| Revision as of 17:08, 14 June 2012 editGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits →Unreliable sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:16, 14 June 2012 edit undoSecond Quantization (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers24,876 edits →Unreliable sourcesNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :Please quote the Misplaced Pages policy which enables you to disqualify an entire publisher from having the views of its authors printed on Misplaced Pages. Maybe there is some sort of ] to which you can refer me. Otherwise, I will assume that your edits have zero basis in Misplaced Pages policy, and you are simply acting on ]. — ] ] 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | :Please quote the Misplaced Pages policy which enables you to disqualify an entire publisher from having the views of its authors printed on Misplaced Pages. Maybe there is some sort of ] to which you can refer me. Otherwise, I will assume that your edits have zero basis in Misplaced Pages policy, and you are simply acting on ]. — ] ] 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's not reliable for the claims. So yes, we can exclude it. ] (]) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The views of Louise Danielle Palmer of Spirituality & Health magazine don't have due weight for stating how compelling a case she thinks is made by Tarnas. ] (]) 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | The views of Louise Danielle Palmer of Spirituality & Health magazine don't have due weight for stating how compelling a case she thinks is made by Tarnas. ] (]) 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :That is quite amazing how you can decide which authors' views are qualified to be presented in this article. Let me guess: those who do not qualify are the authors that happen to disagree with you on this subject. The material was presented as the authors opinion. But that's not good enough for you, because you don't like their opinion. So you'd like to make sure that no one reads those opinions. This is wrong, and has no basis in Wikipdia policy. I gave a fair overview of the published literature on the topic. I am sorry that you have some type of religious fervor to suppress this information from the article. Please stop removing well-referenced material from this article simply because you happen to disagree with the content. — ] ] 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | :That is quite amazing how you can decide which authors' views are qualified to be presented in this article. Let me guess: those who do not qualify are the authors that happen to disagree with you on this subject. The material was presented as the authors opinion. But that's not good enough for you, because you don't like their opinion. So you'd like to make sure that no one reads those opinions. This is wrong, and has no basis in Wikipdia policy. I gave a fair overview of the published literature on the topic. I am sorry that you have some type of religious fervor to suppress this information from the article. Please stop removing well-referenced material from this article simply because you happen to disagree with the content. — ] ] 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Attack the argument not the editor. I've already linked you to the specific policies that deal with these issues. Also note that yes in fact we can say who is qualified to be present in the article, it's called due weight. ] (]) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Fringe Template == | == Fringe Template == | ||
Revision as of 17:16, 14 June 2012
Unreliable sources
Steinerbooks is not a reliable source for the claims that it is is informed by developments in quantum physics, postmodern philosophy and Jungian psychology etc, the views of Sean Kelly, have no due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please quote the Misplaced Pages policy which enables you to disqualify an entire publisher from having the views of its authors printed on Misplaced Pages. Maybe there is some sort of Index Librorum Prohibitorum to which you can refer me. Otherwise, I will assume that your edits have zero basis in Misplaced Pages policy, and you are simply acting on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — goethean ॐ 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not reliable for the claims. So yes, we can exclude it. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The views of Louise Danielle Palmer of Spirituality & Health magazine don't have due weight for stating how compelling a case she thinks is made by Tarnas. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is quite amazing how you can decide which authors' views are qualified to be presented in this article. Let me guess: those who do not qualify are the authors that happen to disagree with you on this subject. The material was presented as the authors opinion. But that's not good enough for you, because you don't like their opinion. So you'd like to make sure that no one reads those opinions. This is wrong, and has no basis in Wikipdia policy. I gave a fair overview of the published literature on the topic. I am sorry that you have some type of religious fervor to suppress this information from the article. Please stop removing well-referenced material from this article simply because you happen to disagree with the content. — goethean ॐ 17:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Attack the argument not the editor. I've already linked you to the specific policies that deal with these issues. Also note that yes in fact we can say who is qualified to be present in the article, it's called due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Fringe Template
The article currently is unbalanced, it currently makes Astrology appear to look more WP:VALID than it is due. @Goethean, please do not remove this template without discussion (particularly considering you are the article creator). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)