Misplaced Pages

User:Martinphi/prep for SA ArbCom

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Martinphi

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martinphi (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 1 January 2009 (History of NPOV: rm note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:53, 1 January 2009 by Martinphi (talk | contribs) (History of NPOV: rm note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

There exist on Misplaced Pages a significant number of people, who believe that the Scientific Point Of View, as opposed to NPOV, should dictate how WP treats its subjects. This applies both to the amount of space devoted in an article on a fringe subject and to the POV which the article itself adopts. In other words, an article about a fringe subject should be mostly about mainstream science. They believe that any scientifically false statement whatsoever should immediately be contradicted by a scientific source, even when this source does not mention the article's subject. They think this is so even in articles which merely describe people's beliefs such as Astral projection, or movie reviews such as What the Bleep Do We Know?!?. Certainly they try to write all articles on fringe subjects from the mainstream scientific POV, such as Cold fusion, Parapsychology (acknowledged as a science by critics such as James Randi and by the ArbCom , and Electronic Voice Phenomena (although many of their edits promote a pseudoscientific outlook, by treating science as a monolith, and ruling on the issue of what is and is not "science" ). In addition, they poison the Misplaced Pages environment by continual denigration of the subjects and anyone who believes in them, merely avoiding stating specific usernames.

Here is what you will see in the following evidence, as a general consensus of SPOV editors
  • In an article on a fringe topic, most of the space should be taken up by mainstream views.
  • Original research is OK to refute fringe views.
  • Fringe views should be immediately refuted by the scientific POV.
  • The ArbCom on the Paranormal should be ignored
  • Overt hostility, derision of fringe views
  • Derision and hostility toward those who believe or promote fringe views
  • Non-SPOV editors should be banned
  • Overt proselytizing for SPOV (which would not be tolerated from fringe views)
  • It is OK to crusade for SPOV
  • The terms NPOV and SPOV are interchangeable, and mean that the scientific POV is the POV of Misplaced Pages, always (example)
  • Because of the way WP policy is phrased, the terms "majority" and "skeptical" can also be interchanged, and the scientific mainstream is always a "majority" -of course, since WP is written from the SPOV. Once you understand this, such special usage becomes the most widespread evidence of a decision to write WP from the SPOV.
  • Misplaced Pages is a battleground
  • The SPOV group consider themselves a cabal (
  • The Constitution of SPOV may be found here. It is recommended that you read it fully, because the implications only appear gradually with meditation. However, even that is not the full story, because it leaves out many real factors, just as our own constitution does not explicate its own ramifications or the biases of its creators.

    If necessary, invoke IAR:

    (well it's all garbage, but that's another point...;-) in this discussion, it is a "pseudoscientific statement" made in the movie. When dealing with anything related to science on any subject at Misplaced Pages, whether it be a movie, a biography, an article on alternative medicine or quackery, etc., scientific sources are perfectly appropriate for dealing with the scientific matter at hand, and WEIGHT would so dictate. If someone in an article about themselves here is quoted as making an obviously unscientific statement, it would be appropriate to quote a mainstream scientific source to prevent readers from being misled by the Misplaced Pages article. That's not OR, it's common sense. If it weren't common sense, IOW used to help fringe ideas violate WEIGHT, it would be another matter. If necessary, just invoke WP:IAR. -- Fyslee / talk 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    POV pushing is okay if it's true:

    "Advocacy" of nonsense is forbidden here, while advocacy of reality isn't forbidden. The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense. That type of "advocacy" is forbidden.

    There was a long discussion about the use of OR on the Bleep talk page, and here is a straw poll on it:

    Religious beliefs to be subject to SPOV:

    Editors who think that SPOV is somehow contrary to NPOV and use the religious exceptionalism argument haven't really thought through what exactly SPOV is. ScienceApologist

    In Intelligent design , SPOV should be dominant, but NPOV says we also have to explain what intelligent design proponents claim for NPOV. Adam Cuerden

    Do be aware that if the skeptical view is the predominant one, it would be entirely appropriate for the skeptical view to be given more attention in the article. More at WP:NPOV. Raymond Arritt 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Quite true, the only problems being 1) the subject of the article and 2) that when SPOV advocates talk about the "majority," they mean "skeptical." Sometimes this "majority" is actually a tiny minority of skeptics untrained in science, or sometimes it is a majority of scientists, and sometimes it is merely what scientists would think if they knew about the topic (see quote below) .

    (Please note that although ScienceApologist is easy to quote, he generally speaks for the entire SPOV community) See this diff

    From the EVP talk page:

    WP:WEIGHT is clear. Skeptics have the upper hand because they are mainstream and the majority opinion. Therefore, to satisfy NPOV the writing needs to be dispassionately skeptical in tone. ScienceApologist 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, almost everyone who knows anything about EVP is a believer. What the article should say is that mainstream science has ignored the subject.

    It is very fringe and should be treated as such, IOW the scientific POV has weight. That's policy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    The argument here is that the SPOV should have more space/weight in articles about fringe topics, rather than mere notability .

    Note here that a "standard text" may be a text which does not mention the article's subject:

    I think that it is not unreasonable to take every claim about observable reality that is contrary to science (no matter how small) and point out, plainly, that it is contrary to science.... Plainly stating this and referencing a standard text on the subject… ScienceApologist (this was about a movie review article)

    And getting aggressive about it:

    If you don't like it, I suggest you get ready because I will make sure that the statements made in the movie that are contrary to scientific facts are plainly described as being contradicted by scientific facts whether or not the sources which we cite the scientific facts from mention the movie. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

    And again:

    Antelan says the same thing in this diff: .

    It's true that WP needs a better way to deal with a lack of scientific documentation on a subject. I personally would suggest clearly demarcated Original Research sections. But it is not appropriate to push this into the current WP framework.

    I would like to stress that consensus is indicated by silence- What ScienceApologist says is a general consensus of the group: they do not revert each other (see this show of consensus).

    Refusal of the ArbCom on the paranormal

    (there are lots more specific rejections of that ArbCom, but hard to find)

    SPOV advocates have also specifically rejected and refused to comply with the ArbCom on the paranormal. Here ScienceApologist is responding specifically to that ArbCom case. "Non negotiable" is indeed the general attitude of the SPOV advocates:

    Parapsychology can and is dismissed as pseudoscience. That is how it is treated in the mainstream scientific community. That is the treatment which has the most WP:WEIGHT when dealing with observable reality. The terms of this are non-negotiable. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

    Here Antelan agrees with SA, by saying he agrees with me

    .

    Since parapsychology is also fiction, I see no need for that... Guy (Help!) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    What the ArbCom said about Parapsychology: "...there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way..."

    Actually, parapsychology is generally not dismissed as pseudoscience.

    I could get you a lot more quotes, these are only the ones that are at my fingertips.

    Pushing SPOV is OK

    Here an admin acknowledges ScienceApologist is on a crusade, and defends him:

    Levine is a pleasant enough chap, for the most part, but bears most of the hallmarks of the crusader or true believer. This would be easier to handle if his crusade were for the mainstream, as SA's is, but it isn't. SA often lacks tact and diplomacy (sez me) but fundamentally he is pushing WP:NPOV while those who complain about him are generally pushing the opposite.

    There is an explicit double standard (above) from the SPOV admin. This also contradicts what ScienceApologist says about his own POV being SPOV. Also, SA's POV is often definitely not mainstream, see Astral projection edits below.

    SPOV = NPOV

    #Support We need arbitrators who admit up front that there really isn't any difference between NPOV and SPOV. Thanks, Rebecca. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

    NPOV = SPOV, yet the difference between the two is maintained... When we hear complaints about violation of NPOV from this group, they are actually complaining about violation of SPOV. In the same way, references to "mainstream," mean skeptical, even when the skeptical view is demonstrably a tiny minority opinion.

    Poisoning the atmosphere

    Please note that this selection is just the tip of the berg.

    SPOV editors generally think civility is a rather low priority:

    Yes, we're perfectly willing to have crap articles as long as the authors are civil. here in the real world things are different. The supply of aggressive trolls and kooks on these articles is nearly infinite. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    As one of the kooks, I take offense.

    There are numerous editors upon whom civility is wasted. One of Misplaced Pages's weaknesses is that it favors style over content.Kww (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Note also reference to SPOV admins:

    Thanks for the help out. People are starting to get afraid of standing up to these nutjobs. Many of the SPOV admins are running scared after what happened to Adam Cuerden. I'm not sure how long we can fight without the help of truly neutral admins. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

    There is no question that SPOV editors often have a point about those they often call POV-pushers. There is no doubt that they do Misplaced Pages some good in some cases. But their overtly nasty, insulting, dismissive, and contemptuous attitude, coupled to their proselytizing and edit warring for their personal views, etc. makes Misplaced Pages a miserable place, and often drives NPOV editors away (edit summary). There are at this time 1 or 2 non-SPOV editors still highly active in the Parapsychology/paranormal arena. Just imagine if this continual horridness was coming from the fringe side. Why should anyone have to endure it? (proselytizing ) ScienceApologist is only the front man for the SPOV group edit summary.

    The following is a recent quote from the EVP talk page, and the speaker knows some of the editors on that page believe in EVP:

    It is written in language that the delusional crazies who believe in this stuff would use. Just because some wackos might do "reseach" on the Easter Bunny does not mean the Easter Bunny article should start off with "The Easter Bunny, an egg-hiding rabbit, which some researchers credit with the concealment of over a billion eggs, ..." An encyclopedia article should make it clear when an article is about a made-up subject.

    Is it OK to call people these things if you just don't name them? The general attitude of the SPOV community is overt and hostile derision of anything not mainstream (another edit which contradicts the source used, BTW ).

    The only way Misplaced Pages should tolerate this kind of thing is if the bad behavior of one set of editors is justified by the bad behavior of others. There are editors such as Philosophus and DGG who are very highly skeptical, but are effective without the bad attitude and proselytizing.

    Here an SPOV admin specifically defends the actions of ScienceApologist:

    user:ScienceApologist is one of the on-admins who is burning out fighting off the kooks. The bad news is, when that happens, the kooks will move in big time. Watching articles prone to kookery is a thankless task these articles at the margins, the ones that form the core of the fringe cosmology obsessions, la|remote viewing and other paranormal subjects

    Question: What is your suggestion for making the thing (Remote viewing lead) accurate and in accord with the sources, and conforming to ArbCom?

    Response from Guy/JzG: Honestly? "Remote viewing is a load of abject nonsense promoted by deluded people."

    Note he is talking to someone he believes to think that Remote viewing is for real .

    Far from taking a hint from Adam Cuerden's troubles, the SPOV admins have merely decided to lie low for a while (see comments here).

    Non-SPOV editors to be banned

    An editor that adds pseudoscience to an article should be blocked immediately, with no recourse. Constantly having to negotiate with people that are simply miseducated and wrong gets tiring.Kww (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    Objection to some participants Note that I object to the enfranchisement of more than a few of the people voting "no" as obvious disruptive editors and POV-pushers. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    Fyslee responds to the above:

    I make the same objection. It is very interesting to see the same names, even admins, who usually back fringe editors and defend fringe POV. Whatever happened to common sense? -- Fyslee / talk 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    It involves a compulsory vacation for fringe and pseudoscience POV-pushers. That would improve a lot of articles. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    And that's from an admin.

    It's an encyclopedia. People who believe in nonsense, and all of whose friends believe in nonsense, should not write encyclopedia articles about that nonsense. It's counterproductive, because when people look things up in an encyclopedia, they want the truth, not nonsense. I will stay off your talk page henceforth. Please extend me the same courtesy. Rracecarr (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    He probably thinks I believe in it- and is certainly talking of me.

    Non-SPOV editors to be pushed into disruption

    And this by a former admin, no less responding in an unfailingly cool and rational manner eventually drives them berserk. It's actually quite fun..

    Methods of POV pushing and context

    The efforts of these and many other SPOV editors and admins have largely been foiled (in the paranormal but not other areas) by a very few persistent editors, some being fringe POV-pushers, and others such as jossi (left Misplaced Pages), DGG, Northmeister (left Misplaced Pages) and Nealparr (left Misplaced Pages) merely dedicated to NPOV. A great deal of sanity and chaos-control was achieved by the ArbCom on the Paranormal, but that ArbCom did not provide for sanctions, and it has been ignored and heavily criticized by members of the SPOV community. This is highlighted by the fact that they made a concerted attempt to place SPOV members on the ArbCom in the recent vote of confidence ("election"), fielding at least 4 candidates (though I believe a few dropped out early): MastCell, JoshuaZ, Adam Cuerden, Moreschi. They used the question to the candidates concerning SPOV versus NPOV, and voted accordingly (see quote above).

    Because historically the attempts to write from SPOV have not been fully achieved, efforts have often turned to the more subtle means of word choice, weighting, content order, excessive and repetitive attribution, and characterization (e.g. changing "researcher" or "investigator" (definitions- it is not POV to use these words ) to "believers" or "proponents" or "enthusiasts" or some such ("paranormal investigator" is the accepted term in the arena. These are all intended to denigrate the subjects, usually without directly and obviously violating NPOV "...interviews of what the film calls experts".

    This diff is a specially excellent example .

    The problem with using "researcher" is that it doesn't convey the fact that the "researchers" in question are true believers

    Of course, blatant POV pushing is hasn't stopped, especially recently. They often wish to define a subject negatively from the very start:

    What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs.....Kww (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

    This edit summary shows the intent (this is also a violation of the ArbCom on the paranormal):

    well, it may be defined as that by true believers, but most people define it as a laod of dingo's kidneys :-).

    The word "pseudoscience" is also freely thrown around, even though skeptical editors feel that

    "pseudoscience" is just a polite word for "tosh" and "balderdash"

    In the above instance, skeptical editors were arguing that the entirety of a movie be characterized as pseudoscience, contradicting mainstream sources such as Physics Today (which say it is only partly pseudoscience). That was the main thrust of the disruption of Bleep comments also here.

    Here Antelan places the (huge) section on fraud in Psychic surgery before the section on history, even though fraud is already well covered in the lead:

    Here ScienceApologist puts skepticism as the first explanation of Astral projection, even though the article is framed purely as "a paranormal interpretation of an out-of-body experience":

    And says on the talk page that

    Since the only explanation for "astral projection" is the skeptical idea, giving equal footing to all three "models" (and even calling them "models") is unreasonable. ScienceApologist 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    Geddit? SPOV is the only explanation.

    (ScienceApologist usually acts as the front man for these edits, but other editors do the same things, or support his edits- see Bleep talk page.)

    An attempt was made to re-write the WP:FRINGE guideline in a way which would allow some original research to debunk paranormal claims. This may have been because sources debunking some claims are very hard to come by.

    Here DGG changes the passage:

    This even extends to adding the word "phenomenon" to WTA:. This disallows the traditional ways of speaking of.... paranormal phenomena.

    I could get a lot more examples.........

    Although a few users such as ScienceApologist, Adam Cuerden (who uses admin tools to revert&protect pages where he is in disputes), Kww, Antelan, Rracecarr, and Guy/JzG are (at the moment) responsible for most of the critical editing and general pressure, the consensus of the SPOV community is manifest in their silence when such edits are made (the SPOV group is much broader than I have had the pleasure to meet).

    While fringe POV-pushing is a big problem, SPOV ideology and contemptuous nastiness is not the way to deal with it.

    Look at the other guy

    There is one other thing: it is often offered as a defense of SPOV POV pushing that 1) pushing that POV is OK and 2) what the other side does excuses what they do. I won't go gather diffs for this, but it is exhaustively demonstrated by the RfC on Adam Cuerden and the defenses of Cuerden offered by others on its talk page .

    So there are five issues:

    1. The matter of principle needs to be specifically dealt with and made enforceable- NPOV or SPOV?

    2. The disruptive and denigrating editing and personal behavior of skeptical editors needs to be dealt with.

    3. The questions of applying the ArbCom on the paranormal need to be addressed.

    4. Sanctions need to be put in place for violation of the ArbCom on the Paranormal.

    5. Can original research be done to explicate the SPOV in paranormal articles?

    I respectfully submit most NPOV editors have already been driven away from areas such as the paranormal, where the SPOV group edits. Those who remain are besieged from both sides, from paranormal POV pushers, but mainly from SPOV pushers. This is hurting Misplaced Pages. Other attempts, such as the ArbCom on the paranormal, have been tried to prevent the kind of editing described here. I submit that we are at wit's end.

    These are matters of basic already-decided principle, of course, but something needs to be done about the nastiness and SPOV-pushing. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

    User:Martinphi/prep for SA ArbCom Add topic