2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Fun talk:Scat

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I hope the page is sufficiently on mission now, there is material about palaeontology, there is material attacking Young Earth Creationism and there is a reference to the The priest molestation scandal. Kirk Johnson (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I put {{bronze}} onto the page, I think it's good enough. If I haven't followed the correct procedure please tell me what I should do. Kirk Johnson (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that to be a good RW article it has to hit one or more of these mission objectives:
  • Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  • Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  • Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  • Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
I'm afraid that at the moment I don't quite see it.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Off mission, etc, etc, etc. Burn it. --Ψ GremlinTal! 12:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks presently off-mission to me. I'd be more inclined to send it to fun. But I also think we should give the original author a chance to speak for it first.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I worked hard to get this article from a stub to a presentable shitty article, now you want to delete it. I was surprised how much intellectual material I could find round scat. If you want to move it to fun that’s not a big problem but a lot of the information in the article is serious. Kirk Johnson (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Look at Bob's bullet points above. Even in it's expanded state, the article is not on-mission. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 12:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kirk. Yes, I can see that you've worked a lot on this. The question though is not whether it's correct, intellectual or takes a sideways shot at something we think is odd. The question is, does the primary focus hit one of the mission objectives.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The primary focus doesn't hit a mission objective but secondary focuses do. If you really feel you must delete it I've got a copy on my computer and can transfer all that work to a different wiki where the criteria aren't so tight. I'm not Jesus (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we need a few more opinions first. Others may disagree or have different thoughts.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I worked on this article because I hoped people would read it, laugh then move on to alternative articles that are more on mission. If others disagree that doesn’t matter too much as I’ve got a copy on my computer as I’m not Jesus has and I don’t mind if the article moves to a different wiki. Kirk Johnson (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If this stays in Fun, I don't see why it can't stay. Webbtje (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)