User talk:Farseer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:16, 17 January 2006

Welcome!

Hello Farseer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! HGB 17:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
 I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out [[Wikipedia:Where to ask a question]] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!&nbsp; [[User:HGB|HGB]] 17:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
-== Quackery and Pseudoscience ==
-as written are pejoratives making them inappropriate categorization links for most articles.  They need to be rewritten and narrowly classed or referenced as being the opinion of skeptics, not as categories for the articles [[User:Farseer|Farseer]] 02:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-:They are '''also''' categories. They can also be used as pejoratives when applied to persons. Calling a person a ''quack'' would be a pejorative use, and it might well be legitimate, ''if'' one can document that they promote quackery. The same can apply to categories and subjects. Quackery and pseudoscience have definitions, and "if the shoe fits" use it in the appropriate situation. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 05:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-"If the shoe fits" makes it a perjorative and inappropriate use, and therefore POV and inappropriate in Wikipedia.  You make the case for me.  [[User:Farseer|Farseer]] 08:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-=== A misunderstanding? ===
-I suspect we are misunderstanding each other. I have possibly expressed myself unclearly. It's an American version of an old British expression. I did not include the usual ending "wear it", which would make it apply to the person being spoken to. The expression was clearly used about the categories in a neutral way, IOW, if they apply, even if not exactly, they should be used.
-The expression "if the shoe fits" means nothing more nor less than "if applicable" or "if appropriate". Of course the context determines whether it is meant in a pejorative way, and that isn't the situation here. To illustrate let's use it in a less sensitive situation. The setting? The boss is leaving the nursery for the day....:
-"I have several different types of flowers here. They need to be sorted by genus, but I don't have the time. Please do it for me. I think most of those in this box are of XXXX genus, but "if the shoe fits", place them in the other box. Just do what is appropriate."
-Now that may be a rather clumsy illustration, but the phrase could just as well apply there. That it often is used in connection with pejorative expressions doesn't make the phrase itself a pejorative. The context helps one to determine the meaning, and my meaning dealt with the categories.
-What is your objection to those categories? (I have no problems with them, since I deal with them every single day. It's my hobby....;-) Don't you believe that there is such a thing as quackery or pseudoscience, or is it a difference of opinion we're dealing with here? I'd really like to hear your opinion.
-I suspect we just need to fine tune our understanding here. Instead of just removing the category, we need to understand it and just how it may apply to any particular article in question. That's what needs to be done '''before''' editing categories away. Otherwise we end up with an editing war, which is a waste of time, since every single edit is monitored by many people. Nothing is done secretly here.
-If an article deals with a subject that is in any '''significant''' way related (not necessarily equal) to quackery or pseudoscience, then to place the category link there is to provide a valuable service.
-The following quote from below (about not removing categories) still applies:
-:*''People who are seeking information on pseudoscience will want to find psychic surgery, psychokinesis, etc. so they should be in that category. They are justified as being in that category because there is a substantial body of opinion that holds that they are pseudoscience.''
-Likewise:
-:*''People who are seeking information on quackery will want to find homeopathy, chiropractic, healing, etc. so they should be in that category. They are justified as being in that category because there is a substantial body of documentation and opinion - especially among the majority of scientists, medical personnel, and historians - that holds that they are either quackery,  heavily involved with quackery, or related to quackery.''
-Preserving NPOV is often just as much a matter of accurately presenting opposing opinions, as it is of neutralizing opinions. The removal of one opinion is the same as promoting the other opinion, which is definitely not NPOV policy. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 19:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-== Please stop removing valid categories ==
-I would suggest you heed the following good advice, which you have (unethically?) deleted from your Talk page. Your actions are being monitored by many, so you can't hide what you are doing. In the interest of openness and honesty in future discussions, it is important for people to know about previous discussions, so please restore them promptly. It would be better that you do it yourself, than for others to do it for you.
-The deleted section below is found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFarseer&diff=34970631&oldid=34970409 here]:
-:Please stop removing valid categories
-:I don't think you understand Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] policy. Please read my comments in [[Talk:Psychic surgery]] and discuss there. Stop making wholesale removals of categories merely because you do not agree with them.
-:People who are seeking information on pseudoscience will want to find psychic surgery, psychokinesis, etc. so they should be in that category. They are justified as being in that category because there is a substantial body of opinion that holds that they are pseudoscience.
-:They should ''also'' be in categories such as parapsychology. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 02:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-(Reposted here by [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 19:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC))