Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comment from AfD Page
I just moved the following comment from the main AfD page. As this article was not nominated for deletion, I could not merge it with an appropriate debate, so it'll remain here (unless someone else has a better idea.) Alphachimp talk 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's credibity is as stake. This entry is not merely a request to remove the entry "vertebral subluxation," it exposes two like-minded Wiki referee's irrationality, which precludes discussion.
The following is CRITICAL to understand incredulity:
When I came across an entry of an entirely speculative nature, "vertebral subluxation," lacking in any and all empirical evidence, I first disputed the claims, then disputed the entry. Such speculative metaphysics, I claimed, should be "marked" as such, and more importantly, the empirical claims (as much as anyone can) should be excluded, because they cannot be demonstrated. At the least, allow a rebuttal to the irrational and unverified speculation and its attendant claims. Better yet, remove the entry, or move it under "chiropractic" to give context.
My first submission, as rebuttal, was based on scientific and logical criteria. It was rejected by the referee. "Opinion," he screached. "Not exactly, I retorted, each proposition of mine can be verified, while none of the article's claims can be. So it isn't just opinion." The referee further insisted on "purity." "Purity," I howled, what has 'purity' to do with anything?" Okay, maybe hygienic standards crossover to an intellectual discussion of metaphysics. So, I submitted a rebuttal made of quotes, referenced (i.e., cited) from the putative profession. Every sentence I wrote could be verified. How pure is that? Not pure enough. Here's the referee's "final decision:"
"Since this is a metaphysical concept, the religious dimensions are also appropriate here. Palmer wrote extensively on those aspects, and they are verifiable. -- Fyslee."
What? Seriously? I can hear Gilbert Ryle exclaiming: "Category mistake!"
The entry makes unsubstantiated "emprical" claims, admittedly based on a metaphysical concepts. But it is the emprical claims I questioned, not merely the metaphysical ones. But when did metaphysical concepts become verified? If verified, they become empirical. If unverified, then they are metaphysical. The words themselves define the two different, indeed opposite, situations. But the referee claims the metaphysical concepts have been verified! The words are antithetical! A distinction with a enormous difference is not only lost on the referee, but refuted by the referee!
Even more incredulously, the referee will not relent! He insists his own claim is also verified. Now, we are beyond metaphysics, we are in science fiction. We cannot even "reason" together, because his POV (point of view) is beyond reason. It does not merely defy reason, it is irrational.
While the CONTROVERSIAL warning appears on the discussion page, it disappears on the article page. Shouldn't readers, not just contributors, encounter the warning? IRRATIONAL should also be added. This is YOUR Wikipedia, and YOUR Wiki referee!
~dshsfca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshsfca (talk • contribs)
