It is not a good idea to revert out any material from another goodfaith user with a comment such as "nonsense". That is an unfortunately disrespectful and confrontational approach.

However, what is actually wrong with some of the edits that ScienceApologist has objected to in the past is difficult to explain concisely, and it has evidently been frustrating for him to be confronted with a situation where he lacks the support of a culture in which the wrongness is clear to everyone. The "pseudoscience" arbitration case gives us a chance to establish that culture.

An article on a mainstream science topic such as Big Bang should give a detailed and up-to-date (but not speculative) account of the body of mainstream scientific theory that forms its subject matter. It may (or may not) be appropriate to make brief mention of minority theories somewhere in the article, but it is not appropriate for the article to treat its subject matter as controversial within the relevant scientific community in a way that it actually is not.

An article on a minority scientific theory such as Plasma cosmology should describe the theory clearly while establishing unambiguously that it is not an accepted theory among the community of relevant scientists, in this case cosmologists. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for anyone to make what is a essentially a debating point about what Hubble himself may or may not have said against what is now the generally accepted theory. The point is not to try to defend the truth of theories that lack general scientific support. As a reference work, Wikipedia does not have that purpose.

If the arbcom can clarify what is reasonable editing of the mainstream science articles, and what is reasonable editing of articles on minority theories, it should become clear to everyone that much of the editing by Tommysun, for example, is an inappropriate kind of POV insertion. ScienceApologist has been correct to object to edits meeting that description.

At the same time, I don't think anyone objective can too critical of people for what has happened in the past, since it has not been entirely clear what stance Wikipedia takes with these respective kinds of articles. Existing policies require interpretation, and, after all, many other Wikipedia articles about genuinely controversial ideas in politics, philosophy, and so on, do have a lot of discussion of criticisms and counter-criticisms. They include much jockeying for position in getting all criticisms or counter-criticisms into the text. This is tolerated, and it is to be hoped that an overall NPOV account of the controversy emerges. I think the time has come for it to made clear that the widely accepted, well-corroborated paradigm theories of current science, which are not controversial within the relevant scientific communities, are not to be treated, in either the articles about them or in articles about alternative theories, as if they were contentious, speculative ideas, akin to political ideologies.

Minority scientific views should not be debunked in their own articles; nor should the supporters of such theories be rubbished and discredited in their own articles. However, minority scientific views should not be advocated or debated as if they are equally live options to the mainstream theories. The situation is not like that between rival political parties. Wikipedia should accept that there is an important asymmetry here — between the "mainstream" and the "alternative" scientific theories — and NPOV should be understood and applied on that basis.

In their own articles, the minority theories should be described clearly and accurately, while also making clear that they are minority views which lack mainstream support. Note, however, that they should not be treated as if they are pseudoscience, which is something else. The career of someone who has developed or supported a minority, but notable, scientific theory should be described clearly and objectively, without the need to take a debunking tone, but again it should be made clear that the theory the person has developed or supported is a minority view that lacks mainstream scientific support. Again, articles on such individuals should not contain advocacy or debate about the respective merits of such theories vis a vis the mainstream theories — creating a false impression of controversy.

If arbcom endorses this understanding, or something that it prefers but along the same lines, it should greatly help the editing of the relevant kinds of articles in the future. All parties will have clearer guidance as to the respective purposes within Wikipedia of these kinds of articles, and that should, in turn, give them a better idea of what kinds of edits are acceptable or encouraged — and what kinds are not.

You have a problem in making a categorical imperative regarding not "debunking" "minority scientific views". Apparently you think that pseudoscience can/should be debunked in their own pages, so the problem is related to the demarcation problem. How do we determine what is "pseudoscience" and what is just a "minority scientific view"? Even worse: does it make sense to exclude a verifiable discourse that takes place in science (debunking) which takes place all the time and isn't consigned to pseudoscience evaluation? --ScienceApologist 01:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Can we debunk the big bang? [[1]]

Tommy Mandel 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]