User talk:Perfectblue97/projectfront1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is disputed by one or more members of the project for which it is being proposed. An alternate version can be read [1].

[edit] This page is an attempt to attack neutrality

The entire proposal is wholly unacceptable. I have an alternate proposal above that at least conforms to Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please state EXACTLY what your issues are in a formal and structured manner that includes SPECIFIC details. Please QUOTE from the sections that you have issues with a and state SPECIFICALLY what said issue is. Please also state EXACTLY which policies you believe are being violated and EXACTLY how. Without said details, users will only be able to guess at what it is you mean - perfectblue 18:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Protoscience needs to be removed: it is not verifiably about most paranormal studies. Protoscience includes ideas such as phlogiston theory and other precursors to modern science which have nothing at all to do with the paranormal.
• Wording violates the points listed on WP:CANVASS. The goal of the project cannot be to protect against deletion.
• Removal of bounds arguments needs to be done because it is too circular in its reference. Trying to prevent retagging in the future is blatant attempt at ownership.
• This wording is too confusing and almost absurdist. It should be removed.
• Bounds are removed as well as the insistence on promoting scholarly interest, which is something Wikipedia should not do.
• Trying to identify bad faith editing automatically violates WP:AGF.
• Fringe science needs to be called what it is and protoscience does not belong as a topic for this project (see first bullet point).

Them's the reasons. --ScienceApologist 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You might not realize it, but you often come across as being very blunt and as making declarations rather than contributions. If you explained things like this more often I'm certain that it would lead to fewer nasty editing bouts all round.

1. I didn't add protoscience in, I merely left it there. This one should be put to consensus.
2. I think that there's a simple misunderstanding here. In brief, canvassing is the mass mailing of authors through talk pages (or similar). All this guideline means is that project members should pay special attention to notability when sourcing an page. I will reword.
3. a) What IS "a high editorial standard"? it's a very weak phrase that is open to interpretation b) Ownership only applies when you try to push out other users, preventing re-tagging doesn't mean deleting tags, it means fixing problems. No problems, no tags.
4. What's wrong with bounds? You must add to an article, but not violate WP:V? The second part has already been re-worded.
5. All this meant was to stick to the rules and to remind other's to do it too, I will rephrase
6. Not all fringe science is related to the paranormal, and not all of the paranormal is related to fringe science.

I will reword based on your concerns

perfectblue 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Replies:

1. Since no one has made a cogent argument in favor of keeping protoscience, why not take it out? I have made my case and there are no responses that I see.
2. Your reword is fine.
3. Editorial standards are found in the various policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. In principle, any user should be able to tag an article when they have a problem. Trying to "prevent" retagging sounds like you are trying to prevent other users from commenting on project-related articles.
4. Bounds are poor form because they cross-reference artificially. I see you removed it anyway.
5. Rephrasing is better.
6. Agreed there. Would you like to remove fringe science completely then?

Basically, I would like to see the fringe science and the protoscience topics excised. First of all, protoscience is a lot broader than the paranormal, as you pointed out. Secondly, there isn't any indication that there are any protosciences here anyway except by the claims of advocates themselves. If we want to preserve neutrality, we should avoid pronouncing the existence or lack of existence of protosciences. Just remove the idea completely and things will be better.

Same goes for fringe science or, as it is cumbersomely described: "Scientific inquiry which departs significantly from orthodoxy" : one of the worst wordings for an idea I've seen in a long time.

--ScienceApologist 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this is more like it.

1. Protoscience is a hangup from the old page. I have no real love for it
2. N/A
3. I think that this is a wording issue more than anything else. In brief, the project should work hard to ensure that pages are sufficiently sourced to ensure that issues of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and Notability do not arise (You can't tag a problem that doesn't exist).
4. N/A
5. I vote for keeping it, it ties together several areas of interest.

perfectblue 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)