Talk:Society for Scientific Exploration

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV?

There are a few parts of this article that I think are not displaying a NPOV. They are sourced often to the organization who this article is about.

"and may be ignored or inadequately studied within mainstream science." - inadequete according to whom? Some might say they are studied too much.
"they are often written by scientists with impressive academic credentials," - Impressive how? Why are they impressive?
"the mainstream scientific community has deliberately ignored all of them" - I don't know how one can say that the mainstream scientific community "deliberitely" did something unless it was the community saying that.

Perhaps these could be changed into quotes to point out the POV they are coming from? Either way I didn't want to make a change because I'm in a discussion about this topic elsewhere and I don't feel like it would be appropriate for me to make these changes. So I'm putting up a RFC. Chris M. (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations for the statements don't support them. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Really, there is only one subject. Most of the sources are duplicated between the two articles, and neither has any impact beyond the other. Both articles have historically relied largely on self-sourcing. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some of my edits in the past have been less than constructive in the past and I take full responsibility for that and I admit my mistakes. However consistent deletions of members' scientific and academic credentials are non-controversial. A quick google search will show that we will be able to source this without relying on primary sources. I also object to the CSICOP citation utilizing an article by Robert Sheaffer. He is a writer who lacks proper academic credibility, with all due respect to him. If we must use a skeptical source for this page, can we at least use one of a scientist or scholar. For example individuals like: Chris French, Sean Carroll, or P.Z. Myers. Even Michael Shermer, and Robert Carroll will do; as long as they are specifically writing about the Society of Scientific exploration. User "JZG" is deleting "peer-reviewed" from this society's journal. This is blatant POV pushing. If we look at the skeptical sources of the journal, and they don't even don't deny this fact nor rob it's member's of their scholarly/scientific credibility; despite adamantly disagreeing with the nature of the subject published in the journal. Last but not least JZG is even distorting even the skeptical sources cited. in the Robert Schaffer article the sentence : "Despite the impressive jargon and in some cases the impressive academic degrees of the authors, these papers have been absolutely unconvincing to mainstream scientific journals and organizations, and, far from pointing the way to further research, they have been quite deliberately ignored"; user "JZG" is switching the "deliberate" for "essentially"; which is not what the source says. Referring back to this source, as well as all other sources on the Society of Scientific Exploration/Journal of Scientific Exploration; the skeptical authors will certainly take issue to the topics investigated, which are are on the fringes of mainstream science, but will never deny their academic certifications aswell what they have achieved career- wise prior to their involvement in more anomalous subjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.205.231 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of resumé padding. The obsessive use of terms like scientist, academic, peer-reviewed and so on serves primarily to make this fringe gorup look like a legitimate scientific endeavour, when the sources clearly show that it is not. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Society for Scientific Exploration Logo PNG.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]