Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scientific mainstream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scientific mainstream

A personal essay in the project name space that is a POV fork of scientific consensus and contains a number of factual inaccuracies and personal points of view of its author represented as fact. FeloniousMonk 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is relevant to the current RFArb against me, and I ask it be (1) preserved till that process ends, or at least (2) userfied.
It's not a POV fork, because
  1. It isn't biased in any way; if it were, FM would have pointed out at least one biased passage.
  2. It's not an article on scientific consensus but a draft of an essay about how Wikipedians should describe scientific issues on which there are prominent mainstream and minority viewpoints.
If there are factual inaccuracies, these should be corrected; errors are not a reason to delete a page.
If I have (for the first time in 30,000 edits) represented my own POV as fact, that comes as a surprise to me. Please point this out, so I can fix it! --Uncle Ed 15:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Evidence presented at your current RFAr argues otherwise, but by all means, continue to ignore it. FeloniousMonk 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean arguments asserted - no evidence has yet shown that I represented my own POV as fact. Please show the diff if there is one. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is expresses a POV. Ed, scientific consensus is not formed by polls. You can put it on your own website. — Dunc|☺ 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    What "POV" does it express, and why is this wrong in an essay? Other essays have expressed viewpoints about how Wikipedians should write articles.
    Why do polls (which this essay does not mention) motivate your vote? --Uncle Ed 15:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Dunc is right, scientific consensus is not formed by polls, as Ed already knows from his last attempt at this, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_poll. How many bites at the same pov apple does Ed expect the community grant him? FeloniousMonk 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    Dunc is wrong, the article makes no mention of polls. How many times will you accuse me groundlessly? --Uncle Ed 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork by Ed Poor, what is this, number 50? 90? Can we start a new Speedy Deletion criteria for Ed Poor POV forks? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've asked above in what way this is a Wikipedia:POV fork. Asserting that I've "done it before a lot" is not evidence that this Essay is a POV fork. If you don't give a reason, it's just so much barking and biting. --Uncle Ed 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    That the subject is already covered in Scientific consensus is part of the nomination. That you have edit warred on Scientific consensus is a matter of record. That you have now chosen to go at it from another angle and write a POV fork, not as an article but as an essay, does not change that it is a POV fork which may well confuse and obfuscate the subject, especially for editors who habitually confuse essays with guidelines and even policy, as it is in the WP namespace. That you fail to gain consensus or support for your edits and then create new articles, categories, templates, and essays is a pattern. (also: That you're not yet running out of puppy jokes for these humorous pokes at me is astonishing... ) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Hey, making puppy jokes was your idea, remember? [1] If they bother you, I'll stop. Let's stick to a discussion of the merits of the various Wikipedia pages. --Uncle Ed 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Please Ed, how is it not a POV fork? The reasons you've provided so far are hardly very convincing. KC's "barking and biting", as you put it in such a puerile manner, represents a far, far more convincing argument. And, I'm sorry, Ed, but this is a real pisser, "If I have (for the first time in 30,000 edits) represented my own POV as fact, that comes as a surprise to me." Stop it, you're killing me. •Jim62sch• 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Shifting the burden of proof is not an answer. But if afd's are to be resolved purely by counting votes, than Wikipedia has gone to the dogs (no pun intended, KC). --Uncle Ed 21:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not fully convinced this is a POV fork, although it does seem to contain some of the notions that Ed wanted in scientific consensus. However, this does seem to be part of the general trend by Ed to put his essays in Wiki space to get some sort of policy/guideline/whatever basis for his editing. If Ed wants to make a guideline about how to edit science articles he should do that and it will get the requesite criticism. Ed seems here to be trying to have it both ways. JoshuaZ 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    That is precisely what I intend: to create a guideline about how to edit science articles. Please help me to turn this page into a guideline. --Uncle Ed 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be somewhat gaming of the system to promote Ed's anti-science views and attempt to give him more legitimacy when he is editing science articles from the extreme fringe POV. --Cyde Weys 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, that isn't a personal attack or anything. BigDT 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While it doesn't overtly say anything POV, the language used is POV (e.g., "I would say"). While this may be an essay (thus representing a personal view), it represents an extreme view that would probably create more of a mess with Science articles than anything were it to become guideline. While I personally don't agree with some of mainstream science, at least on one particular issue, I don't see this as the way to fix the problem. --Carl (talk|contribs) 06:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - personally, I think a Wikipedia guideline on what constitutes a scientific consensus would be a good thing ... although from reading this essay, I don't know that it is necessarilly the direction to go in producing one. BigDT 12:10, 25 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.