User talk:Happyme07

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Discretionary sanctions notification
Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also discretionary sanctions for fringe science and pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * With regard to, "neutrality" has a very well-defined meaning in Wikipedia: neutrality is not presenting opposing sides as though they were equally well-supported by fact, when they are not, but by presenting viewpoints to the degree that they are supported by fact. So you shouldn't be altering referenced material in order to make a viewpoint unsupported by fact, but more in accord with your own, seem more tenable than it actually is. You should probably take a look at Fringe theories. - Nunh-huh 22:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. (Please excuse my English, it is not my mother tongue) I thank you for taking time to remind me of the Wikipedia policies.
 * I wholly accept your points. I do not agree, but I accept. Encyclopedias are necessarily the reflection of their time and the expression of commonly accepted ideas at the time they are published. Wikipedia then, can only reflect the ‘truths’ of today’s society. Unfortunately, misconceptions, errors and false beliefs do not become true just because the majority of people or media think they are, and hence spread them as truths. It would be too easy…! I have done some study about some of the nonsense encyclopedias have stated since they exist, and it is to be expected that it will always be so. Change is the only thing that does not change. And luckily, ideas do change.
 * This being said, I will have to be patient and refrain from interfering on Wikipedia on what is here considered as sensitive subjects (eg. Complementary and Alternative Medicine)… and I’ll use other media to express what I consider as true.
 * I am only sorry that Wikipedia, at the moment, and in spite of all policies, is clearly not neutral. It is even grossly and shockingly biased at times (I have mostly experience with French Wikipedia).
 * Well, I’ll stop as it is pointless to start this debate here. Again, thank you for being there and doing your best. I won’t disturb anymore. Happyme07 (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't expect to convince you regarding HIV/AIDS, but you misunderstand the standard by which the English Wikipedia rejects minority viewpoints and why that standard exists.
 * Wikipedia may not create artificial balance between a minority viewpoint and a majority viewpoint to make it seem like everyone accepts both views equally, but it still will give a subject as much weight as it receives across all reliable sources. Wikipedia sides with professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for most articles but especially favors tertiary sources when showing mainstream academic consensus and specialist medical sources for medical topics.
 * Minority opinions are allowed and are especially prominent in non-scientific topics because it's harder to truly and conclusively disprove something in philosophy or literature. For example, the article on God has a section about Zoroastrianism, a religion that currently makes up only 0.0025% of the world population.  However, we do not pretend that conclusively disproven ideas might be possible, and this especially applies in science because it's easier to conclusively disprove something in science than it is in other fields.
 * If mainstream medicine is divided on a topic, we give each view as much prominence as it receives in tertiary specialist medical sources. For example, Alzheimer's disease lists several hypotheses because mainstream science has not conclusively proven one hypothesis while disproving all others.
 * If mainstream science rejects an idea as disproven, we will only discuss the idea if it was important to the history of ideas, which is better demonstrated by the number of skeptical sources than credulous sources. One tactic some cranks use is to put out as much material about their idea as possible.  This makes it look like there's a lot of support for their ideas (even if there is only one author).  And at any rate, affiliated sources do not establish notability, only independent ones do.  For example, our article on Flat Earth or the Geocentric model mostly cite sources that do not accept those ideas.
 * This is not just a difference of opinion. Wikipedia's official stance that HIV causes AIDS is not "in spite of all policies," it is because of policies like WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS.  This is not "grossly and shockingly biased," unless one believes that truth should be made smaller, quieter, and weaker so that falsehoods can be given a comfortable space.
 * Also, the Arbitration Committee is elected by the site's users to determine the community's consensus on contentious topics. When they place discretionary sanctions on a topic, it is because the consensus of the community finds that our policies favor a stance that may not be respected by outside forces unfamiliar with our policies.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statement "I don't expect to convince you regarding HIV/AIDS" could be written "I don't expect you to convince me regarding HIV/AIDS"! Because, obviously, you have your own opinions, as we all do. This is why it is extremely difficult for an editor to be really neutral.
 * I wrote that Wikipedia is "at times" very biased. I did not give any example. Thanks God, most of it is of very good quality! Most sensitive topics are not... I understand Standards and Policies and think they are fine. But we are humans and it is only natural that our own ideas show through our editing. Absolute neutrality does not exist.
 * The whole matter comes down to simple questions: is "mainstream science/medicine" custodian of the TRUTH?, what is a "reliable source"? I have seen an editor citing a very biased book as a source to make a strong statement in an article. What can one do against that?
 * Finally, unless one is very naive, we clearly know how the medical/pharmaceutical field is infected by corruption, traffics of influence, prevarication,...
 * But Wikipedia can only be what it is. Like it or leave it. It can only mirror our society, and necessarily, its woes. This is why this discussion is pointless. I thank you for it anyway.Happyme07 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)