Talk:Dissociated press

Move to funspace?

I don't think this article, as it is now, fits within our mission guidelines enough to belong in the mainspace. Considering the scope of the article (it is clearly talking about this meme only in terms of its presence on RationalWiki), it would fit better in the the RationalWikispace. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:00, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Nah, leave it, yeah... - PS if you can name that quote, you get 20,000 goats pointz. ħuman 01:43, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Would you please provide a reason for keeping it in the mainspace? As I have already said, I do not see how this article fits into our mission. It does not analyze and refute an element of the anti-science movement, analyze and refute crank ideas, or analyze fundamentalism. To me, all of the standards say this article should be removed from the mainspace. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:46, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I simply think you are wrong. Dissociated press is a subversive movement, that could undo the lovely science of supermarket nutrition and expiration labels. It might also make you confused, if they do their job well. Better, can you argue why it shouldn't be in the mainspace? And shouldn't you be alphabetizing categories on all articles as we discussed? ħuman 01:56, 24 January 2009 (EST)

As I said earlier, the article (in its current state) only discusses its subject as it exists on RationalWiki. In short, it's a "meta"-type page and belongs in either the RationalWikispace or the funspace with all the others. If someone is going to rewrite the article so it explains the disassociated press in a manner that is informative of the movement in general, then of course it should stay in the mainspace. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:25, 24 January 2009 (EST)

By the way Human—I just did explain why it shouldn't be in the mainspace. That was the entire content of my second post. Furthermore, that is how debates work—all things are assumed equal, and one person makes an argument for one position, then the other person rebuts them and argues for their own position. I gave my argument, and, at them time of your initial post, you had not bothered to refute it in any way. If this were a formal debate, that would mean I "won"—but this isn't a formal debate, this is a dynamic community of people. So, instead of declaring myself in the right and moving the page, I actively prompted you to provide a rebuttal... and I'm still waiting. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:25, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Bitch bitch bitch. I mistook this concept for another. Delete at will, it's a crap article. ħuman 23:13, 24 January 2009 (EST)