materialization under obvious pseudoscience, is there an objection to that? --Minderbinder 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an objection to tagging materialization as that because it doesn't seem as cut and dry. The parapsychology one involves actual people, versus a subject, who consider themselves to be real scientists involved in real scientific work. I mean, we don't call scientists who study the impact of religion on society pseudoscientists just because religion isn't science. Even if materialization is totally bogus, that doesn't mean these people aren't applying real science to a bogus topic. So the difference is Wikipedia is calling a group of people, not just a topic, something completely negative and dismissive. That's pretty bold for a neutral site considering we can point out how small the field is, and how removed from widespread science, without making a negative and dismissive statement. At least that's my take on this one. That's why I endorsed Annalisa's outside comment. Whoever went so far as calling the ASPR journal a "journal of pseudoscience" [9] is guilty of POV-pushing too.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the source for Parapsychology - none. The materialisation source - it's not even clear what that's a source for: the rubbish definition, the "fact" that it is part of parapsychology, ot the "fact" that it is pseudoscience. And given that you don't have a source for the category it is in (parapsychology - see above) it's not clear that any of them should be there until the main one is sorted. Is that article really supposed to be evidence of efforts to resolve a dispute - add some really dodgy sources that don't even mention the thing they're the source for and then tell anyone who disgrees they are in breach of wiki rules. Dear oh dear oh dear.Davkal 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection to moving Materialization from under parapsychology back to the obvious pseudoscience section. If editors insist that Materialization (parapsychology) doesn't fall under parapsychology, then the article on it needs fixing (since wikipedia currently defines it as part of parapsychology), including a rename. Or do you object to characterizing materialization as a pseudoscience at all? --Minderbinder 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were some other things I didn't agree with in the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts discussion that I forgot about. They were equating parapsychology with paranormal as a broad term, when the scope of parapsychology is very limited. That was the reasoning that was given for using the PDF as a source. They said because it said paranormal, it says parapsychology, eventhough parapsychology isn't actually said. The non-equation of parapsychology with paranormal is verifiable by simply checking the scope. How can one say anything definitive at all about something (especially applying negative terms to it) when they aren't at least familiar with the scope of it? Again, it doesn't make any sense to me. On one source we have no actual mention of parapsychology, a verifiable miscategorization that equates a limited scope with something broader. On the other source, it isn't direct at all. I didn't see that covered over there, but it should have been. It's not direct from the Russian Academy of Sciences. It's filtered from the Russian Academy of Sciences through both the Skeptical Inquirer and the online Quackwatch.org. Forget something lost in translation, there's a chain of custody problem with the source. I'm not going so far as to say there's no source out there anywhere. I'm saying the two listed currently (and what people were fighting over) have real problems with them, especially when they are being used to apply a dismissive, negative term on a group of people.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

That was my understanding of the talk page for List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (something I just recently got around to reading). They were saying that the PDF is a good source for a mainstream view on parapsychology because 1) it says paranormal and 2) the Parapsychological Association says paranormal. That's the reasoning behind that source (as I understand it). My objection is that if you explore (just a little bit) further, on the Parapsychological website, they clearly define a limited scope of just some paranormal subjects, none of which were listed as obvious pseudoscience (like astrology). My greater concern for the whole thing is, again, they don't equate. Even if parapsychology did shine science on astrology in pop culture (which it doesn't at all), it's not astrology itself. When parapsychology does shine science on psychics in pop culture (which they do actually do), parapsychology doesn't automatically become psychic pop culture. That's what I agree with Martinphi on (just talking about this one issue). For Wikipedia to take the extreme position of applying a dismissive, negative term to something that it's already mischaracterizing, it's bad form. Wikipedia can make mistakes, of course, but it's supposed to strive for neutrality first. Rock solid sourcing is the way to get around neutrality, but it's the only way to do it proper. I don't necessarily agree with Martinphi's actions (I don't recall ever reverting an article myself unless it's spam or something), but his reasoning against slapping pseudoscience on parapsychology is sound. There's living people involved.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for clarity: The reason I don't believe that's a mainstream view is that it equates the study with the subject. I don't think that's the mainstream view of science to equate study with subject. For example, telekinesis was mentioned over there (nevermind that it's called psychokinesis in parapsychology), where telekinesis might be considered pseudoscientific, that doesn't automatically make the study of telekinesis pseudoscientific. Empirical science can be applied to subjective response in art, for example, without it being pseudoscience. We can objectively do an experiment to see what parts of the brain have the subjective response without elevating the subjective response itself to objectivity. It's not necessarily equative. Mainstream views understand that. It's fringe views that do the equating.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neal, that (last half) was actually very well put! Hat off to you. -- Fyslee/talk 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, and then I think I've said all I personally have to say on this particular subject (parapsychology as pseudoscience). It's being characterized as both a fringe science and pseudoscience. Logically, it can't be both. If it's a fringe science it can't be pseudoscience because it's still scientific inquiry, eventhough it may depart significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories (that's how fringe science is defined). Likewise if it's a pseudoscience it can't be fringe science because it never actually was scientific inquiry to begin with. Both applicable Wikipedia guidelines can't be applied. It's wrong to do so. In the various arguments, you have to pick one or the other. I think the more neutral (for all the reasons I've stated) would be fringe science and thus applicable fringe science guidelines would be applied, stopping short of labeling it pseudoscience for no other reason than it can't logically be both. See how the two terms are compared without being equated: [10]

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neal, interesting points. I think it's natural for most people to associate parapsychology with the paranormal. Even the Parapsychological Association says on the front page of their website "We are the international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of 'psi'’ (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition" and in their glossary defines parapsychology as "...the scientific study of paranormal or ostensibly paranormal phenomena, that is, psi..." I guess the objection is the assumption that any paranormal notion falls under parapsychology? And it's an interesting question about whether the act of studying a topic that is considered pseudoscientific is itself pseudoscientific. The case of parapsychology is fairly complicated:

• Parapsychology does study some topics which are widely considered to be pseudoscientific.
• Parapsychology may not study some of the more obscure or idiosyncratic paranormal topics, but people may assume that it does.
• Different people within parapsychology (as well as outsiders following the field) may not agree which topics fall under it.
• Some studying parapsychology may be using strict scientific methods.
• Some may be using poor methodology or draw logically unsound conclusions which would be considered pseudoscientific.
• The organizations and publications of parapsychology may have high standards for the articles they publish or may include articles that would be considered pseudoscientific.

It seems like to some degree it's a semantic debate. Is the study of the pseudoscientific pseudoscience? And if something covers multiple topics, some of which are pseudoscientific, it's less of a question if parapsychology is pseudoscientific, but how pseudoscientific is it (more specificially, is it pseudoscientific enough for an encyclopedia to say so)? --Minderbinder 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one thing that we shouldn't let distract us - we're not having this RfC just because of a dispute over whether parapsychology can be catagorized as pseudoscientific. This is only one of a number of topics that Martinphi has insisted on removing mention of pseudoscience, such as dowsing. --Minderbinder 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions Minderbinder. I think I have a fair answer to that. Without saying they are perfect guidelines, look at the fringe science article and how it describes how a science moves *from* fringe *to* pseudo- or junk [11]:

Fringe science can be distinguished from some similar-sounding, but pejorative in nature, categories as follows:

• Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is notoriously lax in rigorous application of the scientific method. Reproducibility is typically a problem. This is not so in fringe science.
• Junk science - Junk science is used to describe agenda-driven research that ignores certain standard methodologies and practices in an attempt to secure a given result from an experiment. Fringe science, as in standard methodology, proceeds from theory to conclusion with no attempt to direct or coax the result.

If we assume those are fair enough guidelines, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, we have to prove a lax in rigorous application of science to show pseudo- and prove an agenda to show junk. The keyword there is *prove*. We have to make a case for it and can't go by an assumption that it's obvious. Certainly none of the articles here have proven that it's pseudoscience and certainly none of the sources listed have proven it either. There's a very simple reason for this. It's an ongoing debate. The debate was initialized by CSICOP in the 1970s and it's never been resolved conclusively. CSICOP has their fringe opinion, and paranormalists have their fringe opinion. Mainstream stays out of it. The key points are that it is ongoing, there are two fringe sides, and that we try to remain neutral even if we're wrong. We can report on the debate. We can source statements from both sides. The one thing we aren't supposed to do is determine the debate.

In other words, Wikipedia shouldn't move parapsychology *from* fringe *to* pseudoscience because it can't on it's own meet the requirement showing the guideline of a "lax of rigorous application of the scientific method" on it's own. To do so would require an essay. We don't write essays. It's a fair enough assessment to call it fringe and treat it as a fringe science, but we'd have to "prove a point" to make it pseudoscience. We can't just say it is.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of the situation.

I also want to reiterate Minderbinder's sentiment that this RfC does not reflect one way or the other on parapsychology and pseudoscience. It's just about Martinphi. That's why I raised the earlier objection of parallel disputes. One shouldn't determine the other. This should only be about Martinphi.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martin is right. Parapsychologists do consider their field a science and the majority of them are very qualified to conduct good science. Wikipedia is not the place to determine whether it is or not and I find it intellectually arrogant and irresponsible for faceless people hiding behind screen names to even consider making an official decision about a field of study. What are your qualifications? 75.54.119.206 01:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Tom Butler 01:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone arguing about whether the field is a science or not. The key concern is whether the field is generally considered a legitimate science by the mainstream scientific community. I'd cite parapsychologists and their supporters saying that this is not the case before citing scientific skeptics. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia presents, as I keep saying, not the general thoughts of scientists, but the consensus of scientists in a particular field. This is very, exceptionally and totally clear from the rules. Most or all of my edits which you consider POV come out of this understanding. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were true, nothing could be called pseudoscientific here (is there anyone who thinks this about their own field?). So that's not really a plausible interpretation. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might sounds absurd to you but you have to follow policy as it states. If you think policy is wrong, propose to change it on Village Pump, don't push your POV here. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I gave a negative evaluation to his interpretation, not the guideline itself. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooyi, Simoes's comments are completely in agreement with policy, and you've admitted that your views (and Martin's) disagree with NPOV, particularly WP:Undue weight.

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

The distinction is not really that complex. I wouldn't call parapsychology a "pseudoscience", especially without a solid source to back me up. But even so, it's not a widely accepted, mainstream scientific discipline, AAAS notwithstanding. It's just not. It shouldn't be presented as one. Arguing that WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT mandate presenting paranormal topics as mainstream or majority/consensus science is Wikilawyering, and it concerns me that maybe we're not making any headway here. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I never did that. However, the skeptics are arguing that a) it must be presented as pseudoscience. And b) the general attitude of scientists in other fields is relevant to the specifics of parapsychology. In other words, what a botanist thinks about an experiment in parapsychology is actually more important than what a parapsychologist thinks. And we aren't making progress here, because people are asking me to say that I believe the skeptical POV, or else get banned (see Fyslee's threats above). I don't believe it. Neither do a lot of other people who have put opinions on here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Martin gets to the heart of the issue here. What he is being asked to do is accept the sceptical editors' take on the rules as being correct. However, we are discussing this in the context of the worst of Martin's edits (albeit, not a particularly shocking list of examples). Nonetheless, we are looking at Martin's worst edits as produced by his opponents and he is being asked to change his ways on account of them. The problem is that Martin has made hundreds of other edits that are spot on NPOV wise and which have done much to tone down the pseudosceptic rhetoric and bring balance to a lot of articles. Yet, if he agrees here he will be prevented from making doing this in future.

The point being that if Martin agrees here, things will go something like this: sceptical editor inserts some extraordinary POV claim; Martin objects; Martin is directed to this RfC; the extraordinary POV claim remains in the article. It is not good enough, then, to look at Martin's worst edits alone. We need to see the context of those edits. And when we look at the articles Martin has been involved with we see horrendous POV pushing from the (pseudo)sceptics. One example, in the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts I recently removed the following: "Shamanism is a New Age movement that often involves questionable marketing practices, cultural biases, and plain fraud". That was it, that was "Shamanism". Unfortunately for Wiki, no it isn't. It bears no resmblance to what Shamanism is, as can be seen by the Wiki article Shamanism.

To recap, then, Martin has made some POV edits. But 99% of what he does helps attain NPOV. If some people don't want to have their editing disrupted then my suggestion, rather than ban Martin or force him to kowtow before James Randi (or whatever else they have in mind), is to not write things like "Shamanism is a new-age movement..." in the first place. As long as such contexts develop (and such nonsense is included in articles), it is essential for the credibility of Wiki to have editors like Martin. The occasional POV edit is a small price to pay.Davkal 09:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

He argues the equivalent. For examples, you can start with this, [12]. -- LuckyLouie 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never never never said that. EVP is a completely different case. It is not part of any scientific field including parapsychology. Almost all my edits are on pages which probably fall under parapsychology. But the EVP article is a totally different case, and its connection to science is much weaker. There I merely argue that we should state only what the sources say. I also argue that we should give quite a bit of weight to the peer-reviewed articles published on the subject. But this is almost irrelevant to my overall editing history. Please don't get the EVP article mixed up with the parapsychology-as-a-science debate. I at one time argued that we could as editors decide to say that EVP falls under parapsychology- but I changed my mind. Even Tom Butler says this is not parapsychology.

As far as the other arguments above, they reveal a misunderstanding of parapsychology.

Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus in a particular field of science. This part of my argument comes directly from a guideline- follow the links I already gave. The definition of "scientific consensus" is the only part that is from another wikipedia article, and it is pretty standard. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK Davkal. I'll grant you that Martin did retract his assertion that "parapsychologists" are the ones who study EVP. So now I honestly don't understand which "field" he believes studies EVP (and which "field" is the defining authority). -LuckyLouie 02:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it around here that keeps people from reading what others write? Here is what I just said: "I never never never said that. EVP is a completely different case. It is not part of any scientific field including parapsychology." What part of that is not clear????? Is there even any point in putting things in bold? Would a Vulcan mind meld help?? Would you listen if Randi came and said it? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point with EVP is that since conventional science hasn't studied EVP specifically, it is OR to act as if EVP has been decided- we just have to present what the proponents say and what the skeptics say- fully explicate both and let it stand at that. We fully explicate both equally, because this is an article on EVP, and EVP doesn't exist except it is a paranormal phenomena. So if we are going to write an article on a subject which only exists if it is paranormal, we have to give at least equal time to the paranormal claims. We cannot, however, just come out and say "this is bunk." We also cannot say "this is bunk" by innuendo. That is all I really have to say on this article: just don't decide things for the reader by any means other than the presentation of evidence itself. There is no question of parapsychology or of "fields", parapsychological or otherwise- I'm never interested in "fields" other than scientific ones, because they are irrelevant to the Wikipedia rules.

What I'm basically saying with that article is that we not give any weight at all to either side. That is because if we give any weight, to the paranormal claims or to the normal claims, we are doing OR. Still, this is the first case I've taken on like this. It is a case about which I've done less thinking. I am probably on much less firm ground with this argument than others, because there is the requirement that we don't give equal weight to small minority theories (which are not covered by their own scientific field). The problem here which makes the rule in need of interpretation is: Where is the majority, when science has totally ignored the subject?

And I reserve the right to change my opinion on this in the future. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE says: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." To do otherwise is to grant credibility through obscurity. What you call "not giving any weight" is another name for giving equal weight to both sides. We should only do that if both views are equally accepted by the mainstream, which is an assumption we can't make, particularly since one view makes extraordinary claims that contradict accepted scientific principles. And to talk about saying "this is bunk" is a strawman argument - nobody has proposed saying that. We just want to follow WP:Undue weight and not present topics as if they are accepted concepts when we have no evidence of that. It comes down to burden of proof - if something has weak evidence, it may be charactarized as insufficiently proven (in WP, insufficiently sourced) - it's not necessary to "disprove" it.

I note that you watered down the text in Dowsing [13], giving it a POV push in the direction of sounding more accepted. In the case of that article, the entire case for the topic having scientific acceptance is made by two studies, one published by the organization who did the study, and one which nobody seems to be able to figure out where it was published. --Minderbinder 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parapsychology is the study of purported paranormal phenomena stupid, wrong

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

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

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

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

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

In the same way these are:

Evolution: process whereby monkeys turn into men.

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

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

Biology: things that are alive

Davkal 15:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"...- if these need fixing, they should be fixed." I have seen you war over such tags, so when you say something like that, shouldn't you end it with (Except for mine)?

I agree with Davkal assessment of the tags he listed. They are usually applied by people who only know the subject from such sources as the Skeptical Dictionary, and their use is often evidence that they do not understand enough about the subject to know whether it compares in that way.

This is looking like an inquisition because all of the reasons we are here now are being played out here. One of the complaints made by JoshuaZ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Martinphi/Paranormal_primer is precisely what is at the center of this discussion. That is, his complaint includes that martin wrote "Parapsychology is a scientific field" in his primer. There are statements in the EVP discussion to the effect that EVP cannot be spoken of in scientific terms because it is impossible and cannot exist. That viewpoint has put a wall up between those who think these subjects need to be explained as just how they are defined and those who wan to use Wikipedia to prove they cannot exist.

You who are just here supporting your skeptical buddies and really do not know what is going on, go to the EVP article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voice_phenomenon and do a word count for how many words are spent denouncing EVP as oppose to those saying what it is said to be. That article as about as unbalanced as any I have seen. Tom Butler 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained on the main page why I put the fact tags on the article. Basically, I did it because I have no reason to believe any edits I make to that article will not be summarily reverted. So I saved myself the trouble: I just put in the fact tags, and used the summaries to say what was wrong with the text- or give enough of a hint that even someone who doesn't know the subject could fix them. If anyone wants to tell me to AGF, go read WP:SPADE. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I sent her an email, and will let her respond. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think on that issue: Cold reading is not a pseudoscience or a pseudoscientific concept- for those of you who don't know, it is a magical method. It is studied by parapsychologists, true, but only so they can distinguish it from the things they truly want to study. It did not belong in the list. Thus, I took it out, and the change was reverted. BTW, if cold reading is a pseudoscience, you are accusing James Randi of being a pseudoscientist. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology is as much the study of psi as it is the study of 'what is not psi, but looks like it'. This means that in addition to psi, parapsychologists are interested in belief in the paranormal, subjective anomalous experiences, as well as the psychology of deception (i.e. magic techniques and Barnum effects)...among other things. You'd be surprised how we fill our little journals of pseudoscience.

Minderbender, if you have any questions as to my level of expertise, you are welcome peruse my CV. If you are familiar with academia, you might notice that my level of expertise in psychology is roughly equivalent to that that of a grad student. The only thing that I'm really an 'expert' at is teaching music.

I don't appreciate being dragged into this argument. That list of pseudosciences is one of the most hackneyed pieces of POV pushing that I've ever seen. The items on that list are so ridiculously random that I'm surprised that I haven't found my mom on there. Seriously, let this cold reading thing go, I'm halfway tempted to revert it back myself because having it on there makes the list look that much more thrown together and less likely that anyone will take it seriously. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resist the temptation to add things just to make a point. --Minderbinder 12:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what you are talking about. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

People are following this, right? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

means that

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

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

About "cold reading" - the way I understand it, cold reading is a technique used by purported psychics to make it appear that they are getting information from the subject by paranormal means. Thus "cold reading" itself is not paranormal or pseudoscience. It is a "normal" technique used to make it appear that there is really something paranormal. Bubba73 (talk), 21:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Totally agree. However, having the Paranormal category on it would imho make sense, as it is linked strongly with paranormal claims (categories are supposed to group together related topics, not label a topic as being one thing or another); the pseudoscience category honestly doesn't make sense to me, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the reference is to categories, but I agree. So it didn't make sense to have in in under the heading of parapsychology as a pseudoscience or pseudoscientific concept. Which is why I took it out. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...from under parapsychology. I figured if you wanted to call magic pseudoscientific it really didn't hurt anything -no one would believe that-, but don't put it under parapsychology. See these edits: take it out from under parapsychology [14]. Change is then reverted, and I put in a citation retuest. Then Minderbinder actually wants to argue that cold reading is a pseudo science or concept, so he puts in a source [15], and Simoes later completely removes it on his own, aparently realizing that it should never have been there in the first place [16]. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a citation and I gave you one. If your intent wasn't to get a citation, you have been misusing the tag. It is intended to get a citation, not serve as a "I don't like this, but I'm out of reverts" tag. --Minderbinder 12:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags serve several purposes. It is a perfectly legitimate use of a tag to identify something that is highly contentious prior to removal. Especially if it has been reinserted after a prior removal. In this case, it seems to me, the whole rigmarole could have been avoided if the pseudosceptical side hadn't been hell bent on reverting virtually everything Martin does just to wind him up. Cold reading should never have been there.Davkal 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]