User:SteveMcCluskey/sandbox2

In the discussion at the ArbCom Request for Clarification, arbitrators and an editor have recommended that the banner focus on guidelines and policies, rather than past ArbCom decisions, commented on the length and on the tone of the existing templates. In a parallel discussion at Talk:Flat Earth, Ragesoss suggested that a simpler, less intimidating banner be created for use on talk pages. BullRangifer replied that "As far as designing a more condensed template, that might be nice, but I don't have much spare time right now." I decided to take up this suggestion, reading through the findings of ArbCom concerning suggestion pseudoscience, and using them as a basis for editing the template into a more compact form.

My intended audience is any editor who would want to know how ArbCom's decisions applied Wikipedia guidelines and policies to articles touching on pseudoscience. Stylistically, I eliminated all the bold links, which can look very much like shouting. My editing drew on the existing template, making the following changes:

• The initial three points were condensed and reduced to two, consolidating the duplicative first and third points. An additional point about reliable sources and their relation to notability was added as was ArbCom's cautionary finding that contemporary validity does not determine notability, which relates directly to my concern with historical articles.
• The four point classification of pseudoscience was deleted in its entirety, as it does not give any meaningful guidance to editors of an article that is already considered as dealing with pseudoscience.
• The discussion of discretionary sanctions was recast in less of a "stern parent" tone, following Bishonen's suggestion.

I suggest the following draft revision to replace the existing template:

Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience Articles dealing with pseudoscience have often led to controversies requiring the attention of the Arbitration Committee. ArbCom has reiterated several long standing guidelines and policies which are important to editors of this and other articles touching on pseudoscience. Among these are the Neutral point of view as applied to science, that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's treatment of scientific topics should reflect mainstream scientific consensus, and the importance of reliable sources both as evidence and as an indicator of notability. They found, however, that the notability of a scientific theory is not determined by its contemporary validity. If you edit inappropriately on pages relating to pseudoscience, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks.

I look forward to discussions of this proposal.

Thanks for your reply. I think I understand where you're coming from about the four categories of pseudoscience, but I don't see how that provides anything really useful for an editor of an article -- especially if the article is already categorized as dealing with pseudoscience.

I think, however, that it may be more useful to provide this material as template documentation on the template page rather than in the template itself. Thus the documentation will provide information as to when and where the template should be used. Such documentation is generally a good idea for templates.

Reply to AGK

@AGK: Thanks for your reply about the changes to Template:Uw-sanctions. Those definitely improved the tone of that template. However, the concern that brought me to this discussion was the sudden and extensive use of a different template, Template:ArbComPseudoscience, which is portrayed in the Statement by BullRangifer, above. At the moment I am involved in a proposal to shorten and tone down that template, although after looking at Template:Uw-sanctions, I'm beginning to feel that a specialized template concerning sanctions for Pseudoscience may be an unnecessary and undesirable duplication.

I think Steve has done excellent work on a new (replacement) template. See my comment here.

I have a single concern, that the most important part (about the four groupings, which alone is responsible for nearly total peace in the area for several years) isn't even mentioned. That part was unique and valuable. The other wikilinks just reconfirm existing policy. Without that part we risk a return to the chaos which previously prevailed and resulted in the PSI ArbCom, with fringe POV pushers seeking to delete all RS mentions of pseudoscience/quackery, and overly zealous skeptics including too many subjects under Category:Pseudoscience. We don't want to go back to those very disruptive days. I was involved from the beginning, even surviving a concerted attack by one of the most notorious internet pushers of nonsense (she was and is banned), and I know this subject and its history here far too well. The value of that unique part of the ArbCom decision (four groups) and the template has been proven by time.

If the proper understanding of the four groups is presented in the template, the sanctions are rarely used, and thus the four groups, even if abbreviated, need to be mentioned as the most important part of the template.

Otherwise very good work. Steve's version is tight, well-worded, and includes some good wikilinks. I support this effort wholeheartedly. It's headed in the right direction. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Spherical Earth

Late Antiquity

Knowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth was received in scholarship of Late Antiquity as a matter of course, in both Neoplatonism and Early Christianity. Calcidius's fourth-century commentary on Plato's Timaeus, which was one of the few examples of Greek scientific thought that was known in the Early Middle Ages, discussed Hipparchus's use of the circumstances of eclipses to compute the relative sizes of the Sun, Earth, and Moon.