Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 20 March 2009

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Pro-fringe?

So, I guess I am confused. You are saying that because I want to follow NPOV and include verifiable information about a pseudoscientific use of a non-pseudoscientific subject in said subject's article, then I am - in your book - a pro-fringe editor. But you also say that you are in agreement with my position about the inclusion of such a pseudoscientific use in the article. Does that make you a pro-fringe editor as well? If yes, then I am happy to be in your company. If not, then what's the distinction between us? -- Levine2112 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pro-science. If there is a PS angle to any article, and I agree wholeheartedly with you that homeopathy is PS, then the science should also be included. The science should be given the most prominent weighting, except on certain articles where it takes second place, as per our policies. I termed you pro-fringe as you are pro- the inclusion of fringe topics and sympathetic towards them. If you dispute this then I'm sorry if you feel I have mischaracterised you, but this is the impression given by your edits. The situation on AB is different. It is the exclusion of relevant material for spurious reasons that is the problem. Saying that there is no AB in the preparation is not an attack, unless we say this is why it doesn't work - it is a simple fact which is relevant to the article, and irrelevant to homeopaths as they claim it does not matter (so long as you bang it on some straw). Verbal chat 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have mischaracterized me. Allow me to explain. At AB - for instance - while I am in favor of the inclusion of the homeopathic usage of the plant, it is not for any spurious reason - such as the undue promotion of the efficacy of homeopathy. I am and have always been in favor of including the fact that there is no scientific evidence for its efficacy, since we have a source specifically discussing AB which verifies this. Originally, I was not in favor of including some amalgamation of the "zero molecules" statement simply because the source being used was discussing homeopathy in general and not specifically discussing AB. Using that source to say anything specific about AB was clearly an OR violation and using it to say something in general about homeopathy was tangential to the subject of the article. However, now we have a source which is specifically discussing AB and at least one form of its homeopathic usage which is unlikely to contain any molecules of the original plant after dillution. With this source, I don't have any issue including the information, provided that it faithfully represents the source information.

Now then, above you say that it is "the exclusion of relevant material for spurious reasons that is the problem." Consider your statement and then please consider this with a most open and reasonable mind: SA was (and still seems to be) in favor of excluding any mention of homeopathy in the article regardless of the sources because he feels that homeopathy is bunk, and bunk shouldn't be mentioned in any articles except articles about bunk. Is not that a spurious reason to exclude relevant material? Do you agree with this point of view? It certainly goes beyond "pro-science", so how would you characterize SA as an editor?

I hope you see now that I am both pro-science and pro-fringe; as long as the information is relevant and verifiable to a reliable source, I say, "Include it." Maybe that makes me an "inclusionist". Maybe that makes me pro-NPOV. Maybe that may make me seem "sympathetic" to one point of view if I see that knowledge about that point of view is being excluded for spurious reasons. However you wish to describe me, I hope now you can see that it is unfair and clearly inaccurate to describe me as a pro-fringe editor. I am so much more than that. Misplaced Pages represents an audacious attempt to gather the sum total of human knowledge. To best acheive this herculean goal, I am pro-knowledge. I am pro-Misplaced Pages. -- Levine2112 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was/am really hoping to get a honest response from you on this. I think we have some good dialogue happening here and would like to foster it further if you are willing. Thanks. -- Levine2112 23:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you have not continued this discussion. That's totally fine. If ever in the future you wish to pick this up again, I promise to remain open and willing. Thanks again, Verbal. -- Levine2112 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry missed it with some other things. Bit busy right now, thanks. Verbal chat 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

You reverted asking for a talk page discussion first; this discussion is already present, however, and no response was given to the numerous problems with the older version (science fiction? Alternative medicine is synonymous with pseudoscience (no source said this)?). Please don't go back to this very flawed version. hgilbert (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course! How true! Some AltMed is beyond reproach. Verbal chat 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources have characterized it as pseudoscience? Put it on the list with appropriate nuance. The Wedgewood walls of that article do not need another tempest. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your actions on Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine

Hello, Verbal. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the link to point to the section. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

LLM

That editor stated somewhere (AE, SSU - if you feel like reading more of their prose, feel free to search it out) that they were instrumental in the rename of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Personally, I would say that Fyslee and Backin72 were the main movers behind that particular resolution, though of course yours truly played some little role. Given that I fairly quickly stopped caring to read more than cursorily anything LLM had to say ... well. Anyway, it would probably be better just to let that particular issue go; the trash sourcing on Parapsychology still needs work, though. Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sense About Science

Please note that "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus". If you have a good reason for excluding Monbiot's well-known and notable criticism of Sense About Science, then place it on the talk page - you did not do this, so BRD does not apply. Note that Misplaced Pages is not censored to protect organisations against criticism; this is especially worth noting considering the COI self-edits that have been made to the page. Fences and windows (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can justify it as a "well known" and "notable" complaint, then do so on the talk page. The section i removed seemed to give undue weight and hence violate policy. Verbal chat 22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you or someone else watching this page check the relevance of this Nature article? I can get it in a couple of days, but I wanna work on that article now. Eldereft on a public computer 74.179.112.100 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry - I assume you've dealt with this now. I have the paper if you're still interested. Verbal chat 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep - short news piece about their peer review thing, used it for elaboration in the Projects section. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Aura

Your reverts on aura (paranormal) have serious NPOV issues and your edit summaries are failing to justify them. Discussion was opened at Talk:Aura (paranormal)#NPOV - testing explaining the problems. It seems, however, that someone has just made improvements similar to mine. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The improvements they made did not have the same bias that yours had; I improved it with another editor. Verbal chat 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster

Hi Verbal, From your edits on Talk:Cloudbuster, it looks like you may have thought that the most recent AfD on that article closed with no consensus (Hence your summary, in converting the page to redirect was "redirect per AfD discussion"), whereas it actually closed as "keep." I fixed the link so that both discussions can now be accessed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was confused by the link being broken, however the AfD did establish consensus for a merge/redirect, hence I have already completed thee merge. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your edit summary that "consensus for merge/redirect was established." The consensus was "keep". Immediately redirecting the article when the consensus is "keep" doesn't show respect for either the process or the people who participated and came to a different conclusion than you did. The closer noted that "merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages." You should allow for those discussions to take place. -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for the merge was clearly established, and AfD is often used in that way. I suggest you start an unmerge discussion at orgone, as I feel it is unreasonable to start another discussion and invite all the participants to leave the exact same comments as they already have done. Do you dispute that there was a consensus for redirect/merge established? Do you think anything has been lost or that the orgone article is now unwieldy? Verbal chat 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that a consensus for redirect/merge was established, clearly or even vaguely. The outcome was "keep," and the closer did not find it unreasonable that any merge or redirect should be subject to further discussion. Nor do I. -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you feel so inclined start adding to the coverage of cloudbusters over at the orgone article, and when there is enough material backed by RS it can be spun off as a separate article. There was adequate support for the redirect, and the orgone article is better for the merge. The conversation here is closed, take it to the orgone talk page or the fringe theories noticeboard for further community input. Verbal chat 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)