Talk:Controversial pseudosciences

reply to deletion
why hello, i am wondering why someone placed this article, filled with several scientific fact up for a deletion nomination? i know a lot about the indoctrination of the evolutionary worldview and how they would like to delete my scientific fact filled page for reasons personal to them. my reply would be not to delete it based on the fact that there is no reason to besides the desirable one. and that is not a reason to shut down a fact filled paper about the importance of the controversial pseudosciences. hence the name "controversial".

i am sorry if this page of facts seems to belittle any belief system you might have, but i will not lie for the reason of indoctrination. unless you have good grounds to deleate a paper holding over 25 sources that are all backed by, or are, scientific websites, and journals, than i see no reason for this page to be deleted.

thankyou, Iceveela (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Get a blog. This stuff is not suitable for Wikipedia. Not because of any personal differences or conflicts of belief, but simply because it is highly opinionated and does not cite reputable sources. Nothing wrong with having opinions and wanting to get them out there, but there are better sites for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

does not cite reputable sources? inside many of these sources, besides the ones from Stanford and Harvard are other universities that i used., inside ALL of my sources lie a "resources" page, that resources page is chalk full of information from national geographic, science magazine, and other VERY REPUTABLE sources. just because you do not like it does not make the sources not reputable. so unless you have a GOOD reason to nominate this for deletion, than i see nothing more than you saying stanford, national geographic and harvard are not reputable sources. Iceveela (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Iceveela, you may want to familiarize yourself with the reliable sources policy. I took a quick look at the first ten references you have linked to your site, and they are all primary sources. Wikipedia policy is very strict on the use of such things. I know you have an additional list which apparently lists a number of scientific papers, but just listed them without showing which of your arguments they relate to, which makes it hard to tell how they relate. Two things: First, your statement at the beginning of the section just drips of a singular point of view; you are DARING people to refute you! Second, it seems to me (without actually having had the chance to read the references you note) that these references would make for better references than the sites you have linked in the article.

That having been said, I don't think this is a good wikipedia article, and I have recommended it be deleted. It makes a much better subject for a blog, as InedibleHulk mentions. HubcapD (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)