Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Heim theory

Just came across an interesting stub called Heim theory. From my brief reading about it, it involves a 6-dimensional hyperspace, accumulation of mass and faster than light travel, amongst other nifty tricks. I think I will spend some time trying to improve it. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

First I've heard of it, glad to read about it once you are done. Sgerbic (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

de:Holm Hümmler is the only serious(*) physicist I know who has really looked into this. He says, among other things, that Heim was isolated from the scientific community after his horrible lab accident made communication difficult, so he used obsolete techniques and could not take any new developments into account. There are public Hümmler talks about Heim theory, but only in German as far as I know. [1]

(*) I have to add the adjective "serious" since UFO enthusiast de:Illobrand von Ludwiger has written on and supported Heim; Heim is his teacher. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I'll look into those links. I had a look through the history of the page and it has oscillated like a pulsar on a bad diet. I'm hoping to come up with a more acceptable version that will have a general section that will be understandable to everybody and then more complicated sections for the dedicated few. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Labynkyr Lake

I'm thinking of Labynkyr Lake for my next stub rewrite - it was on the list and I've never heard of this "lake monster" before. So I went though to see what I could find, worried that most will be in Russian. I've found about three good citations, but they are mostly about the lake monster and not the lake, though I think one of them has a lot of good information about the lake, I hate to over use the one citation. Issue is that when looking for the lake, you get a lot of tourism results. Here is what I have decided on [2], [3] and [4]. This might give me a few more [5]. So I would appreciate it if anyone could help me out with some non-lake monster links, but not overly complicated, I want this to be easily readable for readers. Sgerbic (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The abstract of this paper [6] at ResearchGate has some useful info and is downloadable as a PDF. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Wyatt. I think that should be enough, the other articles have a lot of information about the lake and the research they are doing there. I added a 20 second video in the external links that is perfect for the page reader to watch, when I did I instantly "got it" it's hella cold, I mean beyond cold what they are doing and the lake is warm. Very interesting. Sgerbic (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay - all done and adding to the stub completed list. This was my first lake monster. It was kinda fun, but I enjoyed learning about the research more. I'm sure the page could use some attention from others to clean up my attempts at grammar and readability, have fun. I'll also share the page on my social media, that always gets immediate response from people to clean up my grammar. Sgerbic (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Secrets of the Psychics - James Randi

Hey great work @Gronk Oz on the Secrets of the Psychics show - right up my alley. I removed the TV stub that was hidden at the very bottom of the page. There are a bunch of Randi's books that are on the stub list also if you are so inclined ... hint hint. Sgerbic (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup (removing some unreliable sources) but more is warranted: it can still use close attention to presenting an over-enthusiastic fan's perspective (the New York Times review seems entirely misrepresented), improper editorial tone, subtle WP:SYNTH, and what I call 'show-and-tellism': grasping for any sources whatsoever and over-analyzing them. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

White lighter myth

White lighter myth this was on the stub skepticism page and I'm perplexed. Is it a stub - it looks done. A tiny article can be done completely and not be a stub. On the talk page back in 2018 editor @Mramoeba stated that there is no RS for this and they are probably right. Once Snopes did the research and found that Bic did not produce a white lighter until after the deaths of the celebs then that is it. Snopes lists three citations - I think they all are showing what was in the pockets of these celebs at their death and they don't contain white lighters. I don't think its a good idea to use those three citations on Wikipedia as that would be us doing original research. So what do you think? Should White lighter myth be on or off the stub list? And OMG just when you think you have heard the weirdest conspiracy theories, along comes White lighter myth. Sgerbic (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I did work on this page a while ago, mostly removing the crap as far as I remember. There was no worthwhile information to add and, despite having a google alert for it, there has never been anything to add from RS. I suggest you remove it from the stub list as it’s no longer a work in progress. Hope that helps. Mramoeba (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I changed it to class C.Robincantin (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Sgerbic (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess that is one way to reduce the stubs on the list. Sgerbic (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow Mramoeba I was just looking though the edit history of the page, you have been busy reverting that page for years. I've seen less attention to anti-vaxxer pages. Does someone hear about this myth from a friend and the first thing they think of is "I better add what my friend told me to the Wikipedia page?" It's just wild that this page gets this amount of attention. 342 page views a day over the last 90 days. Wow!

1,236,457 since the page was created in 2015, some celebs don't get that amount of attention. Awwww it's linked on a lot of superstition pages, that might be where it is pulling so many views [7] well at least they should be reading it and learning it is nonsense and how we know it is nonsense. Sgerbic (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Lady Sheba PROD

I spent some time fussing on the Lady Sheba page and as you can see from the PROD I just left, there isn't anything I could find. Sad because I was really looking forward to quoting from the find a grave site that says her ashes were mingled with the ashes of one of her books and scattered around the graveyard. [8] I rarely try to delete pages, so please let me know if I did this one wrong. Sgerbic (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

[9], and some mention in [10] and [11]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The article claims she founded the American Order of the Brotherhood of the Wicca which is doubtful a woman would do. More likely it was called the American Order of the Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Wicca. UPI with an Atlanta location did a story saying a young woman was murdered at its headquarters (an old two-story house) in May 1979. No mention of Lady Sheba or Bell. Probably the group folded after that scandal. The police described it as a commune and cult. 5Q5|^✉ 17:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Her Wiccan organization has an entry in J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, with a bit of background on her. Users in Michigan or Minnesota WikiProjects might have insight or access to sources. Also, don't know if you were being sarcastic re: ash-scattering but you should never quote anything on Find a Grave, except perhaps an etching on a gravestone itself (see WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL). All the text is user-generated, the birth and death dates are often unsourced (sometimes they don't even match the gravestone), known spouses and family members are often absent, and photos of historic people are sometimes wrong. Sometimes there are sourced, transcribed obituaries, attached newspaper articles, or other references to more reliable biographical entries that can be used on Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Some significant coverage in a 1972 Star Tribune piece (Part 1, Part 2). Looks like there might be more sources available via Newspapers.com. I'll sift through them sometime in the next 48 hours or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 23:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay now that it has been removed from deletion. Who is going to get to work on rewriting it? The sources have all been handed to you. Sgerbic (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I have to make a note on how you did citation #4 I had been doing this citation all wrong, that looks so much neater and retrievable. I had wondered how to add the second page, now I know. Thanks! Sgerbic (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Sgerbic, and I'm glad you liked it. I'd never done it that way before. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Details from Snopes on Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory article

Could you take a look at refining this article? The Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory article is mostly written out (64 edits), with details about the conspiracy theory and the false claims and aspects of the conspiracy theory + debunking of it. Could you folks from WP:SKEPTICISM take a look? The talk page + edit summaries contains some suggestions on how the wording of the article body text can be improved, and one of the main sources is this Snopes article. Thanks -- Rauisuchian (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a very important Wikipedia page, and way over my pay-grade. I hope some of the wonderful people here on Project Skepticism take you up on that. I'm surprised that the talk page looks calm and friendly. On one of the recent talk pages for a woman in the skeptic world we are in the tens of thousands of words and all they are doing is discussing a book review. Priorities people. Sgerbic (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Cholera belt

I just finished rewriting the stub Cholera belt which was much more interesting than I would have thought. It's late for me now so I would appreciate others to run your eye over the page and fuss on my prose. Just added this to the SSSPP page[12] and this is number six for me in one month, can I squeeze in one more before March ends? Maybe it is raining hard now and probably will all day tomorrow, so we shall see. Sgerbic (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Mobility transition

Hi everyone, I've just finished my translation of Mobility transition from de:Verkehrswende. I'm not sure if this topic falls within the scope of skepticism, but I wanted to run this new article past you anyway, because there is a lot of science involved that is outside my field of expertise as a historian. The term itself is relatively new and has many applications (as the article itself shows), and so mobility transition is sort of an emerging interdisciplinary field of various natural sciences and humanities. I took the liberty of changing some wordings to comply to English Wikipedia's manual of style, such as 'have been [present perfect continuous]' instead of 'is' or some other simple present or simple past tense when referring to processes that have been recently initiated and are still ongoing. More broadly speaking, I have operated under the assume that the mobility transition is already going on, because many of the processes described in the article are already going on (since at least the 1960s and 1970s); the original German Wikipedia article often spoke more hypothetically of 'a mobility transition', as something that might happen in the future but is not yet here, whereas I consider it as a partial fait accompli. Many calculations are difficult to make sense of, and sometimes it's difficult to convert certain units of measurement, or to properly translate certain terms into English (I use British English as my standard, but sometimes I follow American English if the present Wikipedia article title uses an American term rather than a British one, e.g. 'truck' rather than 'lorry'. I use metric units wherever possible). Aside from that, many parts of this article could use examples from other parts of the world; as it was originally written in German, most examples are from Germany (and to a lesser degree Austria, Switzerland and some other European countries), so perhaps Template:Globalize applies a bit here. I've added some examples from Anglo-Saxon countries and my native Netherlands, feel free to add more. Finally, there are some repetitions in the text (e.g. between 'Inland navigation' and 'Road freight and modal share'), some claims are arguably outdated (although they can still be relevant), and especially the 'Further examples' section is a bit random and unorganised (it seems to have organically grown over time as more and more editors added relevant facts to the list that didn't fit well into existing sections), although I'm not sure how to organise it better. Many examples can't readily be organised according mode of transport, or by kind of intended effect (e.g. energy efficiency, spatial efficiency, financial efficiency, traffic safety etc.), as many of them are interconnected. (I added 'short-haul flight ban' myself, but later decided to make it a separate section with an excerpt template, as it is can be separated from the other issues more easily). In some cases there wasn't a source for a claim, so I tried to find and add one (some citations may still be needed), and in other cases the source didn't seem to say what the text claimed, or wasn't clear to which year or which area (Germany? Europe? The world?) it applied, so I tried to clarify the source. If anyone would like to make suggestions or corrections to improve it further, feel free to do so, or to leave a comment below. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
PS: In some cases I've used Template:Interlanguage link when I estimated that the German Wikipedia entry on a certain topic may be worth translating, or would probably be translated by someone some day. This may never happen though, and it may detract from how well the text looks. In other cases, English Wikipedia does have a Wikipedia article, but it's not on exactly the same subject, so with certain links I might not be properly conveying in English what a German-language Wikipedian was trying to say. In still other cases, such as inland navigation, our English Wikipedia articles are still very limited. I tried to add some more information about inland navigation that I found along the way, but a lot more is desirable to have. The lack of info on inland navigation on English Wikipedia could be due to the fact that Anglo-Saxon countries are much more focused on sea navigation due to their geography, thereby missing how important inland waterways may be for transportation in landlocked or partially landlocked countries with lots of navigable rivers and canals. E.g. the Rhine may not mean much to Britons and Irish, as they can ship almost anything by sea, but it is of crucial importance to many continental Western Europeans. Language barriers and the average interests of the speakers of certain languages can be an obstacle to providing balanced information about the whole world. And that's before I even start about non-Western countries, about which very little is currently said in the article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting topic, no question about it, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with skepticism per se. If you would like to solicit editors to contribute to the article, I suggest posting a message to CAT:EDITREQ. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not sure if CAT:EDITREQ is a good option in this case though, because I don't have a block or COI with regard to the subject. If it is out of scope for skepticism, how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Science? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Onychomancy

I came across this stub about Onychomancy, reading fingernails and I've decided to spruce it up a bit. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about Heim theory but that has become a much longer term project. I need to spend more time getting my head around the concepts involved. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have never heard of this before but I'm not shocked, Mark Edward says you can read anything, even cat turds. He says that there is a system, you follow that and you can't miss. Wonder how nail polish affects the reading. LOL Before I really got into scientific skepticism, I remember watching CBS Morning news and two of the female hosts were subjected to lipstick readings. They had some woman on who would do a reading on the tube of lipstick the hosts had in their purse. It was so obviously nonsense, the angle of the lipstick (keeping in mind that most lipstick already has an angle) and other such nonsense. Thinking about it now still pisses me off. This was supposed to be a news show, and it was always exciting to see women in a powerful host position on TV (this would have been in the late 90s) and to see these women to seemly endorse this nonsense (maybe they wouldn't have been able to say what they really thought?). It was demeaning. I was appalled and very soon after years of watching that show as I did my morning routine, I stopped watching that show. Sgerbic (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Just finished this one. Even added a colourful picture to it! Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Gulf Breeze UFO incident

Okay, not sure I'm going to find a lot on this stub - but I'm going to attempt it. I figure I should post here so I feel obligated start the research. You all nag me if you don't hear anything from me on this over the next few days. Gulf Breeze UFO incident. Sgerbic (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it's been a few hours and I am barely to 1990 finding citations. I thought I was going to struggle considering that there were only two citations all these years on the Wikipedia page. I'm mining newspapers.com and each story is so interesting and a different angle. I'm watching the story unfold. The only problem is that I can't get the other newspaper that was more Ed Waters friendly, just getting the Pensacola News Journal they have some pro-UFO stories so hopefully the final rewrite will balance nicely.

I'm really enjoying this rewrite! Sgerbic (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This took awhile but I'm putting a fork in the page now - it's done. Have at it folks. Sgerbic (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abduction

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear lord I would rather repaint my whole house twice than get involved in that discussion. Looks like @LuckyLouie and @JoJo Anthrax have it in hand. At a certain point editors need to stop "talking" over each other and make sure they are clear when writing something so there is less ambiguity. And when challenged, maybe step back and think about what the other editor is saying. We just finished several multi-week and month discussions over topics that should have been handled by assuming good faith, and when they finally closed, enemies were made and the final decision was no change from before.

And years of experience, especially when working on Fringe topics, is nothing to sniff at. These editors have seen it all and lived to tell the tale.

That was an interesting discussion for me only because the stub I'm rewriting also has a polygraph test in it. I'm stating just exactly what the newspaper says, that the man who claims that the UFO happened, took a lie detector test and that the polygraph operator said that the guy believes his story. I'm not adding that polygraphs are probably BS or anything of the sort, just this is what happened and what the operator said. Done. Sgerbic (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This particular discussion is about a case where Walton failed the polygraph. I think that the fact that one pseudoscience (polygraphy) actually contradicted another (ufology) clouds the issue a little.

But you are correct. A consensus seems to be emerging, because there's no real ideological aspect to the discussion so far. Happy (Slap me) 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

And let us hope that a ideological aspect stays out of it and it is settled quickly. Sgerbic (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That's always for the best. Ideological arguments are rarely productive, and I only say "rarely" because it's so hard to prove a negative. I've never seen one be productive. Happy (Slap me) 16:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this statement needs to be turned into a "law," in the vein of Murphy's. Because there's a found wisdom in there I don't think I've heard articulated before. :) CleverTitania (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Otto Edler von Graeve

The little stub Otto Edler von Graeve caught my attention so I decided to spruce it up a bit. Stretched my non-existent German to the limits. Please feel free to improve it further, and fix mistakes I've introduced (or just let me know). Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the references, Engineering and Mining Journal, is quoted as saying that von Graeve was president of Internationalen Vereins der Rutenganger but I can't find anything about that. Anybody else know about this? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I found the Engineering and Mining Journal archived at the WayBack machine so I've added a section on von Graeve's concept of how dowsing works. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Goals/Where to Start

This is sort of a continuation of the top thread of this page (How this WikiProject works), but that was a long-enough thread, last added to long-enough ago, that it felt appropriate to start a new section.

For the purposes of this topic, I'm exactly the kind of potential new contributor to the project, who would be overwhelmed without some basic instructions - but I never expect to find that on the front of a Project, but rather buried in its Main Discussion. So, I ended up reading that page first, and then backtracking to the simplified Overview page that had already been created.

But I still found a level of disorganization and redundancy that was confusing in places, and wanted to suggest an organizational change that might work better. Toward that end, below you will find a recreated version of the "Project Goals." My intention was not to change any information, but to re-organize it for flow and clarity. But I worried that there were spots where I wasn't accurately interpreting the original text, and was hoping to get some feedback on that first.

The goals of this WikiProject are as follows:

• To create new articles, relating to science and reason, under the {{WikiProject Skepticism}} tag.
• To identify existing articles, related to Scientific skepticism, and add the {{WikiProject Skepticism}} tag where appropriate.
• To review project-related articles for quality, clarity and scientific accuracy. With a particular focus on the following concerns:
  • Identify articles with "Good Article" and "Featured Article" potential, and help to guide them through the appropriate review processes.
  • Identify articles which are not presently evidence-based, or suffer from highly fringe POV, and improve them using Project Resources.
• To serve as a nexus and discussion area for editors interested in doing such work.

My initial concern was redundant information and instructions between the Overview paragraphs, the Overview lists and the Where to Start lists, but it seemed vital to make sure the above info was accurate, before anything else. CleverTitania (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no problems with changes being made to explain better and ease the flow of understanding. Have at it.Sgerbic (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Titania - are you looking for things to do? It sounds like you might already have tasks you want to work on. I'm no expert but I'm happy to help if you need anything. Sgerbic (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Lives of the Necromancers

Found this book on Project Guttenberg and decided to add some content to the page. Feel free to continue. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh that is a great place to look Wyatt. Sgerbic (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

FBI secret society conspiracy theory

I just found this amongst the stub list and since I am not an American and have no interest in politics anywhere, I hadn't heard about this conspiracy theory. The fact that there are 6 references thrown down at the end of a single paragraph got my goat, so I am going to see if I can do anything with this page. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow - I don't think I've ever heard of this before. Looking forward to what you do with it. Sgerbic (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wait, I have heard of this, but a stub? These two FBI people were raked over the coals and I believe they lost their jobs over this. I also think I remember that the male FBI agent was suing someone. Is there another Wikipedia page that talks more about the two agents? Sgerbic (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Peter Strzok. Lisa Page is a redirect to a section on the peter s page. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears to have had about 2 days of breaking news coverage and twittersphere buzz, and some subsequent media callbacks, based entirely on a single text message from Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, and so of course junior reporters at Wikipedia made an article about it and demanded it be kept. It should probably be redirected to Peter_Strzok#Text_messages, otherwise it's unduly promoting a "conspiracy theory" that doesn't actually exist. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep. That sums it up nicely. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

what an improvement Wyatt! Sgerbic (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Intelligence in Nature

Just found the stub Intelligence in Nature and couldn't resist adding a bit from the first chapter, Brainy Birds. The chapter starts out quite normally with a visit to the Amazon jungle, wanders down the path of speculating about learned vs instinctive behaviours and then takes a dive into the deep end by claiming that when shamans go into a trance they speak the language of birds and negotiate with some entity for limits on the exploitation of natural resources AND the entity protects animals and plants from reckless and greedy humans. YIKES! Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article has been sent to AfD. This was my comment:

• Don't care Interestingly enough (in my opinion, at least) is that this article was written in August 2007, almost nothing was done to it for 15 years and then, when I make an improvement, it is suddenly sent to AfD. I don't care if this article is deleted, merged or ignored - either way it will no longer be a stub, which was my intention all along. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon

There is a RfC at Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon § RfC on category inclusion/exclusion as to whether Historicity of the Book of Mormon should to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. ––FormalDude talk 06:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Carson Sink UFO incident

• Carson_Sink_UFO_incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sourced to Lulu.com books and NICAP. Could use some help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A lot of help: Reference 1 is a dead link; reference 2 is the self-published lulu book that, according to its Amazon description, explains how "various Bible passages ... reveal many realities of the supernatural;" reference 3 is a pro-woo source; reference 4 is nicap; reference 5 is Ruppelt. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of UFO books simply repeating Ruppelt and supporting the "unexplained" angle, but there may not be WP:FRIND sources to establish this topic as notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a tough time finding any RS about this topic, meaning I haven't found anything that meets WP:FRIND. I might not be the best blood hound for this sort of thing, but shouldn't there be more than pro-woo sites and cut/paste replicates of the current WP page? I'll keep searching, but my confidence is low. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe SGerbic can work some magic with newspapers.com. If there are no sources outside the UFO bubble, AfD is the solution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence Louie. I've tried Newspapers.com and because Carson Sink is a real place, it's getting a lot of hits. But when I add UFO I don't get anything for any year. But I'll try a few other search terms. I've looked at two books on UFO's on my shelves and not finding a mention, I'll take another look over my book shelves. Not finding anything in Skeptical Inquirer but will try a few other places. I just sent an email and am awaiting a response. Give me a day or so, it's possible that it is just too obscure for the media to have picked it up, or maybe it's called something completely different? Fingers crossed,Sgerbic (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a book called "Carson Sink UFO Incident" by Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, John McBrewster from 2010, but even that book doesn't seem to have created a buzz. I've tried YouTube which has videos on nearly everything, and not finding anything other than just the place Carson Sink. It looks like the UFO incident might be mentioned in videos somewhere but not even a stand alone video. In the magical thinking blogs they all seem to be quoting each other, all saying that this is one of the best cases for a UFO sighting because of the argument from authority ... two jet pilots could not be wrong, because they are jet pilots. In the book "The Paranormal Phenomena" by Hur, the Carson Sink incident only gets three sentences, not even it's own paragraph. I just went though page 6 of Google search results and didn't find one reliable source. @JoJo Anthrax don't feel bad, I'm using some of my better woo-foo and not finding anything. No mention of it on BadUFO's which is Robert Sheaffers blog. And on Mick West's website MetaBunk I only see this one post about Carson Sink being used for target practice [13]. No mention on Skeptoid website, nor Skeptic Magazine. I'm almost ready to say AfD this page. Sgerbic (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay I just got a response to my email. It was suggested that almost nothing exists on this, maybe something is in the Blue Book files and there was a quote somewhere else about it. But this amazing UFO sighting is not very amazing once you look into it. @LuckyLouie are you going to put it up for AfD? Sgerbic (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The three of us made a good try at finding sources but no luck, so yes, I will do an AfD (unless you'd like the honors). - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done WP:Articles for deletion/Carson Sink UFO incident - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You are much more elegant with your AfD's Louie. Sgerbic (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Closed as delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carson Sink UFO incident] Sgerbic (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that the article has been deleted, I am comfortable writing here that I found this "incident" to be quite peculiar. Specifically, I can not rule out the hypothesis that not only did the alleged witnesses not witness anything, but they might not have even known about the incident. The echo chamber of pro-fringe blogs is no help, and the few sites outside the UFO bubble that even mention one of the witnesses indicate nothing about the incident, or even UFOs. Might this "incident" be an example of the Illusory truth effect? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder also. What I found interesting was that this Wikipedia page existed for so long without being challenged. I have written multiple Wikipedia pages about UFO's or people in the UFO community and felt when challenged by @LuckyLouie to find better sources, that I would have no difficulty at all finding sources that were off the Internet i.e. books, journals, magazines. I went through all my resources, dusting off even obscure references from decades ago and found nothing. I consulted those on the skepticism that are considered UFO experts and they had nothing to offer and I heard they had never heard of this incident. And then Newspapers.com not giving me anything was very odd. When a Wikipedia page like this exists when it is so obviously not notable, that is embarrassing to me as a long-time Wikipedia editor. Thank you Louie for bring it to our attention. I am sad that it had to be deleted as I love that we have preserved the history of UFOs. The psychology behind this whole culture is fascinating to me. Sgerbic (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Stephan Riess

Just spent some time on Stephan Riess, geologist and dowser. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You took out 9 citations, what was it about them that made you remove them? Sgerbic (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the editors added a list of newspaper articles as individual references but they weren’t linked which I hate. Basically they are worthless because you can’t access them, you just have to believe what is claimed. The worst offender is a reference to an unpublished biography?? FFS? What use is referencing something that nobody can find? Which is why I tagged that section as unread. I later found other sources that contained some of the biographical info so I removed the tag. Actually almost all of the refs were “unlinked” but I managed to find most of them. Also the editor didn’t name refs and then reuse the named reference, they just copied the ref in full so there were a few duplicates that I removed. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe somebody with access to Newspapers.com could track down and improve the news references ‘’hint hint’’. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for comments at Talk:Astrology

There is a RfC about how to word the first sentences of the lead at Talk:Astrology#Request for comments: Lead paragraph which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What next? Will WikiProject Skepticism survive?

Today is June 2nd, 2022 and time to revisit this WikiProject. I was instructed by the ArbCom decision that I and GSoW needed to have a more public presence here on Wikipedia. Some felt that I should run a brand new WikiProject but only for GSoW members. Instead what we decided was to revive WikiProject Skepticism and to encourage those people who were listed as members of the project to come back and help us rebuild it.

We have revamped the main page and cleaned out the participant list, I personally sent a message to all 100+ people who remained on the participant list (and cleaned it up). We did see some drop off at that point (a few wished us well) and we have had a few new people join.

I proposed a group project to get us better acquainted and focused on improving skepticism stubs here Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP).

So that was a three month project March 1st to June 1st, 2022. We rewrote 22 Skepticism stubs, and four editors participated. All four are GSoW editors (including myself), so that wasn't successful at all. All that happened was what GSoW would have been doing anyway. We have had a few conversations here on talk with some suggestions to be involved in other conversations happening on pages that are under discussion. And a bit of conversation here and there about pages that need improvement, some with non-GSoW members.

Now, I'm just not sure where to go from here? If there is very little involvement by people who aren't GSoW then what is the purpose of this group? Without participation from the 100+ people who signed up for WikiProject Skepticism then I might as well just go back to doing what we were doing before?

I think what I'm asking for is some reason, or encouragement that those people who signed up to help on this project please speak up.

I don't think I need to remind this projects participants that now more than ever the world needs to make sure that great information, well written and visually appealing Wikipedia pages (in all languages) need to be the norm. Fringe and magical thinking is prevalent and dangerious. Sgerbic (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Well it has been a week+ and no one has answered this post. I think I got my answer. Very sad. Sgerbic (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your issue/worry/concern. I see plenty of activity, with helpful discussions here leading to more than a couple of articles being improved. All while strong efforts by...others, to suppress/silence/discourage so-called "pro-skeptic" editors on enWiki have been effectively faced. Even if only two editors were "active" (and who knows how many others regularly read this board and react to it, without posting), wouldn't that be perfectly fine? I just don't see why 100+ active editors, GSoW members or not, are required for this gin joint to be judged successful. Seems successful to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well JoJo I hope you are right. I'm used to discussion when there is a post. ArbCom told me that they wanted GSoW and I to have a public presence on Wikipedia and I am endeavoring to do so. What is discouraging is that mostly the only responses are from other GSoW people, I could just continue posting in our private group if that is to be the norm. Why duplicate efforts if there is little response? The stub project did receive 22 rewrites! That's a win, but the only participants were GSoW members. In order for WikiProject Skepticism to survive is if we have more discussion and participation from the members of the group. Sgerbic (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking over the archives, a lot of the action in this WikiProject appears to have migrated to WP:FTN, e.g. problem articles needing help, questions about what's fringe, notices of RfC's of interest, etc. It could be that most Wikipedians simply don't know that WP Skepticism has been revived by you. Also I don't think this WikiProject can duplicate the energy you are used to feeling at GSoW. Most WikiProjects that I know of don't have a central manager overseeing everything, they tend to be unstructured and ad-hoc, and so the activity tends to be sporadic and unpredictable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sigh - I really didn't want to be "in charge" but I took seriously what most people advised me to do and work on a WikiProject. I did go though the members list months ago and cleaned it up, and then posted a talk message on every members page. Anyone that signed up for this project received a personal message letting them know that we were trying to revive this project. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard seems to be discussion about problems concerning fringe topics and policy and not necessarily the building (or rebuilding) of pages. I'll try leaving a message there and see if that helps. Thanks Louie Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this now instead of earlier because my huge watchlist drowned it. My thing is preventing fringe edits rather than writing articles, so this is low prio for me. But I thought the purpose of reviving this project was that the Eye of Sauron cannot see anything outside Mordor, so more of GSoW does needs to happen inside Wikipedia to allow scrutiny. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

In reply to Susan, I'm not a joiner of things, never was. In fact, I dont think I have ever joined a project on this project. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind joining in an effort to promote healthy skepticism across our articles. I'm curious what articles are in need of improvement, however. Most of the articles I've read are pretty good already, and any article that touches on one of the 'traditional enemies' of skepticism (pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and religious fundamentalism) seems to have a good couple of obviously-skeptical editors already watching the pages, working to keep the woo out.

But if there's some work that needs a bit more focused attention than that, well... I'm your Huckleberry. Happy (Slap me) 17:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Happy. I think part of the issue is that we are all on the same team, that is in keeping pages concerning fringe/skepticism strong and healthy, but one group is concerned with keeping the pages from having misinformation added or good information removed. Watchlists are the best tool to keep the pages in check. Another group of editors wants to write/rewrite pages concerning fringe/skepticism and get them in great shape. I know that second group also uses their watchlists to keep pages in good shape, but as I'm one of these people I keep my watchlist to a minimum. You may fall in one of those two groups or somewhere in between, I don't know. This WikiProject is not for one or the other, I think it understands that we all have to work together to make the best Wikipedia for readers to find the information they need to understand.

Possibly what my frustration with this project is, is that most people who signed on to be a member of Wikiproject Skepticism are those that are in the first group. When I train people to be a part of the GSoW (which this WikiProject is not) I train to build and rewrite entire pages concerning science, paranormal and scientific skepticism. We focus on making the page readable from top to bottom, photos/videos/audio is an important part of that. The GSoW also focuses on non-English Wikipedia pages, while you might say to yourself, "how can I participate in that when I only edit in English?" The answer is that often we translate from English, which means that it needs to be the best possible in English first.

Photos/videos/audio is another element that is often neglected but make a Wikipedia page more likely to be read. Help is always needed to locate and correctly upload to WMC the images we need. You would think that people don't carry a camera everywhere they go in their pockets with the lack of photos we have uploaded. If we could use a picture of food, or a adorable puppy as a main photo for a scientist then we would have plenty of images. I'm always pleading on social media for people to go though their photo albums and upload images, some do and others panic when reading the upload instructions on WMC (I get a mild panic attack when doing so and I've uploaded often - but I digress).

I knew of a stack of old quack medical devices and spent a couple hours photographing them and uploading a bunch to WMC - some I was able to use on Wikipedia pages - others are waiting for a place to put them. Here is an Radioclast device [14] and this is a bottle from the Seven Sutherland Sisters [15]. I love visiting museums and gardens and take a lot of photos that are uploaded and then used for articles, not just skepticism but a lot of science pages. If you don't have the skill/desire to take photos, then possibly finding the images others have taken and helping them upload is.

I started a stub rewrite project here for 3 months that focused on skepticism topics. That was so much fun, I learned a bunch Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP) at the bottom of that sub-project there is a "Need ideas" area that gives you links to find the Wikipedia pages that need help. There is a lot of work there, and you can specialize on what type of help you enjoy doing. This cleanup list [16] has 4,650 issues currently. Some need citations found, others need copy editing, or have weasel words or are too technical and on and on.

I have joined WikiProject Science also - but frankly it is almost as inactive as this one is. But science is such an important part of scientific skepticism that I think the overlap is close. I was hoping for more interest in the SSSPP project and possibly switching to a 3-month project that focused on Wikipedia pages concerning science museums which would also include zoos, botanical gardens and such. But am wary of trying to reactivate yet another WikiProject when having little success with this one.

To be frank with you all, there are thousands of things to do. I don't hand out to-do lists. Whatever inspires you is what you should do, if it is rewriting a page or fixing a dead link or removing vandalism, it's all important. We have to work together on this. Pick something you enjoy. Getting to what @Hob Gadling said earlier, yes there are those Wikipedia editors want to keep an eye on GSoW and myself, fine, keep an eye on us. I have said many many times that when I was struggling to learn to edit Wikipedia I tried first to use WikiProject Skepticism, but it was dead as a doornail and has mostly remained so all these years. I am a team player and love interacting with people. Because I found no support here on Wikipedia, I created an off-Wiki Facebook community that is responsive to comments, friendly and funny, helpful to other editors and on the same path I am on. If I can't find that here on WikiProject Skepticism then why continue here? I want this project to be the place where editors (not only GSoW) will find to support each other - find community and get this work done. Sgerbic (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As a fan of Brian Dunning (author) I've found his discussions quite interesting. More importantly to the Project I've done some linking here and there between his podcasts and the associated WP articles. I shall continue, and I'll focus more attention on spiffing up the articles on the assessment list. So if these WikiGnome efforts are helpful to the Project the effort will be doubly worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

redefining WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

There is a critical discussion at: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Are_the_only_significant_views_on_pseudoscience_topics_those_of_scientists%3F It would be very bad for the Skepticism project if we allow the Demarcation Problem to become the stalking horse of fringe ideas. You can always rely on philosophers of science to have a wacky idea that, out of context, can be used to diminish the notion of scientific consensus. I actually find all that quite fascinating, but rewriting policy to allow the academic winds to blow freely through the lead section of pages such as Astrology would the start of a trash vortex. Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OMG I can only imagine what a ness something like this would be. I'll go look at this discussion and see if it is a crockpot idea or if they are seriously discussing it. Thanks! Sgerbic (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

• Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is ongoing WP:COI and WP:PROMO activity on this page that could benefit from dispassionate eyes. See this, this, and this from a recently blocked editor who here claims to be part of a legal team that is interested in ensuring the accuracy of this page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? A legal team ... that's priceless. I wrote the Elizondo page and have been quite entertained at all the changes that are trying to be forced. Sgerbic (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The personal section always gives it away "Elizondo met his wife, Jennifer, while attending college in Miami, Florida, in 1993. Upon Elizondo’s graduation from the University of Miami in 1995, he immediately joined the United States Army and was assigned to a unit in South Korea. Upon his arrival back to the United States one year later, he returned to Jennifer and his three month old daughter, Taylor. In 2001, Elizondo and his wife welcomed another daughter, Alexandria. They raised their family on Kent Island, Maryland while Elizondo worked as an intelligence officer in Washington, D.C. and later, at the Pentagon. Elizondo and his wife reside in Wyoming."

You can almost hear the tone of the editor trying to remove the phrase "his lovely wife" and "adorable daughter, Taylor" in the paragraph. BTW I just noticed, we don't name a minor child unless they need to be named. Sgerbic (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, much of the content in that article is less than encyclopedic, and that motivated my post above. But did you also know that my edits to the page apparently represent a classic example of why Wikipedia articles cannot be used as credible sources in academic articles? I had no idea. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

JoJo you are THE editor that is responsible for making Wikipedia articles not credible sources in academic articles??? The power you hold! Can I have your autograph and please mentor me! Sgerbic (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep up the good work JoJo and you may someday be inducted into the OWEDTRWSMRTMC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL - Now I have a new goal - to be on that list! Sgerbic (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

But the voices in my head from outer space still keep telling me that I'll never be one of the cool kids. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Superstition rewrite

I've started what will probably end up being a complete rewrite of the Superstition article. It's important because as another editor pointed out, it's used as reference in other pages to establish what is a superstition and what isn't. It's difficult academic-like work (well difficult for me), but fortunately Stuart Vyse's latest book is a great help and several good pieces are already on the page, they just need to come together in a better text. Going section by section and adding a few more good sources, hopefully we'll get to a text everyone can be comfortable with. Don't hesitate to chip is, bring sources (developing the folklore angle would be really good). Should take the week, will redo the lead last. Robincantin (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Very excited to see this happen. Thank you Robin! I'm sure there are other very important pages that are standard that probably need a relook. Even if they don't need a full-rewrite they probably need editors to keep on their watchlists and every few years need a good revisit. Sgerbic (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And once it is well written in English - then Superstition probably needs a revisit in all other languages. Sgerbic (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Varginha UFO incident

• Varginha UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Late 90s Brazilian UFO flap with UFOlogists views, media hype, and publicity, but no discernable WP:FRIND sourcing. A mocking article in the Wall Street Journal appears to cover the basics. However the bulk of Spanish language media cited is WP:SENSATIONAL and credulous. Could use someone familiar with Portuguese or Spanish language to sift through the drek and create a more encyclopedic article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As you wrote here, I'm coming around to see that apparently this is a big deal in Brazil. That was the key insight I gained from that AfD, and that the numerous and vehement "keep" !voters have apparently done nothing since to improve the article...well, I salute you for your determination. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just because it's notable in Brazilian pop culture, it's not a reason to keep poor sources and bad construction. Of course, if the sources were in English I could easily sort out the good from the bad. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Google Translate has become pretty good. The first paragraph of the "ET de Varginha" source is turned into this:

"20 years ago...

...at around 3:30 pm on January 20, 1996, two sisters and a friend were cutting a path through a vacant lot when they came across something that would be a strange being: short stature, thin, disproportionate head, large red eyes without pupil and iris; on the skull, three protuberances. Apparently frightened, the creature would have swollen veins over its shoulders. Thus, they described the contact with the legendary ET of Varginha, a character in the episode that helped to consolidate the figure of ET in the Brazilian imagination and still raises many doubts."

So, the Portuguese should not be much of a hindrance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the GSoW Portuguese editors said that he has done what he could in the past for this UFO page in English and Portuguese. He said that there aren't R/S in Portuguese that are critical of the incident. I've looked into my normal UFO sources, and am finding no mention of Varginha. I assume that these UFO reports are so plentiful that they aren't getting the coverage. Guess it is just wack-a-mole. At some point can't we just cite the experts who say that they have not found anything worthy of investigation, does every UFO sighting that is sensationalized by the media get to have its own Wikipedia page without criticism just because the few experts don't think it is necessary to respond to every single story? Sigh - It's frustrating. Sgerbic (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Are the existing Portuguese/Spanish language sources serious journalistic WP:RS, or are they New York Post / The Sun type tabloids...or "News Of The Weird" sections of normally serious, reliable sources...or written by guest paranormal/UFO writers? This information could help us determine if we should be using them to base article text on. Google Translate isn't enough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask @VdSV9 as that is a very good question. Sgerbic (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I added Google translation links where I could to the reference templates. I had to do something similar for foreign links in the Miss Teen International article last year. There are also some citation template parameters available dealing with translations. I have not reviewed the suitability of the cited sources. I am not a Spanish speaker so I can't help much further. 5Q5|^✉ 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation links. So far, I have found reference #4 originates from the "Bizarre Planet" section of G1 globo.com [17], a section that specializes in sensationalism and "news of the weird". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's quite the source: wonderful sketches, ufo's, secret government spooks, cows, alien creatures, intrepid ufologists, animals at the zoo dropping dead, a woman possibly impregnated by an alien...what's not to love?! I now fully understand why an editor at the AfD wrote The "incident" is still culturally and historically significant within Brazil and Brazilian culture. I particularly like the girls' description of the "crouching" alien: "there were spots that looked like veins on the skin and some bumps on the head...eyes were two red balls." Paging Dr. Freud! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

And even if a majority of otherwise sedate Brazilian media reported these claims without comment or concluded that spaceships from another planet, ghosts, psychics, cryptids, etc. were likely responsible, Wikipedia is still bound by WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:FRINGE. The national media of Brazil is, after all, a minority opinion within the context of the larger world. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Brazil where they filmed Stranger Things and Buffy? I'm thinking Brazil should start marketing this stuff and make a ton on paranormal tourism. Sgerbic (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not just Brazil. We know that pressure to increase readership and revenue can influence even the most RS. Over the years, I’ve found that a remarkable number of news sources indulge in sensational treatment of these kinds of claims, and coverage typically follows a similar structure:

• Dramatic presentation: emotionally immersive, chronological narrative of “the incident” or “the events” (often with ridiculously exact times, e.g. “at 12:47 PM…”) told from the claimants point of view. Often includes seemingly corroborating anecdotes from other people.
• Over-emphasis on anecdotal evidence: lengthy “eyewitness testimony” with lots of compelling detail (often 2/3 of the article is devoted to this).
• Conspiracy as a tantalizing option: official statements that contradict claimant narratives are subtly or overtly framed as “denials”, e.g. “the Brazilian government denies…”.
• Token skepticism (sometimes omitted or watered down): if experts offer alternative views, they are immediately followed by anecdotes from “eyewitnesses”, e.g. “I know what I saw”.
• Open-ended conclusion: i.e. “nobody can know for sure what happened”. There are many variations of this closer, e.g.“…the only thing we can know for certain is that on (date) John Doe’s life changed forever”. Or, “….today, twenty one years after the incident, 69-year-old John Doe is still convinced he experienced something extraordinary that day in June”.

You can’t blame Wikipedia editors for following the same structure when summarizing what these sources say — we are taught that if something is RS sourced then it must be given due weight. However that doesn’t mean we must be an echo chamber for sensationalism. The first thing I’d do after some of these Brazilian sources are sorted out, is get rid of “The Creatures” section, which is an uncritical treatment of extraordinary claims (bolstered by UFOlogists, no less). Rather than have separate and conflicting “he said/she said” sections, I’d start off the article body with a “Claims” section that covers the essentials of who claimed what, and weave in the statements by the Brazilian government to that same section. A pop culture/influence section can follow. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Well that sounds like you have it in hand. :-) Sgerbic (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Everything you write is, as always, insightful and correct. I will try over the next few days to help this effort by editing the article accordingly, but based upon the AfD I suspect a whole lotta Cachaça-inspired mad will be coming my way. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As I am on a long wikibreak, I didn't see the tag at the time. I'm still not back, but I just came across this. Let me add my two cents. Sorry for the delay.

A few girls were walking home in the rain when they decided to go through an empty lot as a shortcut. Someone among the bushes, whom they had not noticed until they were close by, probably turned to face them, and it frightened them. They run home, tell their mother, and somehow the story grows and grows and grows with hearsay and speculation. The "veins on the skin and bumps on the head with red eyes" thing was made up after the Alien narrative started getting traction. The girls first reported seeing "the devil", and their believer mother went back to the place and claimed to have smelled Sulphur.

The TV show that broke the story nationwide, Fantástico (Fantastic, as you all would correctly assume), has always been prone to sensational stories like this. As an example, they had broadcast the alien autopsy hoax just the year before, with lots of promotion, creepy music, tense narration and all. And it's on the largest TV station in Brazil, the one with the best standards of journalism in the country when compared to other TV stations and most of paper media as well.

There are a few of these UFO cases in Brazil, like Operação Prato and the tale of Antônio Vilas-Boas, and I have always had a hard time trying to de-FRINGE these pages, because all of the Brazilian media sources that would tipically be considered RS are very sensationalist and credulous, and there's barely, if any, skeptical reporting. Same type of trouble with spiritism stories around the medium Chico Xavier, deceased in 2002 - this con-man is the closest thing to a saint we have around here. It's one of the reasons I have decided to get away, actually. Fringe pushers keep getting their way over at pt.wiki hiding behind "I'm just relaying what the reliable sources are saying, you're the one pushing a POV". But now I'm rambling.

Sorry I can't help more. E-mail me if you think there's something I can do. VdSV9•♫ 21:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Sgerbic (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Argh, Antônio Vilas-Boas is terrible, mixing sensationalism by RS with blatant fringe sources. Coincidentally, I have been noodling with an essay on this very subject. [18]. Feel free to edit, add, revise, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikifact

Hello. I would like to share a vision for a real-time fact-checking resource: Wikifact. I hope that the project is of some interest to those who contribute to Wikipedia in this skepticism portal.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikifact

In the not-too-distant future, it may become possible for end-users to fact-check arbitrary portions of documents in word processors and Web browsers simply by selecting content, using context menus, and making use of crowdsourced, collaborative resources such as Wikifact. End-users would be able to select content from social media websites, news articles, digital textbooks, or arbitrary other documents and websites, and then open context menus providing options for exploring, e.g., fact-checking, the content.

I am hoping that more people will express interest on the project proposal’s website. I am hoping to publicize the project proposal. I am hoping to disseminate these ideas.

Please express your support for or opposition to the proposal on the project’s wiki page. We also welcome any of your comments, questions, or feedback with respect to the proposal, in particular ideas for improving it. Please feel free to share any of your ideas in our talk pages.

Thank you, AdamSobieski (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and Astrology

Editors are invited to comment at the following RfC: Talk:Astrology#RfC about short description.DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Vampire

I have nominated Vampire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-history and the Eighty Years' War

Hi folks, if anyone is interested in countering pseudo-history, there is plenty to do when it comes to the Eighty Years' War. I've recently rewritten the main articles by merging them and splitting them in several period-specific articles (see Talk:Eighty Years' War#Merger proposal if you're interested in the details), and removed a lot of unsourced, pro-Protestant, pro-nationalist, anti-Spanish, anti-Catholic, Orangist or pro-Staatse nonsense/biases etc. stuff in the process. English Wikipedia is often used by native Dutch speakers (most of them hailing from the Netherlands, like me), to write about this war, that is quite central to Dutch/Protestant history/identity/folklore etc., and their ideas about this war are sometimes still rife with outdated views, which shows when you read the texts they write. (To be honest, I used to be very susceptible to incorrect/biased information about this war as well). The kind of incorrect and misleading information that is related to the Black Legend (Spain) is still present in many texts. (Funnily enough, many people expected the Spanish Inquisition to be introduced in the Netherlands, but that never happened; it was just Protestant propaganda to make the Habsburg authorities / Catholic Church look bad through dishonest means.)

In particular, the writings of the American puritan historian John Lothrop Motley, notably his Rise of the Dutch Republic (1856), was hugely popular internationally, and especially amongst Dutch Protestants when it was translated to Dutch as De opkomst van de Nederlandsche Republiek (1857). It remains popular to this day, because Motley provides more details and writes in a more dramatic and moving way than many other books, and is therefore very persuasive. Even today, when history enthusiasts find his work on Google Books or elsewhere, and eagerly refer to it when writing a Wikipedia page here or a sentence there. But Motley was a pseudo-scholar, a pseudo-historian. As I wrote in my new article Historiography of the Eighty Years' War#The Rise of the Dutch Republic by Motley/Bakhuizen, and stated in Talk:Trial of Oldenbarnevelt, Grotius and Hogerbeets#Improvements needed, the works of Motley should be regarded as unreliable, biased and outdated. I have therefore rewritten Siege of Valenciennes (1567) and Battle of Wattrelos and its Dutch equivalents nl:Beleg van Valencijn (1567) and nl:Slag bij Wattrelos (I wrote the Dutch pages myself in 2008, also largely based on Motley before I knew how unreliable his work was), now based on better, modern, more scholary sources. There is no reason/excuse anymore to resort to Motley; his work does not comply to scholarly standards, and hence not to Wikipedia's standards.

I'm just using Motley here as an example of the kind of work there is still left to do to bring the contents about this war into balance. I myself also still have my biases and limitations, and I'm not very good at reading Spanish, so there is a lot of primary and secondary literature that I can't really access, but that we need to see a lot of things "through Spanish (and Catholic) eyes". Even my new Historiography of the Eighty Years' War, which has been a major effort to balance things out, is still largely based on Dutch- and English-language sources (a few in French, German and Spanish). If you're good at debunking pseudo-history, and especially if you can read Spanish, and see any issues in Eighty Years' War-related articles, including mine, I would love for you to get involved with my efforts to bring articles about this period into balance. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Morphic Resonance - Tyler Henry - Susan Gerbic

Well this guy just like Rupert Sheldrake before him seems to have it all figured out. I think we should all throw in the towel. [19] Sgerbic (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Even for a screed, the grammar is seriously convoluted. I’m guessing it’s a Google translation from some other language? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess my English is so bad I didn't notice how bad it was in that article. ;-) Sgerbic (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Bentinho Massaro article

Hello all,

I recently created an article on Bentinho Massaro, who may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

Any additional eyes on this article would be greatly appreciated. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

He sounds like a lovely person. Are you working on the orphan issue? Sgerbic (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

New article: Romana Didulo

With media attention recently ramping up, I created the article for "Queen of Canada" Romana Didulo. I was hoping the rest of the world wouldn't know about her, but now that the cat is out of the bag might as well put some info on wikipedia. I'll revise and do little things later today, but project members are invited to contribute. Robincantin (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Superb page Robincantin! I've been following this hot mess for a couple months at least. I was shocked she didn't already have a Wikipedia page. I fixed a few typos. Thanks for getting this done. Now we just need a photo. Sgerbic (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll make sure to snap a picture if she ever makes it to Montreal :) Robincantin (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

HA! Aren't there some CC videos out there we can pull a low rez image from? Though you taking your own personal photo and uploading it to WMC might be easier. Sgerbic (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Normal Fenton - on how WP defames and delegitimizes ...

This person and his rants against some of our awesome editors is so sad. They are ripping on @Alexbrn and @JzG, just the twitter mentions are nuts! I thought I got a lot of hate from the paranormal community. My heart goes out to Alex and JzG, it's so ugly.(Redacted) they are so misinformed with large platforms and riling people up. One of the phrases they use to talk about what they do is "coming under the narrative" which I assume means "pushing nonsense". They call Jimmy Wales "Jimmy Swales" and they were talking about how they discovered that David Gorski is a "major Wikipedia editor and it's been going on for years" which is nonsense. That dates back to when Gary Null and Rupert Sheldrake were attacking me back in the 2013's all the time, they thought Gorski ran the GSoW and was like Charley from Charley's Angles or something. Anyway, this all just came to my attention. I'm not going to dive too far into it because it's a giant rabbit hole, but just wanted you all to know this was happening. Probably going to get even more pushback on the articles associated with these people. Sending hugs! Sgerbic (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

They were also upset with my doppelganger, ScottishFinnishRadio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Sgerbic (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Wim Hof

The Wim Hof page is being turned into WP:PROMO and "how to", using the Wim Hof Method website as a source. It's not WP:MEDRS. Wim himself has edited the page before, but I don't know if the current adamant editor has a COI, but they are definitely a fan who thinks there is no question but that the method will cure all that ails you. Wim's identical twin brother has the same ability to withstand cold that he has. So, like many beauty and fitness scams, you are promised the ability to gain something that really you need to be born with. The research is mostly preliminary and proof of concept, and a few negative studies are being kept off the age. The page is not MOS compliant has a lot of not notable "stunts" and "appearances" by Wim. For instance if you watch the video where he claims to have hung from one finger, he's clearly using a device that enables his entire hand to be involved in supporting his weight. The page has too many titles, authors and technical jargon larded onto the page to make not very impressive n=1 studies seem sciencey and impressive. I'm getting tired of trying to deal with this PROMO WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, so any help would be appreciated. Remember ice baths are potentially dangerous and hyperventilation before swimming is dangerous. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing all of the trash sources would go a long way to cleaning it up, but yeah, it's pretty bad. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty bad, indeed. I also brought this up at WP:FTN. More eyes needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a good start. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I blacked out for a bit there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer listed as generally reliable at WP:RSP#Skeptical Inquirer

Hi folks, I ran into some discussions that seem to have taken place a few months ago about the reliability of Skeptical Inquirer as a source. That apparently led to an RfC in April 2022, which "establishe[d] a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy." I decided to delve a little deeper into the archives (as the historian that I am), and found that editors had drawn pretty much the same conclusions in the past, with some more details that I have summarised as follows: "Previous discussions concluded that content from Skeptical Requirer is usually considered as journalistic articles or expert blogposts that are reliable within their areas of expertise. There is editorial oversight, as articles will not be published without review, but not a rigorous peer-review process as academic journals conduct. Opinion pieces or articles written outside the author's area of expertise are not considered reliable." I added that as an entry to the WP:RSP list because users may find that helpful. Not just editors interested in skepticism that may consider whether to use this or that article from SI as a reliable source or not, such as users in this WikiProject, but also anyone who runs into an article that refers to SI and wonders whether that is a reliable source. I hope this helps people make that decision. I haven't seen similar widespread discussions about the reliability of similar publications such as Skeptic (U.S. magazine) or The Skeptic (UK magazine), but in case these arise, we could make a similar summary for them as well, depending on their respective outcomes. Note that the use of WP:RSP#The Skeptic's Dictionary, which already had an entry on this list, is more contentious, and depends on which information you cite about what or especially whom (WP:BLPSPS applies). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: I see that entries such as The Skeptic's Dictionary and Snopes.com include the phrase "As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant." Should I add that to SI's entry as well? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a good idea, so I just did that. Happy (Slap me) 14:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say that "generally reliable" isn't really what the RFC outcome was, as it specifically wasn't "generally reliable." There was a fair amount of discussion after the RFC, Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_6#Skeptical_Inquirer_RfC and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive343#Closure_review_of_the_Skeptical_Inquirer_RSN_RfC. I think you should start a discussion on WT:RSP before adding anything, especially marking it as generally reliable when that was not the result of the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

...a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy.

That could be said of literally any source that we do consider generally reliable. Honestly, the only difference I can see between that result and a flat "generally reliable" is that many editors will still object to the use of SI, despite their concerns over its reliability being unfounded. Happy (Slap me) 15:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That can be used with any source. We can use WP:DAILYMAIL properly in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. If there's an RFC that asks "Is X considered generally reliable" and the answer is anything but "yes" we really shouldn't be listing it as generally reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That can be used with any source. Yeah, that's what I just said. It's a generally reliable source, like many many others which we hold to that standard. It's also had a number of discussions over the years, as pointed out above, all of which seem to have arrived at more or less the same conclusion. Hence why adding it to RSP might be a good idea. Happy (Slap me) 20:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, not sure why this wasn't included in the archived version of the close review, but [20] was the closure of that thread, which included Moving forward, editors should evaluate the source on a case-by-case basis in line with existing policies such as WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGE, and WP:BLPRS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Hi, I was not aware that there had also been a closure review, so thanks for pointing that out. That justifies changing the description somewhat and a link to the closure review. But I don't think it will affect the GR status by adding the words 'A closure review endorsed this consensus, adding: "Moving forward, editors should evaluate the source on a case-by-case basis in line with existing policies."' (Note: the reason why the words "such as WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGE, and WP:BLPRS" weren't included in the archived version is because they were added after the closure, violating "Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.") This is in line with the description I had given, namely that "Opinion pieces or articles written outside the author's area of expertise are not considered reliable." The closure stated this as well: 'Various commenters made clear statements about use cases they saw as not acceptable - areas outside the source's area of expertise or opinion usages or specific articles later thrown into question - but those use cases apply generally to all sources.' The WP:RSP#Legend states that if 'Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise', the source is generally reliable.

Moreover, I think it was inappropriate for you to revert my and Happy's edits just because I did not cover the closure review, which at most adds a sentence and a link. The first sentence of the entry was unquestionably a citation of the consensus reached at the RfC, and by removing that, you appear not to accept the decision that was made and endorsement that followed it. You are free to discuss with others how to describe the entry of SI at WP:RSP, but you to accept the community consensus as arrived in the RfC closure, and as endorsed by the community in the closure review. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors should evaluate the source on a case-by-case basis in line with existing policies is pretty much the definition of not "generally reliable." I reverted the edits because I do not believe they describe the consensus and results of the community discussions, or respect the prior discussion about adding SI to RSP. If you want to add this to RSP, it should really be discussed first in an appropriate location, and added after there is consensus on the language to use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I invite you both and anyone else interested to join me at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Skeptical_Inquirer. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors should evaluate the source on a case-by-case basis in line with existing policies is pretty much the standard we use for any source on Wikipedia, whether unreliable, reliable, or in between. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This is just a first impression, but I must say, I am a bit shocked by the low, journalistic, quality of writing at the SI; but am not a suscriber there.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Vampire

I have nominated Vampire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. There is currently an AfD that might be of interest. Here is the link: Articles for deletion − Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Seatbelt Psychic

Well folks - there is a brand new Wikipedia page for the Thomas John (medium) TV show Seatbelt Psychic. It's written like an advertisement. Not sure how notable "Soulmate Twin Flame" actually is, but hey maybe I need to expand my news subscriptions. First thing I noticed was that citation #1 is to the article "Buckle Up- Seatbelt Psychic" article in Skeptical Inquirer, written by Marc Kreidler. Which is odd because I remember writing that article. Citation #14 is "Right Turns Only! Circling Back to Seatbelt Psychic" also from the Skeptical Inquirer written by Alexander Nicaise - no idea who that is, but again, I believe that I wrote that article. Odd.

The editor gives me one little statement in the Reviews area, but I've written extensively about the show.

I would suggest that this page be merged in with the Thomas John page, seems odd to be a standalone page. But then again I can't be counted on to remember if I published under the name Kreidler or Nicaise. Obviously as Thomas John's main critic, I can't touch the editing of the page without someone freaking out. So I leave that to you all esteemed editors. Sgerbic (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the edit screen, I see that citation #1 says that "Buckle Up" article says "Thomas John who gives guests spiritual readings during a taxi ride from the dead" the article doesn't say this! I know cause I'm not that articulate. Boy something ain't right.Sgerbic (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This citation "Soulmate Twin Flame" is incredible, I think it is multiple writing the article and it being merged together by AI and then published.[21] check this out ... "The psychic’s popularity has grown to the point that his fans have become far too gullible to believe the skeptics. In fact, many of them may have even come across experiments disproving his abilities." and "The testimonials of Thomas John are a good way to convince skeptics. The mothers of deceased loved ones state repeatedly that Thomas John knew things they could not have found online. These women even mention Facebook. The skeptics may think that Thomas John charges too much money, but they haven’t actually had a reading with him. So why are they so skeptical? Perhaps they haven’t had their own experiences." and if you look at the four paragraphs under "Thomas John" each paragraph says almost the same thing in different words.

OMG they have him born in 1932! What? Where are they getting that year? Maybe he was reincarnated???

This about Wendy Westmoreland is OMG ... I mention her in the article "Seatbelt Psychic" and that she is a part-time actress that I found on Facebook. In this "Soulmate Twin Flame" article it says this about her ... "Wendy Westmoreland, a professional psychic. ... While there is no evidence to suggest she’s a real psychic, she does have a Facebook page and is on Facebook, which may have been a factor in her appearance.". Sgerbic (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Anyone around? Sgerbic (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this weeks ago but have been busy with other things. Since then, the article looks to be severely trimmed down and all the fluff from entertainment reviews yanked out. I thought this was a pretty good short summary of the key takeaway of the SI articles. But if the article becomes inflated once again, I'd advise adding more cited critique in proportion. Re a possible merge back to the main bio, it's certainly justified, however it's the nature of pop culture that sensationalist shows like this get a lot of press hype and hence a lot of sources that could be leveraged to demonstrate its standalone notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding more to the article, it was looking pretty bare bones. I of course want more of the research I did to make it to the page and to the lead. I have more than two articles on the show and have referenced it many times in other places. Also he had another show right after on CBS All Access (so another channel) that was called "The Thomas John Experience" which I've also written about many times. I've compared it to being "Seatbelt Psychic" but sometimes he gets out of the car and hot-reads people that way. Sgerbic (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggested reading

I note here the latest (3 December) posting by Robert Sheaffer at his Bad UFOs site, which contains information relevant to any number of our favorite UFO articles on enWiki. What's that popping sound? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks JoJo I saw that pop up on social media but hadn't read it yet. Sgerbic (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah good links. Thanks. I'm waiting until the Pentagon report drops to do more research and editing on this topic. It's over a month past its due date. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Momo Challenge Hoax rewrite

Hello all. I left a rewrite proposal on Talk:Momo_Challenge_hoax#Article_rewrite (of which I wrote the first version), to provide a more coherent assessment of what happened, instead of trying to list every story and reaction from authorities. Community feedback most welcome. I think the same could or even should be done with Blue Whale Challenge, but I'll let the editors involved with that one make that determination. Robincantin (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I think when the BWC page was rewritten it was a struggle to decide how to approach it with all the stories and reactions. I think this is a good idea, esp since so much time has passed. I do see that it still gets a lot of traffic. Sgerbic (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Done! Don't hesitate to have a look, comment or just make whatever changes are needed. I had taken Blue Whale Challenge as a model when creating the article in 2018 and that was fine for a continuing story, but now that this craziness is behind us it becomes possible to look at it as an event with a beginning, spread, and an end (of sorts). That thing pretty much took over my leisure time for about six months. Can't believe that was 4 years ago. Robincantin (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Robin that looks terrific! Nicely done! Sgerbic (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Shag Harbour UFO incident

In examining this page I noted two sections, here and here, that are devoid of sources, and have been tagged for such since 2010. Before I cut them to ribbons, does anyone have any suggestions/comments about potential RS? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Since 2010? I think we spent some time looking for Shag Harbour citations didn't we? I get these mixed up. If you don't find the citations, then the whole section should probably be removed. But there must be something, maybe inside the other citations used on the page, otherwise how did the editor get the content? Did they just make it up? There aren't a lot of sources to check that already exist on the page, try there first. I'm traveling this weekend, but if you need help sorting though the cites, ping me and I'll try to help out.Sgerbic (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering - where did all that information, which is quite detailed, come from? The Dunning source (currently in the external links) provides much info, and even mentions how the Halifax Chronicle-Herald published "a series of articles" proximal to the event(s). But only one such article is currently cited on the page, which also happens to be the only one cited in Dunning's piece. My initial, superficial on-line searches haven't revealed the others, or indeed much else outside the UFO bubble, but when I have the time I will continue digging. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick update that I'm not finding any digitized archives of the Halifax Chronicle Herald for c.1967. The available on-line material for that source seems limited to reports about local UFO festivals and tours. The Nova Scotia Archives contain microfilm archives, but I won't be anywhere near Halifax in the foreseeable future. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I know anyone in that area of the world to ask, and I don't think I'll be going there anytime soon. The archives can't send it? Sgerbic (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

There's some contemporaneous coverage in Nanaimo Daily News, syndicated, I think, from Canadian Press. The Leader-Post has an article from a few days later and a brief mention from the next year. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Viktor Schauberger

• Viktor Schauberger (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Could use more detail, but I don't know if there are good mainstream sources on him. The German article uses gullible unreliable sources like Siegbert Lattacher, Mathias Bröckers, Olof Alexandersson and Martina Rodier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Well at least it isn't making grand claims, just what little we know about the guy. Probably the German Wikipedia should cut out all the unreliable sources, I bet he is forgotten, every time I've worked with German editors, they are tough with what they allow. Sgerbic (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC

Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

To explain why the RfC has been announced here: it is titled Is "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" Pseudoscientific? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope the answer was "yes". tldr. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"no consensus". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Breaking Paranormal News! I'm a Bond Villain

Just published hot off the press from Craig Weiler aka Wikipedia expert! Wikipedia and the Paranormal from the RS Paranormal Daily News. [22] Sgerbic (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just confirms my suspicions. - Roxy the dog 17:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting how a lot of these debates tend to funnel down to a few issues. Atheism v Theism debates often bottom out on the question of who has the burden of proof. Here, the question of science v pseudoscience boils down to "whose position is fringe?" Or what should be the default position? Wikipedia policy has had its thumb on the scale for scientific consensus, which is necessary because the author of the article is correct that pseudoscience, pseudomedicine and paranormal beliefs are, in fact, more popular than not. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"most notably Homeopathy, readers are treated like children, and are quite literally beaten over the head and forced to a conclusion." I'd imagine that's what facts feel like when you're Cognitive Dissonance is working overtime to deny them. Making people feel like adults while they deny the authenticity of basic science isn't and has never been the "original Wikipedia model of neutrality". Just my two cents. Dkriegls (talk to me!)

End of 2022 thoughts

For full transparency - I have written an article for Skeptical Inquirer from my perspective recounting the immense stress I went though in late 2021 and the first months of 2022.[23] As I write in the article, this is a summation of the situation written for a non-Wikipedia editor reader and completely my words. Obviously it was much more complicated than I write here, but I wanted to get my thoughts out into some sort of narrative that explains. I have no idea if other editors will find this reflection helpful, I'm sure I will not make everyone happy with my description of the events, and I'm sure you will find typos that cannot be fixed. I do know that most people are unaware of the nuances of being a Wikipedia editor and hope this explains why the GSoW project appears to have closed ranks and are no longer sharing on social media as before.

I do want to add this bit as I wasn't clear about one thing. Individuals here on Wikipedia were not exposing the personal names of GSoW editors, that would be very bad and clearly against the rules of Wikipedia. But what was happening was I would post on social media a page one of the team had written, and I would mention the editors name, often linking to their social media account, clearly bragging about the work they had completed and asking people to visit the Wikipedia page, one of the reasons for this was to encourage others to become Wikipedia editors or to help out by adding media to WMC. A few Wikipedia editors/admins would go to those posts and look at the history of the page and then know the Wikipedia user name of the now clearly identified GSoW editor and then they would add the user name to a list. That list would grow and these editors would make correlations of who other GSoW editors might be based on their interactions, talk page, history edits and they would go on the list. And sometimes getting it wrong, but still accusing people (and how can you prove you are not?).

These list makers would then start showing up on the Wikipedia pages that had been edited in the past, and users talk pages. Of course any editor is able to visit any Wikipedia page and if they see something to fix they are free to do so. But this was much more than that, it felt like stalking and it was unnerving. They would appear after having no previous relationship with the page and suddenly have a opinion on the edits, taking an ax to parts of the article they didn't feel felt "encyclopedic enough" (a common one was too many quotes). They did drive-by tagging with broad claims of "advertisement" or "resume" or putting them up for AfD mostly without any thoughtful comments on the talk page. (BTW just as an off-side I can't stand drive-by tagging - fix the frickin problem yourself - it's like when you are sweeping the room and someone says "missed a spot" but doesn't tell you where the spot is - it's just rude, use the tag sparely and with much comment when you do). Then it just got uglier and uglier. Cherry-picking though hundreds of edits made by GSoW to showcase one marginal edit and announcing it with fanfare as if they found the golden ticket.

I want to remind people who care, to remember that a human with feelings are behind each and every one of these accounts. People get things wrong all the time, it's not as if understanding the nuances of Wikipedia is so clear. So speak to them, ask questions and assume good faith.

Obviously as it is December 2022 and I'm still talking about this subject, I'm still upset and rattled. The people that caused the most stress did not receive sanctions of any kind and I heard from several senior editors/admins privately that they all knew the trouble makers were clueless, but still nothing was done to them. I hope by writing this article it helps admins understand why we lose good people and the overuse of tech terms and language creates a wall separating new from experienced editors, and it's intimidating people who are not coming to editing with a tech background. We need diversity to make the best Wikipedia possible. What we/I went though was totally unacceptable.

I do believe that we ALL are working on the most important educational project of our time, I know that most of us have the same goals, and I have enjoyed working with many of you.

I'm always happy to answer questions, so please just ask.

Susan Sgerbic (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Kudos to the transparency! It's not always easy telling your side when there is financially and religiously motivated intent to paint your narrative with a conspiratorial brush Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC):

Some rules of Wikipedia are interrupted differently by different editors. [24] "Interrupted" should be "interpreted". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Varginha UFO incident

I made some edits to that page in an effort to reduce the sensationalism just a tad. I recognize that this topic is A Big Deal down in Brazil, so please improve/correct/jettison those edits as you see fit. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Don't know if I've heard of this before. Thanks. Sgerbic (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ademar José Gevaerd also in need of help from someone familiar with Brazilian culture. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

UFO conspiracy theories

This article has plenty of problematic content, particularly with respect to sourcing. Much of what's there, however, might be notable or otherwise worthy of retention. Extra, discerning eyes would be welcome. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hoax-related deletion request

I have a pending hoax-related deletion request over at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if anybody is interested in hearing me out. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Unexplained Files

• The Unexplained Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone with access to back issues of Skeptical Inquirer add a few sentences of criticism to the article? Link here: The Unexplained Files–TV Mystery-Mongering, Stephanie Kemmerer, From: Volume 38, No. 1, January / February 2014. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure - let me take a look. Sgerbic (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Done! I removed the criticism section and replaced it with a reception section. Thanks for the suggestion Louie I didn't know about this show before. Sgerbic (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with my request. I would have done it myself, but I don't have subscription access to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch

• The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TV show makes numerous supernatural claims. Needs more analysis and critique per WP:PARITY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

David Charles Grusch, UFO whistleblower

An article was recently created for David Charles Grusch. He just made some shocking claims including that there are governmental programs which study material from alien spacecraft. Thriley (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's so annoying when people write stubs. Finish it then publish it. Sgerbic (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now. Pope's comments take perhaps a larger proportion of the article than they should, but that's because the article is so short. Robincantin (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Harrod Buhner

I created a draft for Stephen Harrod Buhner, a major figure in the Chronic Lyme disease world. Would be grateful for any help. Thriley (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay that is a brief outline - what help do you need? Everything still needs to be done with it. I don't want to edit on your draft if you are in the process of finishing up the work. Sgerbic (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m having trouble finding good sources from outside of his world to flesh out his biography. Any help with finding material would be really helpful. Thriley (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Well posting here does attract eyes to help. Sgerbic (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is blowing up on Fringe theories noticeboard. Sgerbic (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

RM Re: October surprise conspiracy theory

There is currently a discussion as to how to retitle the page October surprise conspiracy theory, which is part of this WikiProject. A prior RFC closed with a consensus to change the name of the page, but those supporting the change were roughly split between two options: 1980 October surprise theory and 1980 October surprise allegations. In a follow-up discussion, the vast majority of editors said that they would prefer either name, but a few expressed an opinion for just one or the other. As such, we are seeking wider community input. Thanks for reading!--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft on the HeartMath Institute

Hello, I've created Draft:HeartMath Institute that I think may be of interest to people here. I'm new to Wikipedia so feel free to edit it or suggest changes as I'm still trying to get a sense of the norms around here. Thanks! Chase Kanipe (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Root Cause (film)

• Root Cause (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brand new article, already with 13 cleanup tags. FRINGE content. I put a review on talk page. Please can someone clean this up? It needs a healthy dose of skepticism. Grorp (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow - thanks I'll take a peek. Sgerbic (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Witchcraft talk page

Hello everyone! There is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which focuses on women who identify as a witch, their relationships to the term witchcraft and its practices (both historically and present day, see the short descriptor for a start, ""Practice of malevolent magic"), and whether the article is neutral. Historyday01 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Need input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Vac

  (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hollow Moon

Hollow Moon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 00:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

I can't help but note that this article is written in such a way that it implies that 'witchcraft' is a real thing. The lead says nothing about the fact that witchcraft is imaginary. Skyerise (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good job contributing to the Talk page discussion, keep it up! I have no appetite for those discussions on broad concept articles. Robincantin (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm not much of a wordsmith so someone else needs to rewrite my leads. Sgerbic (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Philosophy of science

Philosophy of science has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

David Marius Guardino

• David Marius Guardino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This bio came up here on WP:FTN. An obscure psychic whose claim to fame is after-death contact with Elvis. Much crappy tabloid sourcing, but the strangely-written article contains references to 1970s-80s newspaper coverage of his legal troubles. My impression is the bio can't meet WP:BASIC, but I haven't been able to access those old newspaper stories. This may be a good project for someone with access to newspapers.com and a flair for rejuvenating bios of psychics I'm looking at you, FLotGSoWSC . - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Awfully written, layout doesn't make sense but I bet it can be fixed if I can grab at least a few key sources. I'd like to have a crack at it, give me a few days. Robincantin (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@- LuckyLouie - it took me much longer to get around to it, but it's done now! Much better, properly sourced, definitely notable. What a scoundrel. Robincantin (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Richard Saunders AFD

The Richard Saunders (skeptic) is in AFD. I added a goodly number of traditional media sources, others should feel free to add more, or improve the article in other ways. Robincantin (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What? Wow! Oh my! Sgerbic (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Richard Saunders (skeptic)#Requested move 9 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richard Saunders (skeptic)#Requested move 9 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Stambovsky v. Ackley

• Stambovsky v. Ackley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable court ruling that a house was legally haunted, written in such a way that hauntings and poltergeists are mostly treated credulously in Wikipedia's voice. Could use a copyedit if nothing else, and someone to research if WP:FRIND and skeptical sources are available for inclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Superstition, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Biosphere 2

I am uncertain if this topic belongs here, but even if it doesn't perhaps some of you can provide a comment or two. Back in the day Biosphere 2 received substantial media coverage that placed it and its principals squarely within the Weird-But-Interesting-Science category (I note that this was also around the time of the Utah cold fusion hoopla). The sense that something was a bit off, if not actually woo, with the entire Biosphere 2 project colors my memory: the huge amount of money it attracted; the sources of that money; the project goals; the eclectic collection of "biospherians;" the subsequent controversies involving methodology, the biospherians, and Steve Bannon (yes, that Steve Bannon). After the initial burst of attention it faded from media view. The other day I was reminded of it and checked out the WP article. I found an article that is quite long, relies heavily upon primary sources (including sources authored by the project's principals), and carries, to me, a decidedly promotional/endorsement tone delivered in WP voice. But...before editing the article to any significant degree I thought it would be wise to first ask some questions here: Did/does Biosphere 2 fall within the realm of 'skepticism?' Has it previously been discussed here? For those who have worked on that page, how was the experience (i.e., should I avoid the page at all cost lest I be drawn and quartered by True Believers)? Thanks in advance for all comments. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Psi hit and sheep-goat effect

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal § Psi hit and sheep-goat effect and would appreciate the assistance of this WikiProject. Daask (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - Richard D. Gill and Kate Shemirani

There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to this project. Structuralists (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Global warming controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing—Global warming controversy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Unattended article Baba Vanga

Now trending in Google. I was surprised to see that the opening sentence of the article itself began with Baba Vanga was a Bulgarian mystic, clairvoyant and seer (which I corrected), and even more shocked to know that it was as such since years. The article body is mostly about her alleged abilities, and no clarifications about her pseudoscientific claims. The Doom Patrol (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Actually the first sentence used to read as Baba Vanga was a Bulgarian mystic and herbalist, before I changed it to what reliable sources commonly describe her as. I know that being a clairvoyant, mystic and etc is not factual, but she's popularly regarded as such. I was thinking of inserting the term "reputed". The article also used to be in a much worse state when I first encountered it, since it was openly propagating fringe theories on a large scale. I also added some content that disputes the claim that she made any predictions. It wasn't easy finding reliable sources about the subject. If anyone wants to help out in the improvement of the article, they are free to do so. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

George Knapp (television journalist)

• George Knapp (television journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This bio could use a cleanup after an WP:SPA is finished adding puffery. - LuckyLouie (talk) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Keely and balance

Over the years, various supporters of John Ernst Worrell Keely have tried to whitewash the article, removing the statements about fraud, etc. This particular one, though — does it go too far in terms of false balance and neutrality, or is it okay? DS (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for List of fake news websites

An article related to this WikiProject (List of fake news websites: 645kb) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to six other articles. If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Watch list?

Is there a list of all articles in this project to add to one's watch list to be made aware that a page has been removed from the project? Rp2006 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Canneto di Caronia fires

• Canneto di Caronia fires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Caronia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An arsonist was convicted of setting a number of fires in Italy, but our article seems to give equal weight to the possibility the cause was "unknown" and could have been aliens, demons, conspiracy, or some paranormal cause. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

UFO Convention AfD

I have just nominated the UFO convention article for deletion. The conventions listed were mostly not notable and the article has become a place of clutter. Why would someone need to understand what a UFO convention is? Just make a category once you have enough notable conventions? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO convention I don't feel strongly about this article, I just dislike seeing articles that don't provide content, and not seeing reliable sources to beef up the article. Sgerbic (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sagan standard#Requested move 12 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sagan standard#Requested move 12 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SilverLocust 💬 19:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Religion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion concerning the question of religion and whether or not it is an appropriate subject for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Experienced editors are encouraged to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested input at Talk:List of common misconceptions over lede

Looking for uninvolved editors opinions on the discussion at List of common misconceptions. Conversation seems to have stalled. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The CIA and September 11

The CIA and September 11 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

David Dees article

Hey folks! I'm currently working on a draft for an article about David Dees, the conspiracy theory artist. Before I dedicate a lot of time to writing it, I wanted to gauge if people felt like he meets notability guidelines, as well as get feedback on my prospective list of sources (and perhaps see if you all have additional sources I could use).

My plan is to build off of the (sadly somewhat thin) German Wikipedia article on Dees, as well as perhaps using the (not-particularly-encyclopedic) RationalWiki article for some supplementary ideas. In terms of sources, I was planning on using Brad Abraham's short documentary Do You See What I See?, the ADL's 2008 profile on him, and Ashley Feinberg's 2015 Gawker article. The German article has additional sources listed, but I think an editor who's fluent in German or French would be necessary to most accurately cite those.

Any feedback that people could provide would be greatly appreciated! Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the (very preliminary) draft so far: Draft:David Dees. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well that is a beginning. I would think he is notable, even I've heard of him before. I'm curious why you are using Draft and not your Sandbox for work? Sgerbic (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, apologies for the late reply! Thanks for the feedback—I'll keep working with my existing sources and I think I can produce something that's at least serviceable

To be honest, the only reason I'm using Draft is because I'm new to making articles, and Draft was the option that popped up when I used the Article Creation Wizard. I imagine the drawback is that it's editable by others, unlike a sandbox? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We can edit each other's sandbox, but we shouldn't. I don't know why it looks odd to use Draft, I suppose there is nothing wrong with it, it just looks odd to me. I think that a sandbox is usually for something you are working on and intend to fuss over for awhile. But draft is something complete that you are hoping for feedback on, like a final product. Anyway, find the at least three really best citations that prove notability. Start there - otherwise you will spend a lot of time on something that will get deleted. Those three citations should be easy to locate - if you are having trouble then he probably isn't going to pass notability. I'm happy to have a look as you need help - ping me. Sgerbic (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of sources that prove notability, I have the aforementioned Gawker article, a 2010 Uproxx article in a very similar vein, the ADL article, and a Times of Israel article about the controversial use of one of his illustrations in a textbook. Think that's enough? I want the general thrust of the article w/r/t his significance to be about how his art has been widely-spread, both as an object of mockery/fascination by non-believers and as a legitimate method of spreading conspiracy rhetoric.

I also have some questions about WP:PRIMARY, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:RELIABILITY. When looking for biographical details, the main sources I've found about his life come from Abrahams' documentary, an interview appearance on some fringe podcast called The Michael Decon Program, and Dees' own self-written bio. The documentary is fairly obviously an independent source, but all of the biographical information within comes from direct interviews with Dees—should details sourced like that simply be presented at face value, or should I still preface them as being claimed by Dees. For the other two sources, I think it's fairly obvious that they're not exactly independent, being published by a fellow conspiracy personality and Dees himself respectively, but they also seem to verifiably come straight from the horse's mouth and to contain details of his life that don't seem to be found anywhere else. I'm not sure Dees would have any reason to lie about going to Emory to a random podcast host, but I can concede they're crappy sources, and so am very conflicted about including them. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to use interviews to document mundane details about themselves, such as where they grew up, what sparked their interest in that field, etc. Anything that actually related to notability - awards, employment, claims to fame - should come with an independant source. Robincantin (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Ithink -- did you make any progress with this? When I do a Wikipedia search on Dees, I find your page. Was that your intent?Ed Gracely (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (Note: from continuation of ongoing discussion at Village Pump (policy).) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)