Welcome to wikipedia. Here are a number of useful policies and guidelines: No original research, Neutral point of view, Reliable sourcing, and Fringe subjects. IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll basically repeat IRWolfie's advice to read and understand thoroughly the above policies. Your conception of neutral POV does not conform to them. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 21:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
By trying to describe the mainstream position as "the views of critics", you are inserting original research and violating neutrality. As I have already mentioned, read WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. With your sort of edits we would say something like "According to Stephen Hawking there is a moon", instead of "There is a moon". It's unnecessary attribution that is done to try and cast doubt on the veracity of the statement. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I've read the text you refer to. First of all, it's not correct to say that the statement "Christian Science is a pseudoscience" is the same kind of statement as the statement "there is a moon." The former is a second order statement of truth, the latter is a first order statement of truth. (They are, indeed, apples and oranges.) There's a whole industry in the philosophy of science, from Popper through Kuhn through Feyerabend to Latour, that raises issues in philosophical terms about the definition of science the status of claims to scientificity. Have you read Popper's Conjectures and Refutations? Or Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Or Feyerabend's Against Method? In any case, as I pointed out elsewhere, the term Christian Science was coined long before scientific method was formulated in its twentieth century form. If I founded a religion now and called it "Christian Science" or "Islamic Science" or whatever, it could well be correct to describe it as a pseudoscience, because I would be staking a claim to the status of science as it is now commonly understood. Christian Science does not do that. If Christian Science once staked a claim to the status of science, it did so in 19th century terms, not 20th or 21st century ones. Christian Science is a religion, or alternatively a metaphysical system with claims to practical application. It is not correct to call it a pseudoscience, and it is similarly incorrect to call it a science, in present=day parlance at any rate. The name refers to something that is rooted in the nineteenth century, just as the term "Protestant" refers to something rooted in the sixteenth century. Would one call someone a pseudo-protestant because he or she is not currently protesting about something? Having said that, I would have no problem with inserting a word like "authoritative" before "critics" (at least if we are talking about someone like Searle) if that satisfies you. And, on a different matter, why on earth would one want to re-insert a qualifying statement that Christian Scientists follow MBE "with little change"? They follow her with no change. I've never come across anyone, adherent or skeptic, who suggested anything to the contrary--unless it was in the context of a claim that someone was not being a "real" Christian Scientist by not following her GruessGott ( talk) 22:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed that you are a brand new editor, and would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to the project. I see you've already bumped into a bit of trouble, caused by your unfamiliarity of what the project is and how it works. While you might be able to contribute productively by making non-controversial changes to non-controversial articles, a thorough understanding of WP principles is required for making controversial changes to controversial articles. You have to learn to "walk the walk" and "talk the talk" so that other editors can understand your edits, proposals and arguments. Right now, you are unable to do so, and that is why your changes have been reverted and your arguments and questions have been ignored as irrelevant. Your edits, proposals, arguments and questions simply don't make any sense in terms of our policies and guidelines, the common language we speak here on WP.
My personal advice is to read up on our core policies and guidelines: ( WP:5P, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, WP:DE and WP:TE). I know that sounds like a lot of reading, but you will constantly see those policies and guidelines invoked, and will have little idea what's going on unless you are familiar with them. Keep reading, and soon you will be slinging polcies and guidelines around with little effort. Then get some experience editing non-controversial articles on subjects that you are familiar with, reading the talk pages and learning how to interact with your fellow editors. Good articles to start with are those on your hometown or your hobby, for example.
Whether you or I like it or not or consider it "fair", controversial articles are an unforgiving training ground for new editors. The ammunition is live, the fuses are short, and the "enemy" is not kidding. Casualties are staggeringly high. This is particluarly true for pseudoscience-related articles, for which violations of policy are especially harshly dealt with. The policies and guidelines are a map of the minefield you have to negotiate without getting yourself blown up before you have a chance to earn your stripes.
In spite of the military analogyI used above, do not think of editing as a battle to be won, or of those who do not agree with you as a foe to be subdued (see WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP works by consensus, and winning means gaining consensus by discussion and cooperation.
After a few months of getting practice on non-controversial articles and learning what WP is and how it works, you can bone up on policies pertaining to fringe and controversial topics (like WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and WP:HISTRS) and join in on editing controversial topics. With a thorough understanding of our policies and guidelines, you will be able to make proposals and arguments that other editors are able to understand and respond to, and you'll be able to understand the responses you receive. Until then, you're just flying by the seat of your pants and likely to make a lot of mistakes, with the inevitiable unpleasant consequences.
You said you didn't want to be treated like a schoolchild who had not done their homework. The answer to that, of course, is to do your homework. Article talk pages and their archives are another good resource for learning how experienced WP editors think and reason. I myself read these, along with the relevent policies and guidelines, for more than a year before I made my first edit.
If you do not understand a particular policy or guideline and need help, feel free to contact me (or any other experienced editor) on my user talk page. However, don't expect to be spoonfed; make an honest effort to carefully read and understand the policy first. If you do that, it's highly unlikely that anyone will not take the time to explain things to you (sadly, you will encounter an occassional jerk, but don't let that get you down). There is also the Tea Room WP:TEAROOM, where new editors can ask experienced editors for clarification on policies and guidelines.
You seem to genuinely want to improve our articles, and it would be great to have you aboard. However, it would be wiser to learn to swim with the minnows first before venturing into shark-infested waters. The choice, however, is yours, though I hope you choose wisely.
Again, welcome to the project, and happy editing! Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 23:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Dominus where are you ;-) and I appreciate the helpful spirit you write in. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do the kind of groundwork you mention in terms of practicing on other articles in which I don't have a particular interest, so I'll just have to blunder along here. (Any spare time I have, which isn't very much, is devoted to writing in the "normal" academic sphere, in whatever time I have in between the pressures of university bureaucracy.) I will do my best to absorb the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia guidelines though. GruessGott ( talk) 03:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia. Here are a number of useful policies and guidelines: No original research, Neutral point of view, Reliable sourcing, and Fringe subjects. IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll basically repeat IRWolfie's advice to read and understand thoroughly the above policies. Your conception of neutral POV does not conform to them. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 21:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
By trying to describe the mainstream position as "the views of critics", you are inserting original research and violating neutrality. As I have already mentioned, read WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. With your sort of edits we would say something like "According to Stephen Hawking there is a moon", instead of "There is a moon". It's unnecessary attribution that is done to try and cast doubt on the veracity of the statement. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I've read the text you refer to. First of all, it's not correct to say that the statement "Christian Science is a pseudoscience" is the same kind of statement as the statement "there is a moon." The former is a second order statement of truth, the latter is a first order statement of truth. (They are, indeed, apples and oranges.) There's a whole industry in the philosophy of science, from Popper through Kuhn through Feyerabend to Latour, that raises issues in philosophical terms about the definition of science the status of claims to scientificity. Have you read Popper's Conjectures and Refutations? Or Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Or Feyerabend's Against Method? In any case, as I pointed out elsewhere, the term Christian Science was coined long before scientific method was formulated in its twentieth century form. If I founded a religion now and called it "Christian Science" or "Islamic Science" or whatever, it could well be correct to describe it as a pseudoscience, because I would be staking a claim to the status of science as it is now commonly understood. Christian Science does not do that. If Christian Science once staked a claim to the status of science, it did so in 19th century terms, not 20th or 21st century ones. Christian Science is a religion, or alternatively a metaphysical system with claims to practical application. It is not correct to call it a pseudoscience, and it is similarly incorrect to call it a science, in present=day parlance at any rate. The name refers to something that is rooted in the nineteenth century, just as the term "Protestant" refers to something rooted in the sixteenth century. Would one call someone a pseudo-protestant because he or she is not currently protesting about something? Having said that, I would have no problem with inserting a word like "authoritative" before "critics" (at least if we are talking about someone like Searle) if that satisfies you. And, on a different matter, why on earth would one want to re-insert a qualifying statement that Christian Scientists follow MBE "with little change"? They follow her with no change. I've never come across anyone, adherent or skeptic, who suggested anything to the contrary--unless it was in the context of a claim that someone was not being a "real" Christian Scientist by not following her GruessGott ( talk) 22:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed that you are a brand new editor, and would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to the project. I see you've already bumped into a bit of trouble, caused by your unfamiliarity of what the project is and how it works. While you might be able to contribute productively by making non-controversial changes to non-controversial articles, a thorough understanding of WP principles is required for making controversial changes to controversial articles. You have to learn to "walk the walk" and "talk the talk" so that other editors can understand your edits, proposals and arguments. Right now, you are unable to do so, and that is why your changes have been reverted and your arguments and questions have been ignored as irrelevant. Your edits, proposals, arguments and questions simply don't make any sense in terms of our policies and guidelines, the common language we speak here on WP.
My personal advice is to read up on our core policies and guidelines: ( WP:5P, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, WP:DE and WP:TE). I know that sounds like a lot of reading, but you will constantly see those policies and guidelines invoked, and will have little idea what's going on unless you are familiar with them. Keep reading, and soon you will be slinging polcies and guidelines around with little effort. Then get some experience editing non-controversial articles on subjects that you are familiar with, reading the talk pages and learning how to interact with your fellow editors. Good articles to start with are those on your hometown or your hobby, for example.
Whether you or I like it or not or consider it "fair", controversial articles are an unforgiving training ground for new editors. The ammunition is live, the fuses are short, and the "enemy" is not kidding. Casualties are staggeringly high. This is particluarly true for pseudoscience-related articles, for which violations of policy are especially harshly dealt with. The policies and guidelines are a map of the minefield you have to negotiate without getting yourself blown up before you have a chance to earn your stripes.
In spite of the military analogyI used above, do not think of editing as a battle to be won, or of those who do not agree with you as a foe to be subdued (see WP:BATTLEGROUND. WP works by consensus, and winning means gaining consensus by discussion and cooperation.
After a few months of getting practice on non-controversial articles and learning what WP is and how it works, you can bone up on policies pertaining to fringe and controversial topics (like WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and WP:HISTRS) and join in on editing controversial topics. With a thorough understanding of our policies and guidelines, you will be able to make proposals and arguments that other editors are able to understand and respond to, and you'll be able to understand the responses you receive. Until then, you're just flying by the seat of your pants and likely to make a lot of mistakes, with the inevitiable unpleasant consequences.
You said you didn't want to be treated like a schoolchild who had not done their homework. The answer to that, of course, is to do your homework. Article talk pages and their archives are another good resource for learning how experienced WP editors think and reason. I myself read these, along with the relevent policies and guidelines, for more than a year before I made my first edit.
If you do not understand a particular policy or guideline and need help, feel free to contact me (or any other experienced editor) on my user talk page. However, don't expect to be spoonfed; make an honest effort to carefully read and understand the policy first. If you do that, it's highly unlikely that anyone will not take the time to explain things to you (sadly, you will encounter an occassional jerk, but don't let that get you down). There is also the Tea Room WP:TEAROOM, where new editors can ask experienced editors for clarification on policies and guidelines.
You seem to genuinely want to improve our articles, and it would be great to have you aboard. However, it would be wiser to learn to swim with the minnows first before venturing into shark-infested waters. The choice, however, is yours, though I hope you choose wisely.
Again, welcome to the project, and happy editing! Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 23:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Dominus where are you ;-) and I appreciate the helpful spirit you write in. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do the kind of groundwork you mention in terms of practicing on other articles in which I don't have a particular interest, so I'll just have to blunder along here. (Any spare time I have, which isn't very much, is devoted to writing in the "normal" academic sphere, in whatever time I have in between the pressures of university bureaucracy.) I will do my best to absorb the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia guidelines though. GruessGott ( talk) 03:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an
edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly
reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)