User talk:PerseusMeredith

Welcome!
Hi PerseusMeredith! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender and sexuality
Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Query
Given your apparently strong opinions on the GENSEX topic area, I was wondering if you have - or previously had - another account on English Wikipedia? Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello, I'm Moops. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Drag Queen Story Hour have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 02:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Your edit appeared to be vandalism, fix the basic spelling and such, and restore the edit if it is in fact valid and sourced... this wasn't a good start, "I’m 2017 and 2018..." — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 03:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Sorry, I fixed it. PerseusMeredith (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

What pseudoscience is and isn't
Hi, PerseusMeredith, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed this comment of yours at the ROGD Rfc:

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what pseudoscience is and isn't. Disproven scientific theories are not pseudoscience, they are incorrect science, wrong science, disproven science, but they are still scientific; they are just wrong. You've heard of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which is accepted by most cosmologists, right? Before the Big Bang theory, there was the Steady state theory of the universe, which was created and explained by Alfred Einstein after he published his theories of special and general relativity. Virtually all theoretical physicists and cosmologists now consider the Steady state theory to be incorrect; nevertheless, it is one of Einstein's scientific theories, and most certainly is not pseudoscience. It just happens to be a scientific theory that is wrong.

Oversimplified, the distinction is this: if you use well-accepted scientific methods and tools to come up with a theory, then the theory is a scientific theory. The theory might be true, the theory might be false, it might be that we will never know if it is true or false. But if the theory employs the accepted principles and methods of science, then it is scientific regardless if it is true or false.

On the other hand, a pseudoscientific theory is one that does *not* use accepted principles and methods of science. An example of this is homeopathic remedies, in which prepared treatments which contain zero molecules of active ingredient are claimed to affect health anyway, because of "water memory", i.e., the idea that the liquid retains some "memory" of the molecules that used to be there, even though they aren't anymore. This is pseudoscience, because no molecules means no effect, period; there is nothing in physics or chemistry that could describe how a substance which contain zero quantity of an ingredient could treat an illness because of "memory" of the molecules. Fortune-telling is another example. Note that just like a scientific theory can be right or wrong, so can a pseudoscientific theory turn out to be correct or incorrect: even if someone's fortune foretold turns out to be 100% accurate, it still remains pseudoscience because it doesn't employ the principles and methods of science.

Does this make sense? I hope it clarifies why disproving ROGD theory won't turn it into pseudoscience if it wasn't pseudoscience before; either it's pseudoscience or it isn't, and whether the theory turns out to be correct or not, has no bearing on that question. That said, in an Rfc, it is not for us, as Wikipedia editors, to give *our opinion* on whether something is, or isn't pseudoscience. Very unfortunately, numerous editors in that Rfc seem to have felt that they were being called on to offer their personal opinion about whether ROGD is or isn't pseudoscience (maybe because of the way the section header was titled), but that's *not* what this (or any) Rfc is about. What we as editors must do in any Rfc is to assess what the majority of reliable sources have to say about an Rfc question, and if that happens to be the opposite of what we personally believe, then we have to vote against our own opinion. (I'll follow this message with a standardized message about pseudoscience.) I hope this helps, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot, I very much appreciate this thoughtful explanation. This makes sense to me. PerseusMeredith (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

A standardized message for all editors contributing to articles and discussions about pseudoscience
Here's the message I promised in the section above. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks!

Introduction to contentious topics
Doug Weller talk 21:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Acroterion, I appreciate the reminder. I don't believe I added my own point of view.  The first edit that you undid referenced Megan Rapinoe's own tweets without any of my own commentary.  The second edit referenced the SPLC's as a left-leaning organization.  This is not my own point of view (see below) and I don't think the SPLC would disagree.
 * https://www.allsides.com/news-source/southern-poverty-law-center-media-bias PerseusMeredith (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Genocide of Indigenous peoples. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''Over the past few days you have repeatedly removed the term "genocide" from discussions of deaths of Native Americans resulting from European conquest and colonization, claiming that the term is not supported by sources, despite every instance you removed being shown to be adequately sourced. If you do not immediately stop this obvious POV editing, you will be blocked.'' Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Simultaneously, wars and atrocities waged by Europeans against Native Americans also resulted in hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths. Mistreatment and killing of Native Americans continued for centuries, in every area of the Americas, including the areas that would become Canada, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile. In the United States, some scholars (examples listed below) state that the American Indian Wars and the doctrine of manifest destiny contributed to the genocide, with one major event cited being the Trail of Tears."
 * There is no citation. Please tell me how a statement with no citation is "adequately sourced."
 * Also, by "repeatedly" you must mean twice. The first time it wasn't cited and then new citations were included which were much better. PerseusMeredith (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)