| Revision as of 15:08, 4 February 2008 editDarwinek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators180,919 edits →Template:Infobox District of Moldova← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:52, 4 February 2008 edit undoDanaUllman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,200 edits →Template:Infobox Pseudoscience: Where's your reference?Next edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| *'''Delete''' The term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative and POV term that is subjectively given to select topics without adequate precision. Here's a review of 67 in vitro trials (1/3 of which were replication trials)]. According to the Annals in Internal Medicine, three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention.] How many "pseudosciences" have this body of basic science and clinical research? Further, according to the BMJ, it has been shown that 37% of British and 40% of Dutch physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines (and there is separate evidence that approximately 30-40% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines...I can provide these references later if requested). Also, homeopathy plays a major role in the care of a large number of Europeans. This article from the BMJ shows that between 16-56% of people in European countries use homeopathic medicines. ] Once again, how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public? ] ] <sup>]</sup> 06:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' The term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative and POV term that is subjectively given to select topics without adequate precision. Here's a review of 67 in vitro trials (1/3 of which were replication trials)]. According to the Annals in Internal Medicine, three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention.] How many "pseudosciences" have this body of basic science and clinical research? Further, according to the BMJ, it has been shown that 37% of British and 40% of Dutch physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines (and there is separate evidence that approximately 30-40% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines...I can provide these references later if requested). Also, homeopathy plays a major role in the care of a large number of Europeans. This article from the BMJ shows that between 16-56% of people in European countries use homeopathic medicines. ] Once again, how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public? ] ] <sup>]</sup> 06:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: '''comment''' Dana asks: "how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public?" Astrology, for one --] (]) | :: '''comment''' Dana asks: "how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public?" Astrology, for one --] (]) | ||
| :: '''comment''' Dana, please address the issues with the template in general only, not issues with a specific application of the template (which is a debate for the article itself). ] (]) |
:: '''comment''' Dana, please address the issues with the template in general only, not issues with a specific application of the template (which is a debate for the article itself). ] (]) | ||
| :: '''comment''' Hey RDO, please give me that reference to the use of astrology by medical doctors. Yeah, I didn't think so.] ] <sup>]</sup> 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Distinguishing between pseudoscience and science is an essential part of everybodys education.] (]) 06:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Distinguishing between pseudoscience and science is an essential part of everybodys education.] (]) 06:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' It is not Misplaced Pages's job to decide what is pseudoscience. We let the sources speak and present all significant views. —] (''']''') 07:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' It is not Misplaced Pages's job to decide what is pseudoscience. We let the sources speak and present all significant views. —] (''']''') 07:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:52, 4 February 2008
| < February 2 | February 4 > |
|---|
February 3
Template:Infobox Pseudoscience
This is mostly a procedural nomination, to resolve differences in opinions over the general suitability of the infobox. As such, the reasons expressed here may not be my own:
- Does not allow for NPOV presentation of information
- Contents summarised by an infobox typically contain content that would be in an article or section lead anyhow - hence little need for an infobox
- Does not pull together disparate yet important facts like other infoboxes
- Is often used punitively on articles
- Is not in wide use - by my count it is used in 15 articles, out of 173 within the (even assuming a low rate of appropriateness, this is still clearly not in common usage)
As previously stated, the above may or may not be my personal opinion. I figured that an effective answer regarding the template would best be gained through TfD assessment — LinaMishima (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- While I believe this to be a good-intentioned deletion request, the way to resolve disputes at homeopathy is not to delete a template that is used, uncontroversially, at a variety of other articles. I've been working on placing this infobox in relevant articles for a week or so. While the box could be improved, I do not think it needs to be deleted. NPOV and "punative" objections seem weird. If people take offense to their pet idea being pseudoscientific, that's not exactly Misplaced Pages's problem. We aren't asserting a point-of-view by pointing out that a topic is pseudoscience any more than we are asserting a point-of-view by asserting a topic is about intelligent design or creationism. This infobox serves the purpose of summarizing the major claims of the topic, showing who proposed it, and framing it historically. Oftentimes, these facts are found in very disparate locations throughout an article (or, in the case of astrology not even in the article!). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- "We aren't asserting a point-of-view by pointing out that a topic is pseudoscience" -- yes, you are: you're asserting the point of view that the topic is pseudoscience. "pseudo" is a Greek root meaning to lie. To claim that something is pseudoscience is to claim something about it. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read pseudoscience. It has a straightforward definition if not straightfoward connotations/etymology. Sure, people don't like the term because they don't like their pet ideas being called "pseudo-" anything, but that's not Misplaced Pages's problem. As I said, indicating that a topic is pseudoscience with this infobox is no more a POV than indicating a topic is about intelligent design with the Intelligent Design infobox. Please learn about the term before jumping to conclusions. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Above. Obvious POV. Too biased even for obvious pseudoscience, and when used completely impossible to have an article consistent with NPOV where it says "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Misplaced Pages at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." No article with this box can maintain overall neutrality of tone. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Serious special pleading. Please discount fallacious arguments. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly valid template. Of course there will be controversy as true believers will object to the placement on their favorite variety of pseudoscience. Given that, it is obvious that use of the template should be carefully backed up with WP:RS sourcing within the article. Improve the template per noms suggestions and apply to more obvious articles. Vsmith (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The "Pseudoscience" box placed on an article distorts and compromises efforts to present the subject with a neutral tone as required by the NPOV policy on fairness of tone. If your intention is to violate Misplaced Pages policy by changing articles on subjects that you do not like into "debunking" articles, then you will love the "Pseudoscience" box. The average Misplaced Pages reader does not interpret such perjorative labels as being there for "navigation" - but as the official view and position of Misplaced Pages regarding the subject matter of the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Assertions of opinions can be addressed in the text of articles, alongside other material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
- Delete The term "pseudoscience" is a pejorative and POV term that is subjectively given to select topics without adequate precision. Here's a review of 67 in vitro trials (1/3 of which were replication trials)]. According to the Annals in Internal Medicine, three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention.] How many "pseudosciences" have this body of basic science and clinical research? Further, according to the BMJ, it has been shown that 37% of British and 40% of Dutch physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines (and there is separate evidence that approximately 30-40% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines...I can provide these references later if requested). Also, homeopathy plays a major role in the care of a large number of Europeans. This article from the BMJ shows that between 16-56% of people in European countries use homeopathic medicines. ] Once again, how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public? Dana Ullman 06:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment Dana asks: "how many "pseudosciences" have this amount of support from the medical community as well as the general public?" Astrology, for one --RDOlivaw (talk)
- comment Dana, please address the issues with the template in general only, not issues with a specific application of the template (which is a debate for the article itself). LinaMishima (talk)
- comment Hey RDO, please give me that reference to the use of astrology by medical doctors. Yeah, I didn't think so.Dana Ullman 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Distinguishing between pseudoscience and science is an essential part of everybodys education.Zonbalance (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is not Misplaced Pages's job to decide what is pseudoscience. We let the sources speak and present all significant views. —Whig (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If kept, it should have usage instructions that reiterates Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. By the way I believe <ref></ref> tags can work inside templates if a variable is added for that purpose, so inability to provide references shouldn't be part of the reason for deletion. --Nealparr 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: per Vsmith. HrafnStalk 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This infobox does account only for the tenets and the proponents of the discipline (or whatever it is) but does not account for its opponents and the reasons why it is considered a pseudoscience; hence this infobox is useless because it does not provide useful information. --Achillu (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Vsmith (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Church
The template is redundant as the "{{Infobox church2}}" template is better designed and more widely used. — Cheers, JackLee 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reverse template names because infobox church is much more intuitive and more expected than having to type "church2". hbdragon88 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree absolutely. Actually, I suggest that "{{Infobox church2}}" be renamed "{{Infobox church}}" (note the lowercase "c"), but that template needs to be deleted first. "{{Infobox Church}}" should redirect to "{{Infobox church}}". — Cheers, JackLee 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox church
The template is redundant as the "{{Infobox religious building}}" template is better designed and more widely used. — Cheers, JackLee 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant to
{{infobox religious building}}. Happy‑melon 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:BTE
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G2 - test pages. Happy‑melon 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User experiment, abandoned . Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 09:32, 3 February 2008 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox District of Moldova
Delete. This was only used on one page in which it was replaced with a standard template. —MJCdetroit 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -
{{infobox settlement}}has replaced this and many other templates. Happy‑melon 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC) - Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)