Talk:Vitalism: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Content deleted Content added

Revision as of 16:49, 20 September 2025

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience

In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Even if you leftists (who think you’re the smartest, when in reality you’re not) think that living beings are like robots, the powerful academic/scholar source CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (Cambridge University Press & Assessment https://assets.cambridge.org PDF Characteristics and classification of living organisms) refers to the obvious distinction between living beings (e.g., humans) and non-living beings (e.g., rocks). Wikipedia, as you leftists have pointed out, should be based largely on academic texts, but the truth (and you’ve demonstrated it publicly in this timeline) is that you always do as you please; if you don’t like an academic text, you discard it; if you like it, you keep it. 95.131.42.122 (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 }}
 == Cambridge University source ==
 Even if you leftists (who think you’re the smartest, when in reality you’re not) think that living beings are like robots, the powerful academic/scholar source CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (Cambridge University Press & Assessment https://assets.cambridge.org PDF Characteristics and classification of living organisms) refers to the obvious distinction between living beings (e.g., humans) and non-living beings (e.g., rocks). Wikipedia, as you leftists have pointed out, should be based largely on academic texts, but ”’the truth (and you’ve demonstrated it publicly in this timeline) is that you always do as you please; if you don’t like an academic text, you discard it; if you like it, you keep it”’. [[Special:Contributions/95.131.42.122|95.131.42.122]] ([[User talk:95.131.42.122|talk]]) 10:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:49, 20 September 2025

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply