Talk:Modern frauds in science
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
I'm suggesting a delete - I'm not sure this guy is that well known, but i'm not a science person, so maybe he really needs a full article.
GodotGrow a vagina 19:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- But deleting stuff is bad, remember? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since when?
GodotGrow a vagina 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since everyone yelled at me for my deletionism. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What you need to understand HK is that you can't just walk in and delete stuff that has been around here for a while; it may not be very good but people may have affection for it and require some sort of consensus to delete. Even if you get a majority of four or five in a short time you need to wait for others to make their views known, especially as we are a 24-hour wiki with editors from around the world. New stuff which is obscure, not on mission or poorly written does not need the same criteria for deletion.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member
19:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- What you need to understand HK is that you can't just walk in and delete stuff that has been around here for a while; it may not be very good but people may have affection for it and require some sort of consensus to delete. Even if you get a majority of four or five in a short time you need to wait for others to make their views known, especially as we are a 24-hour wiki with editors from around the world. New stuff which is obscure, not on mission or poorly written does not need the same criteria for deletion.
- Since everyone yelled at me for my deletionism. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since when?
Frauds and hoaxes[edit]
I think we might consider a single article on frauds and hoaxes, and have redirects from these guy's names. When I googled Viktor, I got redirects to Schon Incident, and several other scandals. I knwo there's the UK scandal about vaccination (not sure which)... all of these might be one good article. They are right now, bad stubs.GodotGrow a vagina 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- You would be thinking of Andrew Wakefield. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is a bit of a duplicate[edit]
of this. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 19:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Want that we should make this a sub section of the other? Or even just delete it all together? GodotGrow a vagina 20:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Should this not be List of modern frauds in science? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 22:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit[edit]
It is not pseudoscience, HK, it is bad science - there is a difference. Additionally, your heading style looks terrible when there aren't half a dozen things in each year. Better would be "Andrew Wakefield (1998)" and leaving it at that. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 23:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)