Talk:Plasma cosmology: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:49, 15 February 2021 edit159.2.28.112 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:33, 25 February 2022 edit undoFeline Hymnic (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,189 edits →Pseudoscience: new sectionNext edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:
	I have changed "scientists who have examined..." to "the vast majority of scientists..." because it is more accurate. It is also significant information, as it distinguishes fringe models which originate within the scientific community from fringe models which are invented by nonspecialists- i.e. Velikovsian catastrophism. Since it's hardly a wordy change and is slightly more precise, there is no reason to reject it. I don't have an ulterior motive. I am not a defender of plasma cosmology as science. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		I have changed "scientists who have examined..." to "the vast majority of scientists..." because it is more accurate. It is also significant information, as it distinguishes fringe models which originate within the scientific community from fringe models which are invented by nonspecialists- i.e. Velikovsian catastrophism. Since it's hardly a wordy change and is slightly more precise, there is no reason to reject it. I don't have an ulterior motive. I am not a defender of plasma cosmology as science. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Please read ] and ]. On Misplaced Pages, we write about the mainstream viewpoint in a field as the default, accepted position. We only write about majority/minority disagreements when reliable sources treat the minority views as significant, and then we need to include reliably-sourced context about that majority/minority relationship. See our articles on, say, ] and ] and ]. None of those are supported by ''all scientists'', but we write about them as if they are because they are the mainstream views ''as supported by reliable sources''. ] (]) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)		:Please read ] and ]. On Misplaced Pages, we write about the mainstream viewpoint in a field as the default, accepted position. We only write about majority/minority disagreements when reliable sources treat the minority views as significant, and then we need to include reliably-sourced context about that majority/minority relationship. See our articles on, say, ] and ] and ]. None of those are supported by ''all scientists'', but we write about them as if they are because they are the mainstream views ''as supported by reliable sources''. ] (]) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

			== Pseudoscience ==

			Articles relating to Young Earth creationism have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

			Articles relating to Flat Earth have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

			Is there any reason why this article doesn't also have "pseudoscience" in its lede?

			] (]) 18:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:33, 25 February 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma cosmology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notice: Elerner is banned from editing this article.

The user specified has been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article indefinitely. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.

_{Posted by Thatcher131 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.}

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

List of archives with date ranges

- Archive 1 (July 2003–Sept 2005)
- Archive 2 (Sept–November 2005)
- Archive 3 (Nov–December 2005)
- Archive 4 (January–March 2006)
- Archive 5 (March 2006)
- Archive 6 (March–June 2006)
- Archive 7 (June–December 2006)
- Archive 8 (Dec 2006–March 2007)
- Archive 9 (April 2007–July 2009)
- Archive 10 (August 2009–April 2012)
- Archive 11 (May 2012–Current)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Electric Universe

Electric Universe redirects here but is not mentioned. Can the article clarify if Electric Universe is a synonym for PC or how they relate. - Rod57 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Searching the archives for this page it seems there once was a separate Electric Universe page. If plasma cosmology was the historic concept (now abandoned) and Electric Universe (EU) is its current manifestation - surely we should at least have a section here on EU, if not a separate page summarising EU and how much support it might have. ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that describes the relationship between the two, I wouldn't object to adding a sentence or so. As for support, both ideas (if they are even distinct) are very far out of the mainstream and have zero support as viable models of the universe.Waleswatcher (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

“both ideas (if they are even distinct) are very far out of the mainstream and have zero support as viable models of the universe.” Actually they have lots of support, not that the mainstream and corporations, especially corporate owned websites like Misplaced Pages itself will admit it, just look at ThunderboltsProject. 3:17 15 February 2021

Uniformity

I have changed "scientists who have examined..." to "the vast majority of scientists..." because it is more accurate. It is also significant information, as it distinguishes fringe models which originate within the scientific community from fringe models which are invented by nonspecialists- i.e. Velikovsian catastrophism. Since it's hardly a wordy change and is slightly more precise, there is no reason to reject it. I don't have an ulterior motive. I am not a defender of plasma cosmology as science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.137.227 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. On Misplaced Pages, we write about the mainstream viewpoint in a field as the default, accepted position. We only write about majority/minority disagreements when reliable sources treat the minority views as significant, and then we need to include reliably-sourced context about that majority/minority relationship. See our articles on, say, climate change and germ theory of disease and gravity. None of those are supported by all scientists, but we write about them as if they are because they are the mainstream views as supported by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Articles relating to Young Earth creationism have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

Articles relating to Flat Earth have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.

Is there any reason why this article doesn't also have "pseudoscience" in its lede?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories: