169
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − *'''Keep Junk Science'''. We need this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT) − Line 10:
Line 8: + + + + +
no edit summary
== Need a better example ==
== Need a better example ==
::Now do the same for the "[[ozone hole]]" and [[skin cancer]]; is there a [[ultraviolet]] link, or what? (After that, maybe you can tell us whether air temperature drives [[carbon dioxide]] or is it the other way around?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
::Now do the same for the "[[ozone hole]]" and [[skin cancer]]; is there a [[ultraviolet]] link, or what? (After that, maybe you can tell us whether air temperature drives [[carbon dioxide]] or is it the other way around?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
==Possible Merger With Pseudoscience==
*'''Keep Junk Science'''. We need this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
**The discussion isn't about whether or not the article should be deleted, it's whether or not the article should be merged into the article on [[pseudoscience]]. I think that everybody would agree that we need an article on one or the other, but the debate is on whether or not we need both (as the topics are very similar if not different words for the same). -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)
*'''Go ahead and merge'''. This article doesn't really say anything that that is specific to "junk science" versus pseudoscience. At best create a new section on the pseudoscience page for "junk science," but really the articles are functionally the same. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)