Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Strange controversy

At talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, user:KimDabelsteinPetersen is insisting that the minute a person dies, he or she must be removed from this list, since dead people have no opinions. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Physics of the Impossible

Physics of the Impossible has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Please

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:

  • Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
  • Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
  • Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
  • Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dim Mak

This page needs eyes.Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Christian violence

There is a proposal to delete this large, comprehensive article about Christian violence. I am pretty sure the proposal is another religiously motivated one. We could use some rational input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian violence.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

eSkeptics newsletter call to edit Wikipedia

[The following comment of mine appeared today on the PK Talk page.]

Michael Shermer's The Skeptics Society issued a call to skeptics yesterday to actively "fix" paranormal topics on Wikipedia. See: eSkeptic, July 22, 2009 article: "Fix Wikipedia." Sample of the advice given: ". . . just go to the Wikipedia article for your favorite paranormal topic and see what needs fixing!" I mention this here in case there is a sudden surge of edit wars, as I note the [Psychokinesis] article had the pseudoscience category added at the bottom today. I am not adverse to skeptical input, as I was a long-time member of a skeptics organization myself and have added much of it to the article. I just want to make sure there is balance in the article. We long time editors have had many discussions about this. I don't want to have to restart those if possible. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I was hoping to meet some experts who specialize in new-age spiritual practices like Falun Gong and help out in the on-going POV-pushing by Falun Gong practitioners on pages such as Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi (its founder) and the entire family of articles. The abuse that has went on in these articles is truly astonishing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Colipon+(T) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Theories editor adding many notability tags

There's an editor over in fringe theories who is adding notability tags to a large number of our articles at once. I told him he should have brought it up over here instead, he of course claims to be "helping us". Yes, marking James Oberg non-notable is lots of help, thanks. Anyway, if you want to see the list of what he's done, it is here:

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Skeptisism_related_articles_that_currently_do_not_meet_WP:N

We need to do some cleanup work on those articles asap or I expect other editors over there are gonna start hurling AfDs. --Krelnik (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Prophecy of the Popes needs cleanup, cites

Prophecy of the Popes is, unsurprisingly, loaded with WP:OR, nonsensical, and un-cited material. It's been tagged "May contain original research or unverified claims" since September 2008 and "Needs additional citations for verification" since August 2008. Anybody interested in looking at this? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories

Dunno if this is old news, but we have an article Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, which "is a sub-article to Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories". -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your project?

Cleaning up copyvios, I came upon article Bonghan theory. This is far outside of my area, so I'm unsure if I should tag it for your project or not. (It seems to be related to acupuncture, which is tagged for your project.) I haven't done, but wanted to bring it up to you so you could do so yourselves if appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks within our remit - so tagged. Thank you Moonriddengirl (also thank you generally for all your copyright work). The article also desperately needs some cleanup if anyone gets the time before I do. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Sathya Sai Baba

I've added the template of WikiProject Rational Skepticism to Sathya Sai Baba - "South Indian guru, religious figure, and orator.... described by his devotees as an Avatar, Godman, Spiritual teacher and miracle worker."

While his religious teachings are presumably outside the scope of this WikiProject, there have also been a number of claims that he has worked "miracles", which topic is presumably germane here.

  1. Sathya_Sai_Baba#Claims_of_materialization_and_other_miracles
  2. http://www.skepdic.com/saibaba.html
  3. http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Sai%20Baba.html

Please note that Sathya Sai Baba is "a controversial topic that may be under dispute" and that the article must conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BC, AD or BCE, CE

I've been asked to stop changing dates. What's Wikipedia policy? Is this Wizard within his rights? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizard, quite properly, referred PC to WP:ERAS, which redirects to the current active guideline; the place to discuss this is at WT:MOSNUM, not a random WikiProject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't change BC/AD to BCE/CE. It's silly. Would you change "Thursday" to "Foursday" or "March" to "Reasonch"? If you aren't offended by those gods (Thor and Mars, by the by), don't be offended by this one. Or if you are offended, at the very least don't switch to a dating scheme that's even more parochial, biased, and pro-Christian than BC/AD: the notion that the beginning of Christianity marks the beginning of the "Common Era" for the entire world is the most offensive, Victorian, Christocentric notion I've ever heard in my life from academia. Seriously. It's the silliest possible issue to get into it with the religious on; there are plenty of actual issues of bias to deal with on this encyclopedia, as opposed to obscure etymological squabbles. :] Much love! -Silence (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well it's Fiveday today, my favorite day of the week for the whole month of Dictatorgust. So I just thought I'd mention that I haven't ever heard of CE/BCE as being Christocentric. Considering that a lot of the events that led to the first interaction between the mediterranean and asian civilizations happened about 2100-1900 years ago I can see a strong, non-ethnocentric reason for use of "Common Era". Notwithstanding that Silence is right. It is a silly argument to get into. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, obviously the Common Era system is at least Christocentric in that it directly bases its 'Year Zero' on a particular (albeit out-of-date) theorized date for Jesus Christ's birth, even if you don't find it problematic to euphemistically call the Christian Era the "Common" one. But if your justification is that this was a time of significant European-Asian interaction, then my response is simply that the term now becomes Eurasiacentric. :) Why exclude, for example, the Americas, when we could date the 'Common Era' as beginning in 500, 1050, 1492, or 1606 (or 11,500 BC, for that matter)? Juuust sayin'. -Silence (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Any arbitrary year 0 will be problematic. I propose Wikipedia only measure dates based on proximity in years to the big bang! ;) Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review on Parapsychology

I have found evidence of original research and abuse of sources in this article, and have suggested it for featured article review here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1 Shoemaker's Holiday Over 193 FCs served 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Herschel

Have a look at this. More ancient astronaut fun.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong's concept of Karma

Reliable sources have indicated that Falun Gong's concept of karma is that it is a black substance in the body, and that health and spiritual benefits can be achieved if that black substance is converted to a white substance through meditation and right living. I was wondering if the editors here know of any sources which specifically address these claims of Falun Gong, and what they have to say about them. Please feel free to respond on the main Talk:Falun Gong page, preferably in the Talk:Falun Gong#Karma section. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I did than I would most certainly reference them. Sadly you are looking for a proof that the sky is not puce, if you know what I mean.Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand, believe me. I was specifically thinking that maybe the Skeptical Inquirer or some other similar source might have addressed the matter, as it seems to me, at least potentially, that such claims would fall within their fields of interest. If anyone would know about such sources, I thought the editors here would probably be the ones to ask. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen anything about the FLG in Skeptic Magazine, Skeptical Inquirer or Free Inquiry.Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics Merger Proposal

Proposed merging Exopolitics into Michael Salla, discuss here.Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Precognition

Multiple discussions have been ongoing in recent weeks about issues with the Precognition article, including whether it is a paranormal topic and how it is to be defined. There are only two editors involved, and we need additional contributions to work towards consensus. Thanks in advance for any contribution, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

2012

For anyone interested, there's a discussion currently in play over at talk:2012 millenarianism (recently renamed from 2012 doomsday prediction) about what should be the most appropriate name for this article, with its scope covering various 2012-related speculations/predictions/theorising/phenomena. Arguments for/against various current title proposals are at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Definition_of_Millenarianism and Talk:2012_millenarianism#Formal_discussion_on_page_name, and there's an open poll at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Title_of_article_--_the_.28single_transferable.29_vote.21. Contribs & thoughts welcomed.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dowsing

This article suggests that Dowsing could be a real phenomenon. The problem is that the author has references to back it up, one a 1990 book and the other a paper. Obviously we know that dowsing is garbage and that those sources must be bogus, but unfortunately that isn't how science works. How does this project usually deal with this type of problem? Should I scrub the pro-Dowsing studies and reference my physics textbook? :) .froth. (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd take it to WP:FTN. That noticeboard is full of rational folk who will only be too please to help out. Verbal chat 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hit the skeptical press and find sources that specifically refute dowsing. Don't delete pro-dowsing sources unless you can reasonably state they are not RS.Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks .froth. (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly the Dowsing article is not that bad compared to some of the real perennial battleground articles.Simonm223 (talk)

Colloidal silver needs more eyes

Any editors who have knowledge of the subject are encouraged to watch the article. There is currently an ANI thread regarding this topic, and one of the editors involved specifically says that having more editors involved would have be useful in keeping the article up to par. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"They often go unreported"?

A stated goal of this project is "To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported." Begs the question - how is that not WP:OR? If the goal is not the reporting of otherwise-unreported (therefore unverifiable) "facts", then what actually is it? Either this is an untenable goal, or, it needs to be re-worded. --71.198.34.87 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Two interpretations make sense to me: 1, unreported on wikipedia, 2, unreported in the popular press but well documented by academics or topical press. Verbal chat 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Good observation. I offer the following as a possible replacement: "To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, where notably reported in reliable sources; but not given adequate coverage in Wikipedia." Wildbear (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Electronic water conditioning

Electronic water conditioning might need a hand to get out of the POV! --Stone (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On it. Simonm223 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
None of the references cited in this article indicate that anything other than magnetic fields are being used by "electronic water conditioning". And there is already an article on magnetic water treatment. Perhaps there is a distinction between the use of alternating magnetic fields generated electronically and static magnetic fields generated with permanent magnets; but in the brief time I spent searching and reading, I don't recall noticing any significant distinction being made between these two methods by the sources covering the topic. If there is a distinction between the use of alternating and fixed magnetic fields which warrants the presence of two articles, it should be noted in each article. If "electronic water conditioning" actually refers to treatment distinctly different from magnetic water treatment, then references should be provided which support this distinction. And if there is no distinction at all, then I would think that this article should be nominated for deletion, or made into a redirect to Magnetic water treatment. The magnetic water treatment article could use some work — it appears to be little more than a stub, and appears biased in comparison to some of the available references (such as this one), which give the topic a fair and impartial overview. Wildbear (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll be bold and redirect one to the other. I just want to figure which is better sourced before deciding which way to go. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I've just been told not to interfere by an employee of a manufacturer. I am directing them here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Good. We can review their case here and see if it has merit. Wildbear (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethics of reciprocity

I made these edits but Slp1 thinks my source was unreliable. Is it unreliable and if it is can anyone find a better source? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought a bit, since no one humanist speaks for all humanists the quote isn’t entirely representative, I took that into account and edited again, let’s see what they make of this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation bias now a GA

Having been rewritten since August of this year, Confirmation bias (mid-importance for this project) has now been reviewed as a Good Article. Thanks to User:Neramesh for being such a patient and informed reviewer. I intend to take it on towards FA status, and plan to use material from the article to improve adjacent articles such as Illusory correlation and Attitude polarization. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rom Houben

Rom Houben currently a subject of controversy. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD for New England Institute of Religious Research

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Institute of Religious Research. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for input on Bipedalism and Aquatic ape hypothesis

The pages Bipedalism and Aquatic ape hypothesis have both recently come under heavy and persistent dispute due to two users who insist on promoting their version of Aquatic ape hypothesis and expunging as much criticism of the idea as possible. At the moment, it's just me and one other user fending them off, so any help would be greatly appreciated (especially since I'm off to the SICB meeting on Sunday and the other user seems to be gone for Xmas). Mokele (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I remember huge battles on Usenet. Not pleasant. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This has flared up again eh? Grr. Argh. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Section title violated WP:CIVIL editor warned twice

I have no objection to rational skepticism but when skeptics rule things out without evidence or use the same distortion tactics that pseudo scientists use this is pseudo skepticism. When a member of the skeptic community does this they give some people the wrong impression. There seems to be at least one over eager member of this project who fits that criterion. User:Simonm223 has a history of deleting information without doing the research or following the proper discussion procedures. Doing this is counterproductive. When people see the inappropriate procedures some people including him use it makes all truly rational skeptics look bad. This could give the appearance of a pseudo skeptic purge which will only backfire. I suggest other rational skeptics take a look at his history and let him know if you think he is going to far at times. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you refactor that to remove the pseudoskeptic nonsense and so it doesn't come across as a personal attack? WP:AGF etc? Verbal chat 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) is probably referring to my recent AfD of a Stanley Krippner, an academic with some involvement in fringey matters whose page includes not one WP:RS. He may also be smarting from the fact that I, and several other active participants in Wikipedia, successfully turned an article about a fringe theory regarding that over-blown incident at fatima into a redirect to the appropriate page. This user tends to dance dangerously close to WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR violations as he appears not to realize that calling somebody a "pseudo-skeptic" because they express an opinion on a talk page stating that nothing supernatural happened at fatima is not necessarily kosher. Go ahead, look at my edits, I play by the rules. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not retract anything. I have made a valid statement. I have no doubt that a thorough look at his history will back it up. Simonm seems to be making it easy by changing the headline to a personal attack acusation. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously accusing me of "pseudo skepticism" is a violation of WP:CIVIL and will be treated as such. I have warned you about this twice now today. If other editors want to review my edits i have already said they are welcome to do so however I will not brook petty little insults. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Warn me again and report me if you like it wont change the fact that you are acting like a pseudo skeptic. If you report me they may also look into whether you check your work before deleting things. They may also not that you have changed my edit twice to make this seem like a personal dispute. here and here. I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that so-called skeptics are so offended to be called psuedo-skeptics yet hold almost no restriction in throwing around the title of pseudo-scientist and pseudo-science? This is often done to any editor, researcher or theory you do not agree with simply because they are not mainstream. You should be able to take what you are giving... Heaven forbid that your entire worldview be shaken by something extra-ordinary--better that you stay narrow minded, comfortably absorbed in your so-called "knowledge". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.226.110 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If I didn't know better I'd think you were wikistalking me Zachary. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not Zachary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.226.110 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Simonm223's involvement in Global Consciousness Project should be urgently reviewed by the skeptic community. He is resorting to extremely biased and underhand tactics that will bring not only the skeptic community but Wikipedia itself into disrepute. I strongly suggest that you check out the interactions between Simonm223 and other editors on the Talk:Global Consciousness Project92.26.147.184 (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way this is not Zachary, but another very concerned editor92.26.147.184 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(backdent) Zachary (et al.), I feel it is important to point out that Wikipedia is not a place for humor and this thread is getting to be a bellyacher. 018 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The recent comments by user numbers weren't me. I haven't taken a close look at what Simonm has done recently so I can't comment on whether he is still using disruptive behavior but he has a history of it. Being a rational skeptic takes time. Doubting is easy but in order to find out for sure research is necessary; this may lead to ruling things in or out just like any other scientific field. You don't decide what is true before doing the research or reviewing the research done by others. Since I’m not familiar with the Global Consciousness Project I will not comment on it. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, whatever. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to Magnet therapy have removed pseudoscience description

I think that cherry picking of recent marginal studies has been used in violation of WP:PRIMARY, but I'm not sure since this is not my area of expertise.

Last version of the article before recent changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnet_therapy&oldid=325188392

Current version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnet_therapy&oldid=328245274

Please, somebody take a look. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volney Mathison. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Another Gospel

Please see Talk:Another_Gospel#RfC:_NPOV_and_article_Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Prescription drug

The article Prescription drug has been tagged as being within the scope of this project. WikiProjects have absolute control over their scope -- if you want to support the article, then you certainly may -- but the connection to core areas of your scope (mysticism, pseudoscience, and paranormal claims) seems a bit tenuous to me, so it's possible that it was tagged in error. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of doctors in the sceptical community act as watchdogs of new stuff getting approved. Due to flaws in the drug approval process and good old fashioned corruption not every medicine that gets onto pharmacy shelves is actually helpful or beneficial. While the claim that "big pharma is keeping people sick" holds little water it is equally incorrect to say that being available as a prescription makes a medicine good, helpful and beneficial. As a result medically minded sceptics may have an interest in keeping an eye on the article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Outrageous Betrayal

Please see Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal#RfC:_Removal_of_words_Is_and_Was. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed new section "Alternative medicine as mainstream"

Please comment and help create a consensus version at Talk:Alternative_medicine#RfC:_Proposed_new_section_.22Alternative_medicine_as_mainstream.22. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:

1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.

See you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative medicine critics

Please come to the talk page and help develop this into a good article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aromatherapy

I've done a lot of work to clean up this stinking pile of nonsense. Any help & guidance would be appreciated. Thanks --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

Bob Park's "What's New" newsletter of March 5, 2010 has an item on the Newman machine, and has this to say about the above article:

Coverage of the Joe Newman case in Wikipedia is terrible. It's a remarkably useful encyclopedia, but you need to verify.

I'm not at all familiar with this subject, and wouldn't know where to begin in improving the article, nor do I know in what way Park feels the article is faulty. I did want to point this out, though, so that someone who is knowledgable about the subject can do whatever clean-up is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD:Reverse scientific method

Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the Paranormal pseudoscience

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Is_the_paranormal_pseudoscience.3F. Unomi (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Larry Kusche

Have just added Larry Kusche to the Rational skepticism wikiproject - some references to writings by Gian Quasar look unreliable. I've mentioned an article by Joe Nickell in the talk page, but some of you might be more familiar with Quasars' writing and might be able to check it.Autarch (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion discussion

Transcendental meditation(TM)

I have posted at WP:MED and WP:SKEPTIC as this Arbcom affects these projects. TM makes a number of health claims including improving BP, anxiety, and living forever. A member of Arbcom has concluded that the ongoing debates is "really about conflicting philosophies" and that "on the one hand we have, for want of a better word, mysticism; on the other, rationalism."[1] Wondering if others could comment as this does pertain directly with our topic area. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

FYI, 1421: The Year China Discovered the World has been controversially merged into Gavin Menzies. An RfC has been opened on the issue, see Talk:1421: The Year China Discovered the World

70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement

A WikiProject has been created, for the topic with main article: Transcendental Meditation movement. The project page is located at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Feel free to list yourself as a participant there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Dignity

Anonymous editors are expurgating Dignity. Some editors (67.171.228.196--single-purpose account) (128.223.222.74--single-purpose account) are editing from Eugene, OR, USA. One editor (81.100.129.228--limited-purpose account) is editing out of Amsterdam. I would like some help to keep the vandals at bay. PYRRHON  talk   22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC at List of Scientologists

Request for Comment at page, List of Scientologists. Please see discussion on talk page, at "RfC: Should people be self-proclaimed Scientologists in order to be included on this list?" Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - Steve Eichel

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Eichel. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is now a Featured Article

Confirmation bias, which is rated as mid-importance for this wikiproject, has passed FAC. This brings the total number of FA-class Rational Skepticism articles to 11. The article touches on several topics which are directly relevant to rational skepticism and the paranormal, and the sources it uses may be relevant to other articles about skepticism, scientific controversies and the paranormal. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job. That is indeed a very useful article for editors interested in this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonic Possession

I tried to edit the webpage on demonic possession trying to change a bit the “sound” of the introduction, where claims about demonic possession and the differences with other forms or “spiritual possessions” are treated as a matter of fact, like if demonic possession was an everyday fact, but they were reverted. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of this group, because reading that article one might think that demonic possession is something that happens everyday… at least to me. Sorry if I’m wrong, I’m ready to edit that article a bit adding something like “according to believers in demonic possession” or something, and I’d put some “alleged” here and there because honestly I feel that that article doesn’t explain well enough that demonic possession is just an unsopported claim and not a fact… Again, correct me if I’m wrong and I’m the only one seeing that article in this way. 189.140.64.231 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.64.231 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On the methodological assumption that rational skeptics will take care to look up reliable sources, you may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. I notice in my reading of periodicals about skepticism that the English-language skeptical community is by no means united in point of view about IQ testing or the implications of IQ testing, so I especially welcome your participation on talk pages of related articles as we discuss what the sources mean. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My "Spiritual Healing" edit on the "Faith Healing" page

Hello,

I recently added a section on Spiritual Healing to the Faith Healing page on Wikipedia which was subsequently removed. Could someone please have a look at it and suggest how I could change it so that it's acceptable, or whether it should be replaced by a link to the following page. http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/MindBodyandSpirit/shamanism

(the talk:Bullragifer link seems to get redirected here)

Thank you

Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rife article thoughts

I need to do some more research on this, but I think that the Rife article needs to have some information on the real scientific work that his expirimentation ultimately lead to. While there were serious flaws in his theories of "certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation killing disease-causing microbes and viruses", there have been real advancements in similar concepts. For example high-intensity UV lights are used to sterilize surfaces in everything from dentist's offices to hair parlors, and radiological therapy for cancer uses high intensity beams of radiation, protons, ect. to destroy cancerous cells, in many ways similar to the real research that he did.

This has to be done carefully, obviously, given the claims of others surrounding his work.

This is an important aspect of this article, however, as the man himself was disturbed by the quackery his work resulted in. He never claimed to have a cure for cancer (in fact the article references a quote in which he explicitly refutes the claim), but only some unsual results from a series of tests bombarding microbes with various high energy beams of light, radio waves, ect. resulting in the apparent death of microbes. To do justice to the man who was not a quack but a fringe scientist with a flawed but not entirely incorrect theory, this information should be at least acknowledged. --Scorpion451 rant 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Transcendental Meditation occurring

The link [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment about Chiropractic

There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Hi. Can this be added somewhere on your lists. It's a bit of a poor cousin in the pseudoscience world as it is mainly aimed at fostered and adopted children. There is however a taskforce report on it commissioned by APSAC, a number of peer reviewed criticisms, several controversial cases resulting from the deaths of children subjected to techniques, and a concerted attempt to silence critics by the use of the DMCA, website spamming and other means.Fainites barleyscribs 13:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

John C. Sanford

The article for this creationist is a textbook example of a borderline notability article written with oodles of weasel words in order to encourage a bias that his religious philosophy is scientific. Needs correction. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ernst T. Krebs

I would like to request the help of someone who has detailed knowledge about laetrile/amygdalin in reviewing the article on Ernst T. Krebs, who promoted this (toxic) substance as an anti-cancer agent. The article is currently being transformed into an advertising text for laetrile, citing various dubious sources apparently in favour of its efficacy, and linking to websites connected to conspiracy theories and "alternative medicine".
For those who don't know about laetrile, there is a detailed report about its story on Quackwatch.
Any help would be appreciated.
-- Shinryuu (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that going? I surfed over there and edited for a while, after seeing your notice, but then got busy with other issues. It's bad to put quackery spam on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page

Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. AFD discussion is at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Commmittee case on race and intelligence has just been decided. Thus articles that are either in the Race and intelligence controversy category or mentioned in the findings of the 2010 Arbitration Committee case on Race and intelligence or closely related to those are subject to active arbitration remedies that you may wish to review. The case decision seems to have resulted in an immediate improvement in the editing environment of several articles that previously were very contentious. Peaceful, collaborative editing that turns to sources and upholds Wikipedia policy is enjoyable editing. I thought I should let participants on this WikiProject Rational Skepticism know that this improved atmosphere now exists, because it has not escaped my notice that among people who agree in designating one another as rational skeptics, there are quite varied opinions on the underlying factual issues related to race and intelligence. Your participation in editing those articles is welcomed and encouraged. You can look up sources to help improve articles in the source lists I have been compiling to share with all Wikipedians. And because the source lists span several different topics, and those topics fit quite a few articles in this WikiProject in whole or in part, suggesting new sources would be a very kind thing to do. The atmosphere has improved a lot, so the articles can improve a lot. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some magazine articles in the latest issue of Skeptic magazine that raise issues at least somewhat related to some of the Wikipedia articles mentioned here. You are encouraged to browse around and join in on editing the Wikipedia articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Rational Skepticism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD relevant to this project - Jessica Feshbach

Ongoing AFD deletion discussion for this article, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (3rd nomination). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hippotherapy

Hi all! I was hoping to get some eyes on the hippotherapy article, which seems to have been a target of whitewashing. I've tried to improve things, but I have to admit a little reluctance to go the whole hog and strip out massive amounts of text. This CAM technique is periodically used to treat a variety of conditions, particularly cerebal palsy and other developmental disorders of children, by placing the patient on horseback in a variety of positions.

I am concerned because the article text has been bulked up with very favorable claims and descriptions despite there being little quality research into its effectiveness. In one recent edit, a new editor changed the article's claims of efficacy to the opposite of what the supplied reference states. The same editor appears to have a relationship to the American Hippotherapy Association. I am hoping that the experienced folks of this project might be able to help sort through the information out there to present a more balanced and reasonable view of this subject. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism/Archive_7&oldid=1137365242"