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,
click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
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
Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on
my talk page. Again, welcome!
tgeorgescu (
talk) 02:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
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.
[5]
- We are biased towards
chemistry, and biased against
alchemy.
[6]
- We are biased towards
mathematics, and biased against
numerology.
[7]
- We are biased towards
medicine, and biased against
homeopathy.
[8]
- We are biased towards
venipuncture, and biased against
acupuncture.
[9]
- We are biased towards
solar energy, and biased against
esoteric energy.
[10]
- We are biased towards
actual conspiracies and biased against
conspiracy theories.
[11]
- We are biased towards
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
- We are biased towards
vaccination, and biased against
vaccine hesitancy.
[12]
- We are biased towards
magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against
magnetic therapy.
[13]
- We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
[14]
- We are biased towards
laundry detergent, and biased against
laundry balls.
[15]
- 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.
[16]
- We are biased towards
blood transfusions, and biased against
blood letting.
- We are biased towards
electromagnetic fields, and biased against
microlepton fields.
[17]
- We are biased towards
evolution and
an old Earth, and biased against
young Earth creationism.
[18]
- We are biased towards
holocaust studies, and biased against
holocaust denial.
[19]
- We are biased towards an (
approximately)
spherical earth, and biased against a
flat earth.
[20]
- We are biased towards the
sociology of race, and biased against
scientific racism.
[21]
- We are biased towards the
scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against
global warming conspiracy theories.
[22]
- We are biased towards
the existence of Jesus and biased against
the existence of Santa Claus.
[23]
- We are biased towards
geology, and biased against
flood geology.
[24]
- 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.
[25]
- We are biased towards
astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against
ancient astronauts.
[26]
- 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)
reply
- In your view, is a bias toward science a bias toward rationalism?
Reasoned Inquiry (
talk) 03:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at
Wikipedia: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)
reply
Hi, Reasoned Inquiry - I occasionally check AE to see what's trending, and noticed your case. Fortunately,
NewYorkBrad 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- I appreciate you sharing this reading material. Thanks for the kind words.
Reasoned Inquiry (
talk) 15:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
frontiers of knowledge
—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)
reply
-
Nothing more to say.
Atsme
💬
📧 16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply