Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihcoyc/The problem of anti-supernatural bias

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep  AGK  [•] 13:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Ihcoyc/The problem of anti-supernatural bias


This page appears to be a WP:SOAPBOX to complain about "censorship" and "anti-supernatural bias" (WP:NOTSOAPBOX). It also appears to be a forum, contrary to WP:NOT. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Wolfie, as well as how utterly ridiculous it is to assert that an encyclopedia should be sympathetic to pseudoscience. Serves zero purpose for us.  Sædon talk  00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an essay I started a while ago, and may eventually finish.  I probably ought to move comments to the talk page, but since I'm nowhere near ready to announce the essay formally, I didn't see a hurry.  The part I wrote so far points out that atheism, positivism, and 'scientific skepticism' are themselves fringe positions as far as the greater part of the human race is concerned.  I think this is both blindingly, obviously true; and it speaks for itself.  Yes, I think an essay making this point, and arguing against atheistic or skeptical POV-pushing, is a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. I also think the comments here suggest why such an essay makes a worthwhile point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what atheism has to do with anything. Fringe is defined with respect to prevalence in the most reliable secondary sources not with respect to how many people on the street believe something to be true. The scientific mainstream is not treated as a fringe view amongst the most reliable academic and scientific sources (for obvious reasons); scientific scepticism merely reflects the scientific mainstream with respect to specific pseudoscientific claims. The page attempts to undermine WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS to promote pseudoscience, or treat pseudoscientific sources on the same levels as scientific sources, and is being used as a soapbox and forum by pseudoscience believers, as is very very clear from the page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, if the comments other people have made to the couple paragraphs I wrote to start the essay are a problem, that particular problem is fixed by moving them to talk.  I would have done it myself eventually, but I did want to refer to some of the points that had been made.  I remain convinced that atheistic and scientistic bias is a problem here.  It goes far beyond astrology, which most of the comments seem to have hung up on.  I've a long standing interest in various folklore subjects, and scientistic bias pops up here frequently.  Look at the comments made in this meritless nomination for deletion.  If Hindu medicine men are dosing people with mercury and arsenic salts, I think it not only useful but important that the practice have an article.  (No, I don't believe in or practice this myself.)  Misuse of WP:MEDRS on folklore subjects is not uncommon.  The claim has even been made that since Tom Sawyer is not a medical journal, Mark Twain's discussion of wart cures with stumpwater and dead cats does not belong in the article: these are "medical claims" that haven't been clinically tested in double blind studies.  Yes, I see a POV problem here.  And with folklore and folk beliefs like astrology, what the man on the street believes is indeed relevant. And again, whether you agree or disagree with my opinions in the essay, I do rather resent the suggestion that this isn't a good faith contribution to building the encyclopedia that is impermissible on a user page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But the content about warts is still there on the article page, doesn't that kind of defeat the argument that bias exists on the encyclopedia? But besides, whatever your intentions where, the essay is becoming a place for people to get on the soapbox, moving it to the talk page doesn't mean it still won't be used for soap boxing for pseudoscience and as a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way. If I delete the comments and leave only the part of my essay I had written so far, arguing that scientific materialism is a fringe position --- I presume I can; it's one of my user pages --- is this or is this not permitted content for a user page in your eyes?  I haven't moved them, mostly so people who come here see the page as nominated.  For what its worth, I don't even see the "soapboxing" comments as unhelpful or irrelevant to the task of making an encyclopedia.  I simply don't believe that Wikipedia ought to privilege scientific materialism as an official point of view, or discount sources that come from a different viewpoint, and that's where I was going with the essay.  We're still dealing with the "in universe" nonsense, after all  Also, for what it's worth, WP:SOAPBOX relates to article content, and specifically says that non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.  Even the argumentative bits I didn't write are relevant to the current and future operation of the encyclopedia.  I doubt this page gets the kind of traffic to be a disruption either.  But I've allowed people there to make a case for the inclusion of content favorable to astrology, I guess, and getting rid of astrology is Just Too Important to pay attention to what the policy actually says. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAPBOX relates to all content; "This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." It's clear from comments like that this page is being used to attack the mainstream and specific researchers as well with BLP violations about Shawn Carlson. Look at the page, they aren't discussing content, they are discussing what they believe to be true. This isn't debatepedia and Ken McRitchie is clearly looking for someone to debunk his claims. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the comments by other editors (and a couple replies by my hand) to the talk page: (User talk:Ihcoyc/The problem of anti-supernatural bias). If the comments themselves are thought to be soapbox or disruptive material they can now be removed separately, if it is so decided. I don't think even they are any of that, but so be it.  This way the draft opening of the essay can be considered separately from the discussion it engendered.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep though I don't agree with this essay at all, I don't see any reason to delete it, at least in its current form. If someone doesn't agree with some aspect of Wikipedia's policies or practices then they are perfectly entitled to express that view in an essay (especially a userspace essay), and disagreeing with such an essay is not a reason to delete it. The version which was originally nominated for deletion was much more problematic in that it was being used as a debating forum about skepticism (violating WP:NOT), but that material has been removed. Hut 8.5 15:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it was just moved, not removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:SOAPBOX does not apply to Wikipedia essays, especially not in user namespace. We allow people to disagree with our policies, and to write about that in their user space. Gigs (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets User Essay requirements. WP:UP mostly is for unrelated content and this content relates to Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - good-faith user space essays that aren't actually problematic content are just fine - David Gerard (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If the problematic commenting stays off the page, this discussion can be closed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If nothing else, you've gotten me off my duff to flesh this out some more.  I knew it would be controversial, and I've always sought input from the skeptical community as well as from the paranormal folks on it.  I do think we have a problem when large fields of human intellectual history are written off as "woo."  At any rate, if there is consensus that any of the remarks now on the talk page were out of bounds for a talk page of a user essay, they can be removed singly if necessary if there is consensus to do that.  I suppose it was my bad for letting them stay on the page of the draft rather than moving it to talk.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using an archive. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)