Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by Gronk Oz: All of science is a very wide net |
→Comments by Gronk Oz: Reply to both responders |
||
Line 38:
:"Skepticism topics, broadly construed", in my opinion does indeed include the scope at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism|WikiProject Skepticism]]. "Skeptical trade publications" is much narrower and specifically describes publications using the "skeptic" label or are otherwise ''closely'' linked with [[scientific skepticism]]. Do you think that's still ambiguous? '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 00:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:I agree with L235's takes. I'd be willing to consider and propose something of lesser scope than that described at the WikiProject, perhaps 'scientific skepticism' or 'the skeptical movement' as defined at 'scientific skepticism'. That said, the WikiProject itself only claims some 5k articles of interest to it, and I doubt many of the legitimate sciences are all covered by the project, so I would suggest that every kind of valid science is probably not of broad interest in context. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::(ec) Thanks for the clarification. I'm happy with the description of the publications.
==Comments by ScottishFinnishRadish==
| |||