This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parejkoj (talk | contribs) at 00:08, 28 February 2022 (→Pseudoscience: - totally pseudoscience, and also ignored by scientists who might be in a place to comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:08, 28 February 2022 by Parejkoj (talk | contribs) (→Pseudoscience: - totally pseudoscience, and also ignored by scientists who might be in a place to comment.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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. |
|
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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)
- Do relevant reliable sources describe it as pseudoscience? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- One problem is that it's so silly, there really isn't much mainstream commentary on it. The best you'd be able to find are probably blog posts discussions on science bulletin boards. It absolutely is pseudoscience, but finding a cite for that might be hard because nobody except the cranks pays any attention to it. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Astronomy articles
- Low-importance Astronomy articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics