User talk:Reasoned Inquiry

Welcome!
Hello, Reasoned Inquiry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

 * I am confused. I have no interest in the categories of pseudoscience, fringe science or complementary and alternative medicine.  I'm interested in very select topics, one of them being the electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome page.  I'm new here and would like to know why I got sanctioned.  I have no idea what happened. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, I couldn't be more pro-science. I am a rationalist at heart in every way I can be.  That is the spirit I try hard to bring to every topic I like to discuss.  If there was something I did to deserve sanctions, please don't hesitate to tell me so I don't violate your principles in the future.  Thank you. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You have not been sanctioned yet. I'm not an admin, so technically I cannot sanction you.
 * Generally speaking, Wikipedia takes the medical orthodoxy at face value. This is not a forum for debates, see WP:NOTFORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the feedback. This helps.
 * I should say I would be remiss if I didn't mention what could be a key misunderstanding. It might seem hard to believe, but I didn't intend to include anything in the talk page that conflicted with medical orthodoxy (unless you count empiricism, which might be a category error, I don't know).  I took the sources, findings, etcetera at face value, just with my own understanding of them. The only debate I pursued was about the clarity of the article and of my points. I'm not trying to relitigate the conversation.  I just thought this might give context to my comments.  And hopefully, you see I'm not too off the rails.
 * If any of this sounds like nonsense, I'm happy to clarify anything you'd like or none at all. Regardless, thank you for your openness to my comments throughout. You gave more attention to my thoughts than anyone has so far. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2022 (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) 02:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In your view, is a bias toward science a bias toward rationalism? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for rational debates. Wikipedia is a machine for crunching references to reliable sources that speak for themselves. It is not a university and not a scientific research institute. We do not perform research, but simply report what scientists have published. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Reasoned Inquiry. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Some friendly advice
Hi, Reasoned Inquiry - I occasionally check AE to see what's trending, and noticed your case. Fortunately, determined that the case had been resolved, and no action was levied against you. My friendly advice to you is to not comment there anymore and allow the admins to close that case as no action. Take a break from it voluntarily, or you are likely to find yourself forced to do so. Look into other topics that attract your interest, and learn more about how the WP community operates. If you need any help, or perhaps would like to work with a mentor, don't hesitate to ask. Happy editing!  Atsme 💬 📧 14:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. Do you mind if I ask why you believe I have a good chance of being forced out of the page?  I see myself as coming at this issue from a place of honesty, transparency and reason and it is my view that what has happened has been quite unfair.  This represents my first account activity on Wikipedia. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand and can relate to your feelings, but after you've spent some time editing WP, you will (hopefully) come to realize that WP is not about being fair. See the following essays and article, which may help provide more insight and guide you to a better understanding of how things work within the community: WP:DGAF, WP:WPDNNY and this article authored by one of our own WP editors.  Atsme 💬 📧 15:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you sharing this reading material. Thanks for the kind words. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read that article. Technological innovation should be left to programmers paid by the WMF. And "gatekeepers" are not mean, but want you to show that you have understood the points made about you by senior editors and admins. Otherwise, we are not "neutral" between science and pseudoscience, between medicine and quackery. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that concept...at least, to a point. There's a fine line between being able to recognize our own biases when presenting opinions-general practices and facts vs allowing readers to make their own determinations based on the substantial views we present per DUE & WEIGHT. Are we doing a disservice to our readers by omission, keeping in mind that WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit? Progress is not made by presenting a single view.  Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge. Nat Geo Magazine  Atsme  💬 📧 15:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * frontiers of knowledge&mdash;except those, there is much which is known for sure. Scientists don't reinvent the wheel every time they do research. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to say.  Atsme 💬 📧 16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not Einstein, cdesign proponentsists aren't Einstein, believers in electromagnetic hypersensitivity aren't Einstein. Einstein was a guy who convinced the bulk of mainstream scientists that he is right. Those who fail to do this are cranks or quacks. Do not present what is sure as if it were unsure and do not present what is unsure as if it were sure. Einstein wasn't a maverick, he was the alpha male of physics. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with your following statement: "Do not present what is sure as if it were unsure and do not present what is unsure as if it were sure." That is a given per DUE & WEIGHT, which is stated above. I'm not really interested in your opinions about Einstein anymore than I'm interested in an argument about Picard being better a better captain than Kirk. My point was about omission of other views that may not necessarily align with mainstream, but that are substantial views that should be presented per DUE, WEIGHT, FRINGE (if that's the case) - our readers can decide for themselves. Our job is to present the material per our PAGs.  Atsme  💬 📧 17:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)