User talk:Koenvani

Welcome
Hello Koenvani and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Gary Wilson (author), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2023 (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) 19:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

Wikipedia's policies ... 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 homeopathy.
 * We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
 * We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
 * We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
 * 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 detergent, 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 mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
 * We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
 * We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
 * We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
 * We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
 * We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
 * We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
 * We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
 * 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the time that you took to write this response, but I still respectfully disagree. Saying that wikipedia is biased pretty clearly goes against Wikipedia's 2nd pillar of neutrality WP:5P2, in my view. Especially this part: In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". Gary Wilson (author)'s article is far from neutral as of now. Koenvani (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You would be right only if the following were abolished: WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS; WP:CHOPSY; WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. Since this hasn't happened, you're wrong, completely wrong.
 * I.e. Wikipedia has a British Constitution model. Citing some of the WP:RULES in order to oppose other WP:RULES is called WP:Wikilawyering. Click upon the above links: if it says "essay", it is not very important, if it says "guideline" it is important, and if it says "website policy", it is very important. Yup, WP:NPOV entails WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE, these are integral part of the NPOV policy.
 * In scientific matters, Wikipedic neutrality means that we kowtow to mainstream science (PNAS, Nature (journal), The Lancet, DSM-5-TR, etc.) and that we wholeheartedly shun whatever is epistemically irresponsible (like pseudoscience). Shortcut WP:SPOV.
 * Depicting the American Psychiatric Association and Gary Wilson (author) as having equal claims to truth is prohibited by website policy (see WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE).
 * You're pushing the Sangerite view that the consensus of mainstream scientists cannot decide which are the scientific facts. That's not the real NPOV. The real NPOV is explained at WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)