Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:28, 16 January 2007

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism

An AfD discussion for this list, then named List of articles related to quackery and in article space, was closed as "move to project space". This closure was overturned at deletion review, but consensus was insufficient for outright deletion. In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. So this is hopefully the final debate over whether the edited and renamed page meets the requirement to remain in project space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion other that I strongly prefer not to see this back at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete despite the seemingly unobjectionable title, this is just the same insulting nonsense that is being peddled by it's creator and chief Owner 'User:QuackGuru' basically it is a list of things that a few folk disliked and were collected under the title 'List of things related to Quackery'. When they couldn't get it is article space, they moved it to project space. When the name 'Quack' (=fraudster and deceiver) was shown to be plain libellous, 'QuackGuru' has dressed it up as something else - and aggressively edit warred to keep it in his shape (see ). Now, if members of the project wanted to create a list of articles they were or would be working on, then fine. But they didn't. This was simply moved there because 'Quack' was being run out of every other town. 'Related to' is PoV and weasel. Tis is just a list to insult --Doc 01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. QuackGuru, who created this list three weeks ago, isn't even a participant in this Wikiproject. Yet he's now passing off his POV list as 'relating to' it, and useful for it!!! This is just the same libellous nonsense in disguise.--Doc 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question? Does any of the above comments make any sense to you. No. I don't think so. The above comments do not specifically state what is wrong with the list. The title was changed. The list was shortened. Info and references were added and continue to be added. Participation and collaboration is in process. The list of articles of interest can't be completed in just 3 weeks. Its takes months if not years to complete and reference a list. This list of articles has distinctive parallels to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which is in articlespace. I see very clearly that comments are driven at me instead of an explanation of what could be updated with the article list and help improve it. No actual specific reason has been given as to what is in the article that it needs to be removed. The article is about scientific skepticism -- a good concept. Cheers. --QuackGuru 02:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'article' - but I thought it wasn't an article? It was a list for use by a wikiproject? I think you've just given your game away. This has nothing to do with utility to the project. That in itself is grounds for deletion. I have no problem with scientific skepticism.--Doc 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The list of articles is fine now as you just explained. You have no problem with the title. A-OK! It is not about me. I do not own the list of articles. It is up to the Community of Fellowship of Wikipedians to decide the next step in the collaboration process. Thank You and Good Will. --QuackGuru 02:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The only half-convincing reason was that calling people quacks is libelous. That reason is removed; thus no reason. WP:NPOV does not, and most certainly should not, apply out of articlespace. -Amarkov _edits 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is perfectly acceptable in Project space, as, in this case, it is close to a list of the articles that the project keeps an eye on. I see nothing libelous to anybody or any organisation. I do not see it is insulting. --Bduke 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it. I don't think we should be going into the subpages of projects and deleting lists of articles that are of interest to the project, absent a compelling need, which I don't see here. If evidence of misuse arises, that will be different. It doesn't matter that much how it got where it is, leave it alone. Herostratus 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No evidence of misuse. `'mikka 07:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note User:QuackGuru has contacted a number of editors about the name change. I checked the list of notified editors against prior !voting record and don't find that the activity violates WP:CANVASS, although notifying all prior commentors about this discussion might be in order. ~ trialsanderrors 08:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As far as I can tell, this article (or list of articles) has moved with resulting redirects deleted enough times that editors "watching" it may have lost track of it. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the editors were notified of the name change but not of this MfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my previous !votes in AfD and DRV. (Comment to Doc: As I pointed out in one of the other reviews, "quack" is not libelous, per Barrett v. Rosenthal. It might still violate our WP:BLP policies in respect to a topics associated with or promoted by particular living persons, but it is clearly not libelous.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete IMO, the word skepticism has been hijacked and is used here to dehumanize and demean whatever Qguru happens to strongly dislike (hates). Arthur Rubin's reference above also reminds me of a concerning point which I and others have made before. Many of these links are to articles which contain numerous links to personal sites of ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett where donations are gladly accepted. There are even several in the list we are discussing. It is concerning that his non-profit status can't seem to be verified. He also has failed his boards yet represented himself as an expert witness in psychiatry and as a legal expert. Doesn't this qualify as quackery/fraud/skeptical. Yet, he seems to be the self-appointed judge and jury of good and bad, science and non-science (like psychiatry)and the guru that his disciples pay homage to by spraying Misplaced Pages with hundreds of links. So I believe that this list of so-called "scientific skepticism" is a load of propaganda and pejorative poison no matter how many different ways Qguru farts on it and should be deleted to clear the smell at WP. Steth 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Useful for collaboration. Xiner (talk, email) 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep of a very useful list for those who understand the subject matter, and for those who would like to understand it better. For those who choose to feel attacked, well...that's their problem....;-) Fortunately the US courts have even determined that calling someone a "quack" (which isn't being done at all here) is not libelous. So Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" introduction is no longer accurate. They can now call quacks by their right name. Just because some people dispute the term (and maybe because it is precisely them that do so!) doesn't mean the phemomenon isn't a problem. Empty drums make a lot of noise when touched.... Governments are concerned about quackery, and especially India is plagued by it. Governments have no problem using the word, but of course those who promote and defend it will always object. Such objections are not Misplaced Pages-legitimate arguments for the disposition of articles or lists even slightly related to the subject. They are merely POV suppression by those who hold strong POV. Such objections are deletionism, not inclusionism, and are designed to prevent one POV from being expressed, while their POV then is allowed to prevail unchecked, for the profit of quacks and scammers. -- Fyslee 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete On multiple occassions I have tried to add concepts with references to show that they were in fact related to "scientific skepticism" and they were promptly deleted by the "guardians" of this page. I assure you that these pseudoskeptics are not interested in NPOV; only in their POV. They are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to express their opinions of what they feel is "quackery". Scientific skepticism is far more broad than medicine and healthcare, but you will note that the only specific examples listed in this list are from healthcare. Levine2112 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's irrelevant to deletion. If the editors are "guarding" it inappropriately, the solution is to deal with the editors, not delete a useful page. -Amarkov _edits 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have tried repetedly but to no avail. I don't want to start an edit war over it. But by all means, please try to help out with this issue. Proposal to delete is based on an NPOV violation which will never go away and the inherent to the pejorative nature of this article. Misplaced Pages is not a soapboax and there is a clear-cut agenda at work with this article. Levine2112 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)