Talk:Criticisms of anti-scientific viewpoints

I agree with the many comments that were to the effect of moving this into scientism and deleting it. Since the page on scientism is clearly not neutral, and neither is this, either both should be removed, or they should be displayed together to show a balance of opinion on an issue. 82.153.19.100 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes for deletion are no longer being taken.

Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints was moved from Scientism per the example set in Allopathy that was used to delete [criticisms of modern medicine]. When I developed an article on Allopathy, I wrongly pontificated on what is wrong with conventional medicine. My tirade was correctly moved out of Allopathy into [criticisms of modern medicine].

The identical situation exists here.

The original developers of the Scientism article pontificated on what is wrong with anti-scientific viewpoints. So, following the above correct example, I moved this off-topic text into a separate article where it belongs. Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page to vote, but please discuss the pros and cons on this talk page.

Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Changing to Antiscientific views effect

The article should likely merged into antiscience or the title should be changed to "Antiscientific views effect" because of criticism of personal feeling and faith rather than antiscience enterprise like pseudoscience. Also we say Criticism of religion since religion is organized sociocultural system designed for belief in deity or supernatural beings. When we say Criticism of antiscientific views, we criticize internal view/faith of individual and finally persuade to admit science (might be without evidence), regardless of skeptical thoughts. This resemble like religious conversion and thus said to be scientific privilege by pushing other faith boundary. The Supermind (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

From VfD

• Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints was moved from Scientism per the example set in Allopathy that was used to delete criticisms of modern medicine. Criticisms of Anti-Scientific Viewpoints is nothing but a tirade on why some people are imagined to hold anti-scientific viewpoints. Long angry speeches, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature, that is a diatribe, like this article have no place in an encyclopedia. -- Mr-Natural-Health 18:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The proposer would appear to have redacted opinions with which he does not agree from Scientism into this separate article, and now wants those opinions deleted altogether. Please don't use VfD to censor opinions you don't like. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Then kindly restructure the text to remove the tirade. [Criticisms of modern medicine] was deleted for the same reason that this article should go. -- Mr-Natural-Health 20:49, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • (no vote) This page is for discussing current deletion votes only. Please take disputes about articles to the relevant talk page. Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:55, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for the moment. More antics of a single-issue activist, who seems to be the only editor of this particular page, including creating it and listing it for deletion. Andrewa 09:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Uncertain (change of vote). I still don't like letting this guy delete the page, and just merging and redirecting isn't a deletion and doesn't need VfD. Deleting loses history of course. Andrewa 19:11, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Scientism and then delete. Bmills 09:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not factual and not encyclopedic. ping 06:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: idiosyncratic. -- 209.158.197.2 16:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The above IP is almost certainly Mr-Natural-Health. It belongs to the city of Richmond, where NH lives, and its only contributions have been votes for deletion that just happened to agree with MNH. ---No-One Jones 16:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. R Gunther 16:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The above user is clearly a sock puppet. I'm 99 per cent certain uts MrNH trying to avoid his ban. theresa knott 17:20, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Scientism and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticisms of anti-scientific viewpoints. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030144700/http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html to http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)