Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) →Wording is too open for interpretation: a properly written, neutral point of view article about a fringe topic in science will necessarily inform the reader fully about why it is a fringe topic |
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 522:
::Okay, Tony, I've called you guys debunkers so you get to pronounce calumny against me some, but I do hope that the Arbs will read what I said and not just your reaction. They are no more for debunking that I am. They do not want Wikipedia to be a soap box for deriding and refuting fringe claims based on OR, SYNTH and inappropriate WEIGHTing of sources and use of non-RS. They have said this. TS, you've said outright that '''we do debunk fringe claims.''' That's where you're coming from. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::: As I've remarked several times now: a properly written, neutral point of view article about a fringe topic in science will necessarily inform the reader fully about why it is a fringe topic. Presenting such information in a neutral manner will tend to debunk the topic. In that sense and that sense alone, I am in favor of debunking on Wikipedia. In that sense and that sense alone, we are all debunkers. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||