Talk:Plasma cosmology
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma cosmology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 |
List of archives with date ranges
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Uniformity
I have changed "scientists who have examined..." to "the vast majority of scientists..." because it is more accurate. It is also significant information, as it distinguishes fringe models which originate within the scientific community from fringe models which are invented by nonspecialists- i.e. Velikovsian catastrophism. Since it's hardly a wordy change and is slightly more precise, there is no reason to reject it. I don't have an ulterior motive. I am not a defender of plasma cosmology as science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.137.227 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. On Wikipedia, we write about the mainstream viewpoint in a field as the default, accepted position. We only write about majority/minority disagreements when reliable sources treat the minority views as significant, and then we need to include reliably-sourced context about that majority/minority relationship. See our articles on, say, climate change and germ theory of disease and gravity. None of those are supported by all scientists, but we write about them as if they are because they are the mainstream views as supported by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Articles relating to Young Earth creationism have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.
Articles relating to Flat Earth have "pseudoscience" clearly in their lede.
Is there any reason why this article doesn't also have "pseudoscience" in its lede?
Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do relevant reliable sources describe it as pseudoscience? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- B-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Astronomy articles
- Low-importance Astronomy articles
- B-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Alternative Views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics