Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/ParanormalOpening statements by "uninvolved" editors, moved to talk pageStatement by mostly uninvolved editor MastCellThis is a set of articles where two sides have become quite entrenched. There have been quite a few inappropriate editorial actions, including edit-warring, sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, wikilawyering, etc. Many of these problems are evident at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for comment/Martinphi. This user-conduct RfC provided some gauge of community feeling about the actions of the involved editors, but went nowhere in terms of resolving conflict and facilitating consensus. Therefore, I'd ask ArbCom to look at this, primarily as a matter of user conduct which has been refractory to lesser methods of dispute resolution. Personally, I think the content aspects have important implications for how we interpret WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, but I think the user-conduct issues are most pressing at the moment. MastCell Talk 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Statement by no longer involved BishonenI consider the behaviour of Davkal around these articles to be an urgent problem. I tried to deal with it in September 2006, decided that I was getting burned-out by the sheer unpleasantness of the interaction, and opted out like a coward. I've been keeping an eye out since, though, and nothing seems to have changed. See this recent ANI thread for diffs and further comments. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC). Statement by occasionally involved GuyI'd like to add one more voice in support of ScienceApologist, Bishonen and the tireless Minderbinder. The comment re AAAS above [1] is a perfect example of the approach of these paranormal supporters: the AAAS at one point decided to admit a parapsychology group, therefore parapsychology is a valid scientific discipline, therefore the paranormal has scientific acceptance; the logical disconnects are obvious to us but not to these editors. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Statement by occasionally involved BillCThis is an important matter which goes beyond concerns over individual user conduct. There is a small body of editors who seek more respectability for paranormal beliefs than such topics would normally expect to receive in traditional encyclopaedias. The {{WikiProject Paranormal}} banner has been applied to hundreds of articles, including many on which one would not expect to see it, such as Megalith, RMS Queen Mary or SETI, with at times contentious results. Now articles even further removed from the paranormal, such as evolution, have been targeted. — BillC talk 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Statement by tangentially involved ReddiA number of the editors have attempted to maintain paranormal articles through Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. As a member of the WikiProject Paranormal, these are some thoughts. The WikiProject Paranormal is a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal and anomalous phenomena. Wikipedians have formed the project to better organize information in articles related to the paranormal, protoscience, and fringe science. A number of editors which are convinced that paranormal events are only a fantasy have been particularly adamant in their advocacy. Among the more problematic issues are:
Interpretations of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE does mean that a consensus of the groups that have studied a particular topic should be used, but does not exclude "popular culture" data to be included. The interpretation of due weight to controversial views states that editors should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. The policy may have been designed with an intent to use "mainstream" (you can substitute a variety of terms used by pseudo-skeptics here, such as 'conventional peer-reviewed') views, at times in the majority (but in the minority as to some paranormal issues), as a tool to push a POV. J. D. Redding 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It only takes a few to believe something is "wrong", or be non-neutral to, (such as the editor that want to remove all references of fringe science, occult, and paranormal information) to prevent the completion of the proposed goal of Wikipedia. Popular culture (eg., mainstream discussion; familiar to the masses) and academic books are the main attribution found among sources of an idea's standing for much of the topics. This includes books found in most libraries or in electronic form (e-books) from Google Books. J. D. Redding 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Statement by occasionally involved Michael BuschLike Wikidudeman, I have been invoking the regulations against Pseudoscience with regards to the paranormal articles. I was also somewhat involved in the request for comment on Martinphi's conduct. More recently, I've been involved in an edit dispute at Topics in ufology. I strongly agree with the position that Wikipedia must reflect the scientific consensus, which is one point of this dispute (the matters of undue weight and fringe). But there is also a question of viewpoint and language, which has become apparent to me during the Topics in ufology dispute, and may explain why this dispute has gotten to this point. I don't expect it to instantly resolve, but here is the problem I see: I (and, I believe, various other editors) speak in the terms and language of science, and place extreme importance on clarity, distinction, validity, and the scientific consensus. Those who support inclusion of the paranormal material as something categorized or derived from science seem to have a different outlook: they invoke any reference or usage, even inappropriate, as grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will provide two examples: Martinphi has flagged the statement 'crop circles are of human origin' with a 'fact' tag, claiming that because we haven't traced the cause of every crop circle, we can't say that they are caused by pranksters or artists (whichever term you prefer), despite every crop circle that has been so traced is from a human. The second example is from Topics in ufology: I have removed material such as perpetual motion from this article, because it has nothing to do with UFOs, it has merely been invoked by zealous UFO advocates, only to have it added back with the claim that that invocation makes the inclusion notable. The above may simply be a matter of educating the editors concerned on Wikipedia:Undue weight, but given the futility of prior attempts to do so, I am afraid that this deeper misunderstanding is the problem. I am not sure how to resolve it. Per prior ArbCom decision, Wikipedia must reflect the scientific consensus, but with the current wording, I foresee many disputes like this one. Michaelbusch 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Statement by occasionally involved Annalisa VentolaThere are misunderstandings on both sides of the issue about what parapsychology is and is not. There is a distinction between 'parapsychology' and 'paranormal research' that is not being addressed here. Parapsychology is a tiny, tiny field made up of mostly university professors, and it does enjoy some status (albeit marginal) within the scientific community. In general, the field of parapsychology has very little to say about topics like Electronic Voice Phenomena and Jonathan Edwards (at least not anything that would support a paranormal interpretation). There is no such thing as a "consensus of parapsychologists," especially given that a portion of academic parapsychologists (i.e. members of the Parapsychological Association) are skeptics who hold no particular belief in the paranormal. Any legitimacy that parapsychology enjoys as a science should not be invoked and then generalized to legitimize all paranormal topics here at Wikipedia. On the other hand, many of the broad criticisms of paranormal research do not necessarily apply to parapsychology, yet this tiny field has been inaccurately lumped into lists and categories of pseudoscience right along with belief in fairies and King Tut's curse. We don't need the Arbitration Committee to solve the problem of demarcation for us...at least not right now. I think that despite the differing worldviews that these editors present, it is still possible for us to stabilize these articles without arbitration. I urge the arbitration committee to limit the scope of their decision to the user conduct issues that have been brought forward by Minderbender, and allow the larger community of Wikipedia editors to work out the rest. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Statement by J.smithI would like to register disagreement with Pjacobi. The project on the paranormal is attempting to cover articles that the general public may consiter "paranormal" in nature. Most articles in "pseudo"-science cats have been included to meet that aim. Trying to decide the umbrella of a project with such fuzzy boarders is never going to be easy. As for the EVP article... I was deeply involved in that article for a few weeks... until a number of editors showed up and drastically changed the atmosphere from one of cooperation to one of combat. I'm not going to get into the specifics of the various fights that started, but many of them were frankly stupid. My point is that the behavior of those "defending" science has become a major roadblock to collaboration and that has been more damaging then anything else. Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal is always going to have a systematic bias for the main-stream. As I stated on IRC once, "Wikipedia is the whore of the mainstream." I'm not criticizing that. Thats just how Wikipedia is. However, this this doesn't stop us from accurately representing "the fringe". (I put that in quotes because "the fringe" often has more acceptance in the general public then the POV of the scientific mainstream.) We need to strive to accurately describe the notable opinions of the people involved and then present what science exists. However, some of the people in this case are more interested in forcing the "fringe" into the corner and dragging everyone involved into quagmires of semantics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Comments by User:ReddiSuppression of dissent occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than another tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party, rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party's arguments or viewpoint. A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively opposes an established opinion (e.g."mainstream science"), policy (e.g. "science orthodoxy"), or structure. J. D. Redding 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Reasoning behind NPOV: For the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. J. D. Redding 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Question about User:DreadlockeHopefully one of the folk involved with arbcom can answer this. Editor Dreadlocke has been highly involved in some of these editing disputes and has made some of the same POV and other policy violations described here, but he has been inactive on wikipedia for a few weeks. I think it would make sense to include him, but obviously it would be inappropriate to have a situation where he doesn't have the opportunity to participate and give his perspective and respond to any accusations. How does arbcom generally handle a situation like this? Thanks. --Minderbinder 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments by User:WooyiI'm not very familiar with parapsychology as a subject, as I mostly edit law-and-politics-related articles. However, I found it very disconcerting that the so-called "skeptics" has formed a quasi gang to suppress any different opinions. In the evidence page we clearly see that the skeptic editors have deliberately remove expert qualification of professors that don't agree with them. Look at this edit, the skeptic editor basically conducts a smear campaign even on experts and distinguished professors. Anyone they disagree with were labeled "unreliable" even though they have enough academic qualifications. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Not nessaryThe paranormal only exist in fictional TV shows like the X-Files. If it did exist, it would be scientifically provable. One of my personal heroes, James Randi, has proven that parapsychology is wrong. Therefore, this is a complete waste of the arbitrators time and Davkal should be blocked for vandalism. Chemist3456 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, have it traced if you think it is a puppet. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Simoes latest additionWow, looks like Simoes is actually a completely disinterested party. Because if he were a skeptic, he'd have a COI on editing that list. Somehow, I thought Simoes was skeptical. Personally, however, I have little personal involvement in the items other than parapsychology specifically, and am therefore a fairly disinterested party. I think Simoes should recuse himself. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Length of evidence stage?How long is an evidence stage supposed to last? It's looking like everyone has said what they intend to say. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is too much irrelevant information in this arbitration.This arbitration was supposed to be limited to the conduct of various users and not the content of Wikipedia. The arbitrators accepted on the terms of the conduct issues not the content issues. Paul August, and Kirill Lokshin both made it clear that they were accepting to consider the conduct issues of the users in question. I believe that most of the information in this arbitration in the workshop and evidence areas are irrelevant to the conduct issues and are doing nothing but preventing the arbitrators from reviewing this arbitration case. This case was introduced over a month ago and each day more irrelevant information keeps coming in from various users. Information that has little or nothing to do with the conduct issues of the arbitration. I would suggest that everyone who has posted information on the content of Wikipedia or suggestions on rules changes regarding paranormal articles should erase their edits and leave only edits directly related to the conduct issues. Otherwise I fear this case will never be reviewed by the arbitrators or if it does, they will be so overwhelmed by the amount of information that they might overlook very important conduct issues which are at the heart of this arbitration. I have removed some irrelevant evidence that I posted in the evidence section here [[5]] concerning whether or not being affiliate with the AAAS means a field is an 'area of science'. I figured it was irrelevant to the conduct issues at hand. Ideally one wants to present clear and concise evidence which is short and to the point. Minderbinder's evidence is a good example of how evidence should be presented in this arbitration. Please consider what I have said and remove anything that you think might fit into this category, for the sake of this arbitration. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Outside opinionI just wanted to say, I have never edited an article related to this dispute, but the first time I read the Parapsychology article, I was confused as to whether it was a real, accepted field of academic scientific study or just a paranormal hobbyist's pastime. If a well-informed and aware Wikipedian and reader such as myself got the impression that the article advocated for the legitimacy of Parapsychology, you definitely have an NPOV problem going on. VanTucky 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal, Principle 6.2: Adequate FramingThe arbitration committee has closed the above case. It includes many principles, including Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing. This principle states, in part, that "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing." Psychic is a particularly troublesome word in that its meaning is not well agreed upon. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of psychic is that "having a psychical rather than a physical or physiological origin". The OED definition does not equivocate; in its definition, someone termed a psychic must actually possess such abilities. It is straightforward in saying that a psychic's abilities do not have a physical or physiological origin. In contrast, Wikipedia's definition of "psychic" equivocates, suggesting that a psychic is simply "thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena" (emphasis mine). I believe that this principle, as it regards the term 'psychic', is very sensitive to the meaning of "psychic" that one is familiar with. For example, if the phrase "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" is read with the Wikipedia definition ("thought to have these abilities"), then it seems reasonable that no further framing may be needed. However, given that there are other definitions, including those from authoritative sources like the OED, this phrasing could prove problematic. Read with the OED definition in mind, "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" implies that Jeane Dixon actually, as opposed to "is thought to", possesses abilities that are, in fact, not of a "physical or physiological origin". In this case, it strikes me that additional framing would be acceptable - otherwise, we are claiming that she actually has such powers, and that such powers do not come from the physical world - a tall statement for an introductory paragraph. With the tension between alternate definitions from reputable sources in mind, is there any clarification that can be offered, either for the principle in general, or for the principle as it pertains specifically to the ter"m "psychic"? Thanks, Antelan talk 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Due to the ambiguity of the term "Psychic" and the conflicting definitions of the word, we are left with only a few solutions to the problem. 1. We require articles about people who claim to have psychic powers state that the individuals are "purported psychics". 2. We change the Psychic article to reflect Wikipedia's accepted definition of the term "Psychic". 3. We avoid using the term "psychic" in such articles and only state that the individuals "claim paranormal abilities" and then elaborate on which abilities they claim to have. If we stick with the definition of "psychic" as someone who claims paranormal powers opposed to someone who indeed has the powers then the Psychic article must reflect that. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it matters. We could define "psychic" as "having powers," and as long as we make very clear in the article that there is significant controversy about whether these powers are real, then we're OK. That is because a definition "a psychic has powers" coupled with "these powers may not exist," gives the reader this definition: "a psychic is someone with powers, but those powers may not exist." In other words, real psychics may not exist. So as long as we include skepticism in the articles, the issue of the first definition of psychic is not relevant. In the end what the reader comes out with is the necessary nuance, an understanding of the controversy. We aren't a dictionary here. We don't have to have everything in one sentence. That need seems to be why dictionaries sometimes stoop to either 1) no controversy or 2) definitions which are technically inaccurate, something like "a psychic is someone with supposed paranormal powers," which would rule out psychics who didn't know they were psychic, and begs the question of what a "supposed paranormal power" is. Anyway, Wikipedia can support a full understanding of such terms which includes skepticism without resorting to one-sentence definitions, or things like "purported," "supposed," and "self-described." This isn't an argument for defining "psychic" in a particular way, but rather for explaining the controversy rather than focusing on a single sentence like a dictionary- and giving the reader some credit for being able to fully understand the usage of a controversial term. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
These edits [9] [10] read as an appeal to authority as one says "Per Arbitrator UninvitedCompany" and the other says "This is literally per the ArbCom". Are these edits actually per UninvitedCompany and meant to be "the" definition we are supposed to use? --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion to Antelan: gather the diffs all my "personal attacks" and take them to an admin. The Uninvited Co said specifically he saw nothing wrong with the current article. However, an Arbitrator's power is in his writing of and votes on decisions, not a dictatorial power. So however right or wrong UnivitedCo is, we can't just say "thus saith The Uninvited Co" and have that be that. The ArbCom decision ruled against the need for qualifiers, as long as an article is framed- and framing includes that skepticism is included in articles used to frame. That was already the case with Psychic. Antelan's edits were POV pushing of the kind which occurred on a regular basis before the ArbCom decision. They were also non consensual controversial edits, and he edit warred to keep them in- again, behavior just like what we had to deal with before the ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, in one case. If we say "So-and-so has psychic powers" then that's POV. So we say, "So-and-so claims to/is purported to have psychic powers." But if we say "So-and-so is a psychic" then that is NPOV, because in the psychic article it makes quite clear that there is controversy. Thus, the word "psychic" already contains the controversy. That is to say, "psychic" has the same meaning as "purported psychic-" it contains skepticism within it. However, the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers. That is the definition, and added to that is the controversy. It is subtle, but it is important. A psychic has powers, AND those powers may not truly exist in the real world. This is what "psychic" means. BUT, a "psychic" is NOT someone who merely "claims to have powers." The current Psychic article does contain controversy, in the body and in the lead. Thus, it is NPOV and we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I admit it's a subtle point. But here's an example. A little green man from Mars is............... a little green man from Mars. As it happens, there is controversy over whether such exist. If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist. We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy. It's subtle, but it is the ArbCom decision. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
A = name B = psychic C = powers D = controversy
B = (C + D). A = Sylvia Browne (example) B = psychic C = powers D = controversy "B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers." Correct. Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Incorrect. We qualify if we say someone has psychic powers. We don't qualify if we say someone is a psychic, because we're linking to the "psychic" article, and that includes the controversy over whether there are any real psychics. Thus as I said before, If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green Martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist. We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy. Whether my interpretation is correct or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that we don't have to use qualifiers as long as the articles which define our terms include the controversy. That's what the ArbCom said. Here's what the Arbs said, and there really isn't any getting around it: "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing." and ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." Which I interpret to mean that a cultural artifact such as "psychic" contains within it the controversy and thus does not need to be qualified. This works so long as the Psychic article contains a description of the controversy. It does not require, however, that we define the meaning of the word "psychic" equivocally- it only means we should inform the reader about the controversy. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A unicorn is a "legendary creature" (i.e. mythological). Bigfoot is a figure in "North American folklore". A ufo is "any real of apparently flying object which cannot be identified by the observer". These have straightforward introductions which frame their articles. Martinphi, you have said, both, "a psychic is someone with powers" but that this is controversial, and "we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist". How do you expect us to understand what you are thinking when you don't even offer us a coherent view of the topic in question? I and others have offered opinions, which you have struck down without offering a straightforward alternative. In your view, and in simple, encyclopedic, affirmative terms (i.e., "a psychic is X" instead of "a psychic is not Y") what is a psychic? Antelan talk 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdingsFive arbitrators voted to take on the Paranormal case; the two who stated their reason for taking the case indicated it was for "conduct issues". Of the 29 principles, findings of fact, and remedies that passed, most did deal with conduct issues; however, an important minority dealt with some of the content that has been at the core of the protracted disputes about paranormal-related articles. I apologize for the length of the following explanation of what I see as the core content paradox within the ArbCom holdings, but I have used examples in order to, I hope, make the situation as clear as possible: The Wikipedia article on psychic raises issues with the recently closed Paranormal ArbCom. Finding of Fact #5, "Cultural artifacts", states: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." Principle #6.2 states, in part, "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include ... "paranormal", "psychic" ... or "parapsychological researcher". ... "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing." Lemma 1 the Arbitration Committee sees the label "psychic" as a cultural artifact. Saying that Jeane Dixon is a psychic does not imply that she has psychic abilities or powers, or even that such abilities or powers exist. This is true to such an extent that clarification, such as "Jeane Dixon is a self-described psychic", is disallowed. In reading the article on psychic, however, I became confused and concerned. The psychic article's lede itself states that psychic denotes paranormal extra-sensory abilities that are inexplicable by "known natural laws". This doesn't seem like a typical cultural artifact, in that this statement implies that there may exist some unknown natural law to explain it (i.e., the description invokes science, not culture). However, several sentences later we learn that the existence of this ability is highly contested. Does this resolve the situation? No. While this skepticism helps a reader understand that psychic abilities may or may not be real, it still leaves the reader with the impression that "psychic" means "someone with scientifically inexplicable powers" - it's just that now we recognize that such people may not exist. That is, thus far, the word "psychic" has always been used to mean "someone with paranormal powers". The infobox on the right side of the page is even more explicit: "Definition: An ability or phenomona said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi" (see the box on the righthand side of the article). Lemma 2: So what is a psychic? The article repeatedly indicates that a defining feature of a psychic is "an ability". There is no ambiguity. It does not say that psychics have an apparent ability. It does not say that psychics may or may not have abilities. It says that a psychic has these abilities. Imagine that instead of psychic we were talking about a rare device, the PerpetualMotionMachine (psychic). An article states that the PerpetualMotionMachine is an infinite (paranormal) power-output device (ability). The article also has an infobox that defines PerpetualMotionMachine as "A device or product that originates from the Midwest and is capable of infinite power-output." At this point, it's pretty clear that a crucial quality of any PerpetualMotionMachine is that it is an infinite power-output device. Then, I get to the sentence, "the possibility of infinite power-output is highly contested." Now, I still believe that PerpetualMotionMachines are infinite power-output devices, but now I recognize that the term "PerpetualMotionMachine" may have no real-world referent. I now understand that there may not be even one single PerpetualMotionMachine, but if there were one, a defining quality of it would be that it could output infinite power. Likewise with the paranormal article. It asserts that psychic powers are paranormal abilities, inexplicable by known natural laws. It also tells me that there may not actually be any psychic abilities in the real world. However, from the definitions, I still gather that if there are psychic abilities in the real world, then they cannot be explained by known natural laws. The phrasing here does not strike me as a simple cultural artifact. Just reading the sentence, I am inclined to think that scientists of various disciplines must have looked into this and decided that known natural laws cannot explain the results. This is in contrast to the holdings of the Arbitration Committee, which found that the term psychic is just a cultural artifact. The Committee held that "psychic" may not imply that the "a psychic" actually has scientifically inexplicable abilities. Therefore, even if a psychic does exist in the real world, they may not have psychic powers. ArbCom: "Psychic means someone who has, or claims to have, these powers. These powers may not exist, but the term still refers to real people." Article: "Psychic means someone who has these powers. These powers may not exist, and in that case the term has no real-world referent." Lemma 3: The ArbCom's operative understanding of psychic differs in a subtle but crucial way from the psychic article. Actual paranormal powers are an intrinsic quality of a psychic according to the psychic article (although the existence these powers is contested), whereas paranormal powers are not intrinsic to the ArbCom's understanding of psychic (so even if these powers don't actually exist, there still may exist psychics). A comment was made on the psychic talk page that I think exemplifies the potential for confusion: "When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate."[11] Such a multifarious term could reasonably, from time to time, be misunderstood. For consideration: Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word psychic which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject. This is especially true given the content of the psychic article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12. Thank you, Antelan talk 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The psychic article says "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". " Thus, if we call someone a psychic, is is saying just what Antelan says it should say: "psychic" = "thought to have these abilities," and of course the full understanding would be that the person might or might not. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Saying someone is a psychic is the equivalent of labeling them a faker. It is not necessary to say they are a faker so long as they are labeled as a "psychic". Fred Bauder 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
Statement by Shoemaker's HolidayBasically, I saw (on WP:FTN) that Finding of Fact 11 of this case, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way...", a content decision, is being used to state that parapsychology must always be treated as a science [12]. That is an explicit, disputed content ruling, and one not supported by most non-parapsychological sources. I think that the first sentence should be vacated. Basically, this is a milder equivalent of the Arbcom saying that Creationism or Intelligent design must be considered science, because a few professors, such as Michael Behe, support them, as far as I can tell. Yes, a few researches have been done, but they do not have the respect of the scientific community. Here, for instance, is the journal Nature's report on the closing of a parapsychological lab [13] (you can only read the opening, but it'll give you the idea of the tone. Parapsychological "research" is almost entirely published in dedicated journals. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC) To Newyorkbrad: Can that be made explicit, then? Because as it stands, that is not clear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hence, as Martinphi insists you did make a content ruling, a clear statement - as has been made here - that that finding of fact was not a content ruling, and cannot be used by Martinphi to insist on his preferred phrasings is all that's necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) By the way, one P.S. to FT2 - I'm not actually convinced that research within the field of parapsychology is considered at all rigourous by most scientists. Certainly, I've heard some horrible things about the statistical analysis used by the Princeton lab. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Statement by MartinphiIt was not that content should be a certain way, but that content should not be a certain way: that the wording should not imply that if X is a scientist then ipso facto X thinks psychic experiments are no good [15]. Further, the implication was that if a person is a parapsychologist, then ipso facto that person is not part of the scientific community. That's what the wording said, and that's what I used the ArbCom for in that case. I shouldn't have even needed the ArbCom, really, but I think the ArbCom was very clear on this. I don't think it was a content decision. Rather it was a decision that parapsychology cannot be dismissed as pseudoscience a priori, nor scientists within the field as outside the halls of science merely because they are in that field. Nor can sources within the field be dismissed as unreliable merely because they are in that field. If you call that content, yeah, but no more so than other decisions of the ArbCom. Any clarification, were any needed, should involve Bauder and the other Arbs on that case. We went into great detail about the status of parapsychology at the time. Please note that the major skeptics such as James Randi say parapsychology is a science. I think the purpose of the decision was to say that one should not edit out of an a priori dismissal. That is where editors were coming from in editing the articles before the ArbCom, and that is what the ArbCom meant to damp down. FYI, the Parapsychology article itself is largely based on an article in Nature. We also discussed with the ArbCom the difference between the scientific core of parapsychology and the outlying pseudoscientists who claim the name. Nature also once published an article on a parapsychologist's book called "A book for burning?", and the author later stated "Sheldrake's is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Finding 3: Yes, NYB I interpret that [16] to be the ArbCom saying (overall in the decision): don't dismiss it, but don't eliminate criticism either. Is that a fair interpretation? I don't see the tension in the Cake finding, though. Can you make that clearer? I think the title says it- there are different aspects: 1. mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation 2. there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way 3. [there are] popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. 4. [frosting] A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking. This is, in fact, a direct outcome of our discussions with the ArbCom. If you add in finding 3, I interpret it to mean: Parapsychology engages in scientific research (is a science) but is also very controversial. I interpret this to be broader than stated, it's controversial in many ways, and criticized on many points. So don't eliminate criticism just because the scientific field which covers the subject has a consensus that psi phenomena exist. And come on, NYB: a mere summary of the parties positions? No, it can't be that, as it is a finding of fact. That is a really novel way of interpreting a finding of fact, and indicates there is something of which I'm unaware. Are findings of fact often summaries of what one side of the dispute thinks, without including the other side, and not qualified to make it clear that this is a finding of fact about what the parties believe? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I take it from Fred Bauder's statement below that my deductions are correct: the Three layer cake with frosting finding is not merely a statement of what the parties believe. It is a statement of the "objective situation." and Three layer cake with frosting is not intended to determine what content to put in an article, that is, to resolve content disputes. It is merely a statement of the objective situation which undergirds the process by which the actual content of articles are written. The reason for such a finding would be to lay the basis for the rest of the ArbCom. It is also meant to be used by editors as a groundwork of fact for building articles, but it is not meant to be interpreted to any great degree beyond what it specifically says. To the extent that it forms a framework, it does have some bearing on the content of articles, since the objective situation always has a bearing on content. I interpret it this way because if findings of fact and principle have no bearing on the way in which we edit articles, then the entire ArbCom on the Paranormal said nothing, as it is all Principles and Findings of Fact, nothing else. If the ArbCom on the paranormal is relevant at all, it seems to me that it is relevant in the way I have laid out here. Findings 3 [17] and 11 [18] were relevant in the instance where I used 11 [19] (either would have sufficed). As a general rule, there are many permutations of content which could be in an article, but they should not conflict with the ArbCom's principles and findings of fact. This is how ArbComs, in my experience, are always interpreted. Please correct me if I am wrong. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we either need to throw out this ArbCom, or admit that its principles and findings of fact will have real implications for writing articles, that is to say, content. It does not determine content strictly speaking, but it sets parameters and gives general guidance. As in the case of Adequate framing, it was obviously originally intended to: "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Current understanding: The Paranormal ArbCom is meant to give guidance as to when editors are being disruptive or POV pushing. It sets some basic parameters which are not restrictive in terms of article intellectual content. But they do show when an editor is POV pushing or being disruptive. Example:
Thus, if an editor denies there is controversy surrounding parapsychology, or attempts to say that the issue of its status or results is decided, that editor is POV pushing. Similarly, if an editor tries to assert that a parapsychologist cannot be a scientist, or that parapsychology as a whole is nothing but pseudoscience, that editor is POV pushing. Example:
If an editor of an article which adequately frames and presents differing prominent views in its text is nevertheless insisting that doubt needs to be cast on the subject through means similar to those described by the ArbCom, that editor is POV pushing. Just as, in the opposite case an editor is POV pushing who inserts "Jeane Dixon is known for her amazing psychic powers." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Statement by NealparrRegarding the article that Shoemaker referenced in Nature reporting on the closing of a parapsychological lab, it's interesting that he used it because that article actually covers three different views on parapsychology in much the same way that Fred mentioned below when he said "Our articles can legitimately contain all four points of view with appropriate sourcing and handling of each." The author of the article mentions three different views: 1) The view of Chris French, a skeptic and anomalistic psychologist, that such work is worth pursuing, 2) The view of Robert Park, a physicist at Princeton, that such work is "unscientific", and 3) The view of William Happer, another physicist at Princeton, (described as the "middle ground"), that it's within science but a waste of time. The full-text I posted here [22] (though technically I probably wasn't supposed to). This is directly a "viewpoint" question, and no better article demonstrates this than the one Shoemaker referenced because that article, in the respected Nature, treats it as a question rather than an answer, and again presents three different views on the matter. The question, quoted from the article, is: "But the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?" The question both legitimizes the methods as scientific, even as it's questioning the research, but note it posed as a question rather than answer. On a side-note, I never saw the ArbCom ruling as a definitive directive on content either. It always read as principles to consider. If you read the actual parapsychology article (at least last I checked), it does a good job of presenting all the various views on the topic. Probably not perfect, but definitely not a result of a definitive directive from the ArbCom to write the article a certain way. Several of us bumped heads in writing that article and taking it to FA status, and I don't think the ArbCom ruling had much to do with the final result. Rather it was following the sources. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Statement by MastCellPursuant to this case, the authority of ArbCom has been used as a bludgeon in content disputes (other examples exist, but I'm too lazy to dig them up at present). It would be great if that could stop. A simple reaffirmation that ArbCom does not settle content disputes, and an injunction to sort out these issues through the usual process without recourse to name-dropping, would be enough. MastCell Talk 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Statement by Ludwigs2 (uninvolved; commentary)The root of this problem - and related problems in other fringe-type articles - is that it effectively boils down to efforts by wikipedia editors (on all sides) to legislate who can and cannot be considered a scientist. This is not something the 'scientific community' (to the extent that such a thing even exists; that's really a mindless abstraction of a much more complex social structure) ever does on its own, and I'm not sure why it has become such an issue on Wikipedia. Individual scientists may indulge in disparaging criticism of others, yes, and there are practical barriers to membership (academic degrees, access to research funding and equipment, membership in academic associations, etc.) but as a whole scientists accept and reject other scientists and their work mainly on the work's functional and pragmatic merits. if some group of parapsychologists meet basic membership requirements and follows reasonable and rigorous methodological practices, no academic scientist could meaningfully say that these parapsychologists were not scientists or that they were not engaged in scientific research. they might call them idiots, and might suggest that they are wasting time, money, and careers on vapid pusuits, but the fact is that one can do good research on stupid topics, so long as one is willing to admit when it fails; standing as a scientist is based on the quality of the research. Believe me, if these parapsychologists somehow managed to produce some methodologically sound, unambiguous, reproducible result, there isn't a scientist in the world who wouldn't hail them as geniuses; their marginal state is due to the fact that they can't produce such results, and has little if nothing to do with the topic they study. frankly, it's not our place to try to determine what is and isn't (or who is and isn't) scientific. if there's a group of people who want to say they form "a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way", then that's ok. We should report that, along with reporting their successes, failures, and any criticisms they've generated. --Ludwigs2 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Clerk NotesArbitrator Comments
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration casesRequest archived here. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Initiated by Guy Macon at 03:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Statement by Guy MaconThis involves the Parapsychology page. Morgan Leigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) quoted an arbcom case from 2007[31] that says "there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way"[32] This conflicts with the lead of Parapsychology, which says "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". The discussion at Talk:Parapsychology seems relevant. Please clarify: is there an arbcom ruling that mandates calling parapsychology a scientific discipline as opposed to pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
In the arbitrator views and discussion section, Rob13 correctly pointed out that "the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content". Apparently, Morgan Leigh did not get the message, because he wrote "Wikipedia has already ruled that..."[34], quoting the Findings of Fact section of a 2007 arbcom request for arbitration. In more recent arbcom cases, the findings of facts always focus on user behavior, but it seems that things were a bit different in 2007, and the case (request, really -- that's something else that was done differently back then) has multiple findings of facts that really do look a lot like the Arbitration Committee ruling on content. In my considered opinion, a simple clarification saying that ancient arbcom requests that appear to rule on content should not be used the way Morgan Leigh used this one would clarify the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Morgan LeighThere is a Request for comment underway on the talk page regarding this issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#RfC:_Should_reliable_sources_that_defend_parapsychology_be_excluded_altogether? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Users left feedback they they didn't think the the RfC was neutral or specific enough. I have closed it and opened a new one here Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC) The focus of this dispute is about reliable sources. I have added reliable sources that defend parapsychology. Some of these sources are from the very same journals and academic publishers, and in once case from the exact same book, as sources that are in the article at present being used to criticise. Other editors are arguing that reliable sources cannot be used if they are written by parapsychologist because parapsychology is "plainly false", "we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources", and that my sources contained "stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like". The article presently says that "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". I am trying to add cited sources that defend parapsychology to add balance. There are presently nineteen sources in the lede alone that criticize parapsychology and none that defend it. I tried to add one and it was reverted with the edit summary "reverted fringe pov". So I provided more and they were all reverted with a claim that it was "massive undue weight on a minority view". Some examples of things I cited: Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses." Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves." However other editors are constantly removing them contenting that these sources cannot be cited at all on account of them being written by parapsychologists. So I added this source, which is by a critic of parapsychology: Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical." But it was removed with a comment that said I was "cherry picking" quotes. For a full list of other sources cited and removed please see the RfC. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I took this issue to the NPOV noticeboard and notified all editors involved. I have only just learned, from Guy Macron's statement here, that this issue was taken to the fringe theories noticeboard by Simonm223, who did not notify me. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Hob GadlingStatement by JohnuniqStatement by LuckyLouieSome of the language in this 11 year-old case has apparently been misinterpreted to suggest Arbcom has ruled on a content issue. Suggest a clarification if needed, then close. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPants
Statement by Roxy the dogStatement by TgeorgescuAt this moment I have nothing to add to this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by JJEUm, actually that arbitration case does exist: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Simonm223As far as I know I did not bring up anything to do with Paranormal at the Fringe noticeboard. I brought up issues related to Parapsychology at the Fringe noticeboard. And while I'm rather exasperated by Morgan Leigh's conduct there, and did eventually suggest this as a venue for their tendentious editing at Parapsychology I didn't have the time or energy to post to Arb/E and as such didn't notify them as I didn't take an action on it. I don't believe you are required to notify a user to a discussion involving their edits on a wikiproject page which is not used for the issuing of any sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JzGArbCom does not make binding content decisions. It is also quite possible for both statements - that there is a discipline of studying it, and that psi itself is pseudoscience - to be simultaneously true. As the historical proponents of psi (Puthoff, for example) have retired, so study has focused more on the cognitive biases that cause people to believe in it, and the people working on the basis that it's real have become increasingly isolated. We're now in a situation where much of the argumentation for psi in the literature is motivated reasoning by people whose ideas have also been rejected. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by {Other Editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Paranormal: Clerk notes
Paranormal: Arbitrator views and discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|