Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeopathy relativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy relativity

Orginal research and vanity. Opening sentance appears to have problems with facts and grammer. It doesn't get much better.Geni 15:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Opening sentence is citation, did you care to check the book? --Quasarq 20:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to meet the definition of Patent Nonsense of the Second Kind in that it is: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.. Speedy delete as such (CSD:G1). Tonywalton  | Talk 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Leave Maybe you don't know your way around relativity --Liseusa 19:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment User has only edited this page (twice) and their user page (once). Anville 19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like orginally researched nonsense. :) Dlohcierekim 15:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although homeopathy itself is patent nonsense in the ordinary sense, it can be written about intelligibly. Check to see if the article's author included relativity in Template:Homoeopathy, or whether the subject itself is "valid." - Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment per the edit history, that was the author of this article. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - mostly a note to myself to check when I had more time, but thanks. The article is off the template now. Did want to make sure that this wasn't a confusing attempt to write about something that homeopaths take seriously. With stuff like this it's hard to tell. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete though it attempts to baffle with (pseudo)science, clearly original research. Camillus (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant WP:OR, WP:NOT a place for rejected review articles. --Kinu t/c 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and patent nonsense. A hoax. GBYork 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No delete, so far no one cares to comment on contents. The word nonsense is used without notion of the sense of it. The references show this is no original research.--Quasarq 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • User has alreaded voted. Jefffire 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I notice that you don't care to comment on the contents either. Most intelligent people can spot pseudo-scientific sophistry/codswallop when they see it. Just because there are references makes no difference - references have to be to peer-reviewed, reputable sources - which this article sorely lacks. I could create an article stating that the Earth was flat, and find any number of references to back it up - it'd still be crap. Camillus (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Commend Sorry, if you know better than Einstein, the citation (opening sentance): every co-ordinate system "can be used as reference body with equal rights and equal succes in the formulation of the general laws in nature" came from his book. Like the first editor no one did care to look it up. --Quasarq 20:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The problem might not be with the citation from Einstein, but how the article attempts to use quotations taken out of context to try to give a "scientific gloss" to this sophistry/codswallop. In the first paragraph we have "Einstein does not claim that systems are equal, no they have equal rights or they are similar in certain aspects." Examine this even for a moment and it's revealed as patent nonsense - who in the world would say that "all systems are equal"? What on earth does "equal" mean in this context? What on earth does "equal rights" mean in this context? Who in the world would question that "systems...are similar in certain aspects"? Just because you stick Einstein in front does not turn garbage into gold.
Taking another "reference" from Department of Physics of Washington University in St. Louis - Black holes, Hawking radiation, entropy, and information loss in a thin film of 3He-A - how come the authors of that paper make no mention of "Homeopathy" whatever? Because the two subjects are totally unrelated?
I could create an article called "Mesmerism and Relativity" or "Phrenology and Relativity" and throw in a few quotations from Einstein and Hawking - nobody's going to start taking Franz Mesmer seriously or start looking for black (or even "white") holes on people's noggins. Camillus (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Commend Einstein doesn't say: "all systems are equal", he said: "they have equal rights"; in the context this point is proven. The authors of "that paper" don't speak about homeopathy, they speak about quantum black hole analogies or white hole analogies; this is what homeopaths were writing all along. The editor does not say science has proved the point, he claims this is a POV among homeopathic circles
  • Reply You miss my point. My point was why say "Einstein does not claim that all systems are equal?". Nobody would say that all systems are equal. Like saying "Einstein would not say that 2+2=5". The context of all systems having "equal rights" is not in the slightest "proven", neither can it be as it is patently a nonsensical statement. What do "rights" mean in this context?
If this article is to exist at all, it needs to face similar criteria as any other article about a "theory" - for example, Who proposed the theory, When was it proposed, How has it developed, What do others in the field say about the theory, What does the scientific community say about the theory? All with references. The article at the moment fulfills none of these criteria, probably because it is just a "POV among homeopathic circles", and the rest of the scientific community don't care to give it any credence at all. Camillus (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply The central point of general relativity is that all systems relate (or have equal rights). And indeed, it is just POV. --Homy 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overall The article could have some difficuties, but has right to exist because the relation between homeopathy and relativity evidently exists, the "problems" should be discussed on the discussion of the article. --Quasarq 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity has a relation with homeopthy? So you are saying this footnote in the article [1] has a relation to homeopathy, for example? The words "relation" and "relativity" are just general dictionary words. GBYork 10:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment It means what it says: "The consequences of special relativity. According to special relativity there exists dilutions of momentum, space, charge, any particle (reference)" The article: "means a corresponding dilution." (of particles) What about homeopathy ? --Quasarq 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nota bene: the article here cited is itself pretty ruttin' far from the scientific mainstream. In essence, its author tries to reconcile relativity with the ether, thus doing away with four-dimensional spacetime. The entire website http://www.ag-physics.de/ looks like an infestation of crankdom. It's no good. Anville 19:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete, on the grounds of WP:NOR Note that original research includes "any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", which appears to fit this article perfectly. Quotes from Einstein do not make this article any less original research, as the interpretation of Einstein's words is novel, to say the least Pervect 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Exactly! The article is total nonsense. GBYork 11:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment There is also WP:RULES WP:POL WP:PAG to write an article. Just using populistic WP policies to block an article is common habit for just skeptic editors SCARED of revealing news. There is still strong BIAS on policies and no contents. Again: DISCUSSION on the page is the proper method to discuss policies. The definition of intellectualization is here fit: Cutting off affective charge from hurtful situations or seperating incompatible attittutes by logic-tight compartments --Quasarq 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Does not the fact that no-one thinks this is worth taking to the talk page tell you something? Let me guess, it says there's a conspiracy, right? --Michael C. Price talk 09:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Are you familiar with the old robot saying, does not compute?" WP:NOR, WP:VAIN, WP:POV and WP:BOLLOCKS all apply. The only good news is that this verges so far into the patent nonsense realm that I doubt people could base healthcare decisions upon it (but perhaps that is overly optimistic of me). Conspiratorially yours, Anville 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. --Pjacobi 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't say delete strongly enough. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - what patent nonsense this article is - sheesh! I think this article should be used as an example to let Wikipedians (and especially newbies) know just how dangerous WP can get. MP (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mostly OR, nonsensical, and a POV fork. Jefffire 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.