Talk:Science-Based Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Notability: new section
→‎Notability: new section
Line 29: Line 29:


As for mediabiasfactcheck.com; I checked the list a few days ago and it was absent. It's there now, and the inclusion checks out. I was still not able to find a discussion concluding it was unreliable at RSN, however. If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it. I seem to recall questioning it's conclusions myself. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
As for mediabiasfactcheck.com; I checked the list a few days ago and it was absent. It's there now, and the inclusion checks out. I was still not able to find a discussion concluding it was unreliable at RSN, however. If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it. I seem to recall questioning it's conclusions myself. [[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MPants at work|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

== Notability ==

{{Ping|MPants at work}} since you insist on edit warring instead of engaging either on your talk page or this talk page I have two requests for you.

1. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science-Based_Medicine&diff=1027388435&oldid=1027387930]] "manual revert: yes, the site is there now, despite being absent when I last checked a few days ago” is hard to believe, its been on the list for years. Perhaps you wish to change your story to something more truthful?

2. Demonstrate that the the subject passes [[WP:GNG]] or another standard. You need to do that *before* removing a notability tag BTW, you intended to do that right? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:58, 7 June 2021

Should be a stand-alone article

I think there is enough to write a stand-alone article, and redirecting to David Gorski seems a bit odd. He is the managing editor, but Steven Novella is the founding and executive editor, so why not him? Here are some refs to work with:

There are probably more, but I don't have time to pull them up. Medicalreporter (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on this a bit in my Sandbox. I'm not sure there has been enough coverage. Delta13C (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The addition of a notability hat note has been reverted four times by two editors, and only restored by one, the editor who initially added it.

WP:GNG makes it clear that the sources need not be directly about the subject, nonetheless I provided a source about this subject written by one of the directors, but published by Skeptical Inquirer.

As for mediabiasfactcheck.com; I checked the list a few days ago and it was absent. It's there now, and the inclusion checks out. I was still not able to find a discussion concluding it was unreliable at RSN, however. If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it. I seem to recall questioning it's conclusions myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

@MPants at work: since you insist on edit warring instead of engaging either on your talk page or this talk page I have two requests for you.

1. [[1]] "manual revert: yes, the site is there now, despite being absent when I last checked a few days ago” is hard to believe, its been on the list for years. Perhaps you wish to change your story to something more truthful?

2. Demonstrate that the the subject passes WP:GNG or another standard. You need to do that *before* removing a notability tag BTW, you intended to do that right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]