User talk:Blue Hoopy Frood/Archive HUSH

Welcome
Hello, Blue Hoopy Frood, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

October 2019
Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Daniel 7 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Daniel 7. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NPOV is what I am advocating for. I don't recall adding any commentary, POV, or personal analysis. Can you be more specific? –Blue Hoopy Frood (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good bias
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:


 * "Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.


 * What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine. We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy. We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial. We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories. We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

Agree 100%, but I have serious doubts that this addition will accomplish this in a way that the creationism entry did not. Would any sane person reach the bottom of this list and still doubt that when science and theology disagree Wikipedia chooses science every time? What bothers me is the possibility of offending the large number of people who accept science and also believe that the Bible is without error. We might as well add an entry saying that Wikipedia is biased against a belief in God. ... --Guy Macon (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)