Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 30 December 2008

Basic standards of civility and decorum will be strictly enforced. Editors who are uncivil or who are deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) will be warned, then banned from editing the case pages for escalating periods of time by non-recused Arbitrators and Clerks, enforceable by brief blocks. For the duration of the ban, banned editors may leave comments on the talk page of any non-recused clerk, provided this privilege is not abused. The case Clerks for this Arbitration are Daniel (talk) and Gazimoff (talk).

Per the above infobox, I would argue that this statement is both uncivil and deliberately provocative. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the clerks have already been informed. Mathsci (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Truth hurts. Sceptre 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone of having a tendency to call people trolls may be wildly inaccurate, and unsupported by evidence at this time, but it's his opinion and not a personal attack in this context. If he called you a troll, then yes, but he's stating that you do something, rather than are something. I'm inclined to leave it and monitor it the situation, although I urge Sceptre to provide some diffs for the accusation (and submit them into evidence) or the comment may be struck in a few days. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

is one of the most notable cases. Yes, I know, ID. But it's germane. I'll try and find some more of SA. It's a tendency of at least two or three people. Sceptre 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How does that diff concern me? Possibly you've confused me with another editor. Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

People like you. Sceptre 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "like me"? Directeurs de recherche in the CNRS who have received a Junior Whitehead Prize. People who edit articles on mathematics, music, history and French culture. That kind of person? Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Science editors. The more vocal ones. Sceptre 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good lord... being uncivil to someone and trying to justify it by accusing them of being "a vocal science editor"? That's even more "uncivil and deliberately provocative" statement than the original one. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, there is no guilt by association. Please show specific examples of the editors you named in your accusation doing those things, or else strike your allegation. I ask that you do this within the next 24-36 hours, or I will strike it myself to keep the peace. Daniel (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, fuck this for a game of soldiers. Strike it. I'm having no further part in this case. (Incidentally, it's a bit foolish to reply to a complaint about conduct by exhibiting the exact same behaviour in the complaint.) Sceptre 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Science

I have a verifiable graduate degree in science from a respectable university and consider myself extremely pro-science. Nevertheless, it does no good to treat editors as "the enemy", nor does it help to turn science articles into a battlefield. Could folks please turn down the rhetoric and make their own proposals if they don't like the ones that have been mooted. Jehochman 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My view of the natural world:

• Science (B-class) - That which has been measured, tested and widely accepted.
• Protoscience (start) - That which can be measured, but has not yet been widely accepted.
• Fringe science (start) - That which can be measured, but is widely rejected because data does not support the hypothesis.
• Pseudoscience (start) - That which cannot be measured. It is unfalsifiable. E.g. a supreme being created the Earth, but we cannot find evidence of this because the supreme being does not want us to find it.

These areas overlap and we have trouble when people cannot agree on how to classify a subject. I think it would be a useful exercise to improve the quality of these four articles so we as a community have a common understanding of what they mean. Jehochman 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not a classification system most scientists would recognize or subscribe to, especially the distinction between fringe science and pseudoscience that you draw here, or your definition of pseudoscience, which is so singular that although I've studied pseudoscience for most of my scholarly career, I've never seen it defined this way before. If we're going to use such distinctions and classifications (which frankly I don't think is a good idea, because it represents a departure from core Misplaced Pages policy of using RS and NPOV to arrive at an accurate representation of a subject and adds a step of deciding which category a subject belongs in, a step that would be unnecessarily complicating and add more opportunity for argument without buying anything useful as far as the content of the article) at least we should use widely accepted classifications and widely accepted definitions. Woonpton (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we have trouble when we can't agree how to classify something, but Jehochman's proposed classifications bear no resemblence to the real world use of the term pseudoscience. His definition of "debunking" on the Workshop page is also quite unrealistic. We're not going to get anywhere if we do not at least stick to the definitions as used by those in the field in question and not some personal quirky meaning. By redefining pseudoscience to something that the rest of the world doesn't mean, he's made it difficult to take any actions under the guidelines already imposed by ArbCom for pseudoscience articles. In actual practice, the things defined as fringe science above are universally considered pseudoscience. Fringe would be a hazy border between that and what he labels protoscience. DreamGuy (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Example diff

This is an enlightening diff: . It is a fine example of argumentation that does not belong in an article. Our purpose in writing cold fusion is not to prove how stupid and pathological cold fusion is as a science. The verifiable facts speak well enough for themselves. Jehochman 21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Without further context (sentence not added by SA, person who removed it is anonymous, so what side is which?) I'm not sure if you are objecting to the sentence that was removed or the removal of that sentence. The sentiment expressed in it is certainly accurate, and it did not call anyone "stupid" or "pathological." You seem to be reading things into statements far beyond what they actually say. The wording could have been improved, but the idea behind it is not only valuable but practically necessary for understanding any subject in which people try to pick and choose evidence to support their side. The primary sentiment of most scientists is that cold fusion was not real science, and pointing out why they say that is an absolute necessity in any article on the topic. If we report that scientists are hostile to cold fusion, that's not us being hostile to anyone, that's simply stating facts. DreamGuy (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)