User talk:Oroheit

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 biased against young earth creationism. We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial. 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 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.


 * A theory being new does not mean that it is pseudoscientific. Philip Zimbardo has endorsed the anti-porn movement. That alone does not mean that they are correct but it does mean that they have some level of validity. Oroheit (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As told on the talk page of the article, according to the Terms of Use your choices are either (i) overturn that administrative decision at WP:ARCA or (ii) cheerfully comply with it. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Im confused as to how this works. Which thing exactly do I submit? Oroheit (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Go at WP:ARCA and write something like "I ask the Arbitration Committee to pass a motion that NoFap isn't pseudoscience, and therefore discretionary sanctions do not apply to this article." tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If the discretionary sanctions are not rescinded, NoFap remains pseudoscience, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)