User talk:Blue Hoopy Frood

Welcome

Hello, Blue Hoopy Frood, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have an essay you might want to look at

See User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV, which covers how Wikipedia's neutrality policies interact with Christianity. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

I would not touch the article Abortion with a ten feet pole. And I quit my involvement with the article Health effects of salt. Simply because I know that there my own POV is unwanted, it would stir trouble and the consequence would be me getting blocked or banned. So, I chose to contribute in articles where my contributions are welcome. I do know what Wikipedia expects of me and of every other editor. The problem is that some editors have illusions about Wikipedia, so instead them complying with the purpose of Wikipedia, they seek to make Wikipedia comply with their purpose. I have learned long ago that Wikipedia is not for my own opinions. I have translated for Romanian Wikipedia articles which include the POVs of Jesus Seminary, although I disagree with their POVs. As I have stated on my own user page, I will give you the basic rule of Wikipedia: we have to find to the best of our abilities what the academic mainstream says and then kowtow to it. See WP:ABIAS. Stated otherwise, Wikipedia is WP:RS-positivism and WP:CHOPSY-supremacism. For Wikipedia the gold standard is what they teach at Ivy Plus, that is the WP:NPOV view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu thank you for your considered advice. Frankly, this is far more civil than you have been in the past. You used to boast you will "crush" those who disagree with you. I welcome the change.

I concur entirely, with one caveat that I'll come back to. Wikipedia articles are not an appropriate forum for expressing one's own beliefs. When I have entered the fray, it has been to point out that this is what others are doing, expressing their personal beliefs without adequate supporting evidence. Unfortunately, I've discovered that people don't want to hear this, and have a tendency to shoot the messenger. While everyone claims to support neutral POV, they are also certain that theirs is the neutral POV.

To the caveat: I agree that it is right and proper to present CHOPSY as the prevailing or dominant theory – but not as fact. Just because the prevailing theory is that the majority of the universe's mass is composed of matter that cannot be seen or otherwise discerned doesn't make it true. Of course, it doesn't make it false, either. The point is, it is a theory that may one day be validated or disproved, and this basic level of humility is essential to scientific progress.

So, while I wholeheartedly endorse WP:NPOV and WP:RS (which are Wikipedia policy), I suppose I take issue with WP:ABIAS (which is not). That the earth is roughly spherical is easily verifiable by anyone who boards an airplane, and thus can be considered fact. That the sun is composed of plasma, and matter is composed of atoms, are well documented by those with appropriate equipment and training, and so might be considered fact; even though I, personally, have no way to confirm their veracity. The theory of evolution is backed with compelling evidence and reasoning, and has no serious competing theories. It can therefore be asserted as true with significant confidence – but not 100% confidence, since no one is capable of verifying its conclusions. It should therefore be recognized as theory, not fact (in my opinion). Dark matter doesn't even come close to meeting the standard of verification to be considered fact; all experimental attempts to verify it have failed. And yet, WP:ABIAS believers treat it is as fact with the same certainty as the earth being round. That strikes me as foolish, and an impediment to scientific progress. Likewise with many historical claims, such as the Book of Daniel being written in the 2nd century BC – plausibly true, but with only weak evidence, hardly irrefutable fact.

The question remains, is it worth my effort to try to get Wikipedians to recognize their biases and respect the principles they claim to hold dear, such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS? So far, I'm inclined to think my energy is more fruitfully spent elsewhere, which is in keeping with your advice.

P.S. I can't find any significant history of your interactions with Health effects of salt, so I can't speak to that. –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 14:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]