Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Phthalates

"Rational skepticism" template was removed from the phthalates article on the grounds that this was an inaccurate category. I dispute this, and would continue this category. I assert that the claims made for adverse health affects of phthalates in the environment far exceed the scientific basis for the claims. The issue is similar to the water fluoridation controversy listed below. Would anyone want to review this article, and see what you think? Pustelnik (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Phthalates#Rational_Skepticism.Yilloslime (t) 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I feel in my opinion this Rational Skepticism template should be REMOVED from a great many articles. Wikipedia is not the Skeptical Inquirer, If I had wanted to read articles edited by SI I would go to their site, not Wikipedia. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree. they place their tag on every paranormal aricle on which they don't agree with and get angry when somebody, rightfully, deletes it. this is vandalism, and the acting users should be blocked indef! period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.54 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dowsing

Dowsing - This article needs alot of help from skeptics. Its largely presents the view that dowsing is real... and even worse, that it HAS been proven scientifically...--Dacium 10:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are probably articles on the Skeptical Inquirer's website about this topic and changing this to fit the Skeptical viewpoint would mean that the article would be changed from its original stance. Remember this is Wikipedia not the Skeptical Inquirer. We do not need to change articles simply to fit the skeptical viewpoint. Simply suggest a few word changes and it will be fine. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

School of Economic Science

I was wondering if anyone could have a look at School of Economic Science. It is a religious organasation that offers classes in philosophy, that has been accused of being a cult. I have tried to keep a balanced article, yet the page has been rewritten to exclude criticism of the school by User:Miles Dogood. This is quite frustrating, as the article does not reflect the level of controversy associated with the School :( Gareth E Kegg 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"a scientific skeptic generally ..."

"In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on critically examining claims and theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science." While this statement may be factually accurate, I believe it is POV against dissident criticism. A skeptic may also be skeptical toward mainstream scientific theories. I would argue that a skeptic must especially be critical of the mainstream, because science is a method of disputing established claims by verifying or refuting them. A scientific theory is one which can be refuted by evidence; that is the defining attribute of science. I submit that the words "scientific fact" are weasel words, because science does not establish facts, science disputes claims of fact by testing hypotheses against new evidence. Oneismany 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A skeptic can't really be against mainstream science, because it is mainstream science that is built on logic. I would rather it said claims/theories that do not fit with current scientific understanding.--Dacium 10:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Rational skeptics are skeptical about things which have no scientific evidence supporting them. If something is in mainstream science then it has that scientific evidence. Bubba73 (talk), 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And about "scientific facts" - I think science does establish facts. For instance, that the universe is expanding is a scientific fact. There are theories to explain the fact - the Big Bang theory, Inflation, Steady State, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between skepticism within science and skepticism of mainstream science. Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method, so once a scientific idea has passed through the process of scientific acceptance and moved to the mainstream, it is reasonable to assume that the idea has a large degree of supporting evidence. On the other hand, many other ideas come from outside science without having had this skepticism applied. Whenever these outside ideas make claims about the real world, it is our job to apply skepticism in an effort to test the veracity of these claims. It is in this spirit that the quoted sentence was made: "In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on critically examining claims and theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science" (Emphasis mine). While there is a place for skepticism of mainstream science, in general it has already been done; most of a skeptic's time is spent on non-mainstream scientific (or just plain nonscientific) hypotheses. JFlav 14:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's sick! So every Einstein, Galileo and so on, must be stupid guys because they violated the "logics" (as you call it) upon which the knowledge was based. Rational skepticism is group thinking. Socialistic science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.11.141 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

• Secrets of the Psychics (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Archaeological forgery

Archaeological forgery was recently placed under this project's banner. I don't really think that it belongs. Any takers? - perfectblue 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Banner was placed by me, on the basis of the article being included in the Category:Archaeological forgery, a subcat of Category:Hoaxes in science, which is itself a subcat of Category:Scientific skepticism. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism/Categories, that category is one of those with which this project deals. Having said that, I'm not necessarily sure the article is relevant to this project either. However, if that is the case, then maybe we should try to adjust the category structure so that it doesn't appear to be. Lots of articles and categories are placed in categories that are at best dubious and this might be one such. Anyway, if the other members object to the inclusion of the banner, don't object to the removal, or basically are silent I myself wouldn't object to the banner removal, although adjusting the categorization somehow might be beneficial. John Carter 16:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi attacks on this WikiProject

Martinphi is using a boilerplate to attack the members of this WikiProject. I have removed the plate three times now, and he has twice reverted me with manifestly inaccurate claims that I am vandalizing. I ask members of this community to help fight against the personal attacks of this particularly uncivil editor. See [1]. ScienceApologist 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack. I'm part of this project, and I respect it. I have observed un-rational skepticism in WP (put over as real skepticism), and the fake template is a comment on that, not an attack on any editor, nor this wikiproject. Like I say, I'm a member, so I can't make fun without making fun of myself. Even if I were making fun of it, it is in good taste, in my opinion. I'm not sure what the rules are about attacks on wikiprojects anyway. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating a template is in very poor form. I suggest, Martin, that you extend good faith and change it to a template that doesn't impersonate and mislead. If you do not, I will consider escalating the dispute process. Is it really worth it? ScienceApologist 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. I've gotten compliments on it from another member of this project -Antelan- and no one else has ever complained. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Relax SA. It's parody. Parody is a very civil way to criticize. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't relax. Martinphi has been particularly poorly behaved for some time now and has a habit of flaunting others in the community whenever he feels justified. It's the kind of attitude which tends to detract from the overall goal of making an encyclopedia. ScienceApologist 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to userspace (template space shouldn't be used for personal pages), and it's clearly a parody, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. Λυδαcιτγ 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know you could do that, I assumed that you had to have "Template:" in there before the program would know what to do with it. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, Regardless of the validity of ScienceApologist's right to remove that template, You totally threw AGF out of the window by calling him a "vandal" in the edit summaries(link 1 link 2). ScienceApologist has been contributing to this project for a long time and calling him a "vandal" is a CLEAR violation of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. You were totally unjustified in doing that. An apology is in order. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin nominated for Featured Article Review

Shroud of Turin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. PeterSymonds | talk 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about particular attribution

I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks ScienceApologist 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Third party views on Falun Gong

I added the above to RS. Of particular concern is the health section Nil Einne 07:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Several Arbcom cases over the last year or two have involved issues near and dear to this project (e.g. pseudoscience), and have generated a significant amount of controversy. For the upcoming election, Arbcom candidates have submitted statements, and users can submit questions about relevant issues to each candidate. I would like to submit a series of questions for each candidate about the relevance of WP:FRINGE and NPOV, and I'd like to solicit project members here for aid in drafting these questions. I have no plans to "personalize" these questions - that is, the same set of questions will be posted for each candidate.

Here's my proposed set of questions:

1. Do you think the paranormal case was decided correctly? Why or why not?

2. What is the specific role of Arbcom in arbitrating disputes concerning fringe theories? Should it address user conduct issues, clarify policy, or both?

3. How should advocates of fringe theories be treated when their advocacy becomes perceived as disruption? Some admins and arbitrators have indicated that both sides should be treated equally, while others have expressed the view that some behavior tolerance is allowed for editors who uphold NPOV.

Please edit, add to, or delete as you see fit. I think it's important that candidates discuss their views in this area, as more arbitration concerning pseudoscientific topics is likely in the future. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ragesoss posted a question he used in the last election that I think works very well. It involves SPOV as compared to NPOV.

Some thoughts on these proposals.

1. The paranormal case was an example of what happens when there is too little control of an arbcomm case. I don't think any meaningful decisions were actually reached in this case because of its horrific free-for-all style. I don't know if asking the question like this will elicit responses that are meaningful since the decisions themselves are so weird. I mean what is a three-layer-cake with frosting anyway?

I think the paranormal case was derailed by a couple of factors. One, the committee sat on it for quite a while, allowing participants to run amuck in the evidence and workshop pages. This disruption seems to have been successful, somehow, in turning the focus away from user conduct. Several of the current candidates have indicated that they will work to reduce the time lag from acceptance to voting, and that makes me strongly inclined to support them. Two, without naming names, I'm concerned that one of the arbitrators took an overly sympathetic view towards the subject matter. I want this to be a very open-ended question - I'm not looking for a specific answer, but I want to probe the candidates' feelings in this area without trying to lead them one way or another. Skinwalker 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2. I think that a cursory glance through the roles of arbcomm will lead most candidates to answer, simply, that arbcomm doesn't rule on content in response to this question.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'll strike this question unless I can think of a better way of formulating it. Arbcom does, however, make rulings sometimes that can be construed as content decisions - the paranormal decision has been interpreted this way by some. Perhaps a question about arbitration participants' post-arbcom interpretations would be useful. Skinwalker 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3. This is getting closer to questions I'm dealing with. I am beginning to realize that there are two factions in the great pseudoscience debates: accommodation-ists and integration-ists. I am the latter, so I'll give the argument against the former. The accommodation-ists want articles on fringe theories to be insulated from skeptical criticism in all but the lead and a criticism section creating a walled garden within articles about such subjects. Integration-ists, on the other hand, want articles on fringe theories to be straightforwardly described without any protection from potential criticism when it is deemed editorially prudent. This is a question that arbcomm might conceivably be able to decide one way or the other: Should articles have insulated "in-universe style" prose when the subject is based on suppositions which run counter to reality or mainstream thought?

ScienceApologist 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent question to add. It deals with the larger issue of criticism "ghetto-isation", but in a way that avoids a possible content statement. Still, I wanted #3 to be more along the lines of user conduct. Some admins and arbitrators have a "ban 'em all" philosophy with these type of disputes, while others recognize that editors who uphold policy are less culpable. In the paranormal decision, arbcom admonished relatively minor participants, and made sure to include an editor who was upholding policy in the admonishment, presumably to provide an unnecessary (IMO) sense of balance. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Paranormal arbitration case decision contains wording and recommendations that reflects what Wikipedia is and how it should treat these types of subjects. Rather than expect more arbitration in the future (you need two to tango....), members of this project may want to consider joining others in bringing quality editing to these articles within the recommendations of the ArbCom case, as well as within established policies. These have served us well in other controversial subjects or subjects about which strong POVs exist, and there is no reason to believe that it will not work here, or that it will need a special set of practices and/or policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Jossi, that there are so many problems with the pseudoscience and paranormal pages right now that it is almost inevitable that arbcomm will be involved in some way. There may very well never be another case accepted, but I can almost guarantee that some POV-pusher will propose an arbitration case in the future and arbcomm will have to involve itself in deciding the merits of such a proposal. Members of this WikiProject have a vested interest in making sure members of arbcomm understand the problems associated with these issues. ScienceApologist 16:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I agree with you, Jossi, that a spirit of detente should go a long way towards resolving some of these disputes, I can't agree that we can presume the absence of future arbcom precedings involving fringe science. If history is any guide, there have been ten completed arbitration cases over the last two years that directly address these issues.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] (and my personal favorite) [11] Typically there is at least one open arbitration on these topics at any given time. I think, therefore, it's really important that candidates provide their views on the relevant policies. Skinwalker 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to jossi, I think that the Paranormal rulings were deeply unsatisfactory because a) they didn't deal with the actual problem, which was user conduct, and b) they stepped way over the line into ruling on content matters, with the remarkable result that the ruling is being used as a bludgeon in content disputes by some of the same problem users whose conduct was all but ignored in the ArbCom case. I'm also not quite as sanguine about the ability of Wikipedia's policies to deal with POV-pushing on fringe or controversial topics. The policies as written are excellent, but as applied are extremely hit-or-miss. I'm basing this on my experience on a broad range of medical articles, on passive smoking, on AIDS reappraisal, on Quackwatch, etc as well as my obersvations of the "Allegations of apartheid" contretemps.

That said, I'm not sure how much these questions for potential Arbitrators will accomplish. I think we (as a community, not just this WikiProject, of which I'm not a member) should be looking for Arbs with recent real-world experience in the trenches applying policy and dealing with thorny disputes. We should be looking for folks who will recognize and deal with POV-pushing and disruption more effectively and expeditiously. More to the point, people can say pretty much anything in a Q&A... better to spend the time scrutinizing their record on Wikipedia, which I think is a far better predictor of what kind of decision-making they'll bring to the Committee. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about the adverse effects of pronouncements and decisions that should not be allowed in ArbComs. Maybe some questions related to that should also be asked. The problem of ArbComs being used to run amuck, repeat blatantly false charges, and totally assume bad faith and allow personal attacks of a libelous character, things not normally allowed, was very evident and need to be prevented in the future. Also content disputes should not be discussed or made the basis for decisions when they are side issues to the subject of the ArbCom - a user conduct dispute. ArbComs should stay on-topic. Likewise decisions related to what are reliable sources should not be allowed unless they are the main topic of the ArbCom. That did not happen in my case. Comments that have potentially far reaching consequences were improperly made by ArbCom members about Quackwatch without a proper understanding of the website or any real in-depth discussion, as would be the case if the ArbCom had been concentrated on that issue. Such important decisions should be dealt with in their own ArbComs. Since ArbComs are often what amounts to an uncontrolled kangaroo court without any concern for the protection of human rights one normally can expect in a real court of law (IOW ArbComs violate such rights with impunity), or with any protection for defendants in such cases, they need to be streamlined and controlled, using admins who are real judges in real life. Words are cheap and just bytes (NOT!), but have very real consequences in real life. Questions related to keeping ArbComs on-topic need to be made. -- Fyslee / talk 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You could mention the Sadi Carnot case as well. Or is that too straightforward a case? Carcharoth 07:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thos involved in the desicsion making process for controversial topics should be entirely independent. The should not have edited an article in that topic (other than maintenance and vandalism fighting) for 6 months and should not have been involved in any past disputes with people subject to the Arbcom. They should also not be members of any projects or groups dedicated to the topic.

For example, no member of project rational skepticism or project paranormal should be involved in an Arbcom over a paranormal topic. They should also be prohibited in editing any disputed entries (other than for maintenance) or from having any involvement with the dispute or its participants outside of the Arbcom board. This is essential to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest and no abuse of power.

Earlier this year a member of an arbitrating committee for a subject in which I was involved edited my user page, I noticed the edit about a week later and reverted it . Just over 2 hours later the arbitrator went to the Arbcom board and tried to have me officially censured. The censure demanded was among the strictest of any on the Arbcom, even though I joined the arbcom as an interested party, and was not named in the complaint being arbitrated, and even though I had voluntarily removed myself from the epicientre of the dispute. The argument that they put up was so weak that it was voted down 5-1. Their actions were clearly motivated by personal disagreement and not by the prevailing facts of the case. They therefore violated the neutrality that an Arbcom committee member should have. Thus arbitration committee members MUST be fully removed from all issues in which they are arbitrating in future. - perfectblue 10:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the skeptics need to ask this question. "Are you Skeptics upset at Arbcom because they did not vote the way you wanted them to vote, and/or because things did not go your way?"Magnum Serpentine (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to ask yourself this question: "Are all skeptics the same?" You seem particularly intent on painting everyone with the same brush. Please refrain from sweeping inflammatory generalisations. — BillC ^talk 21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Skinwalker's 3 questions

Note: I have copied them here. Antelan ^talk 06:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 1

Original

1. Do you think the paranormal case was decided correctly? Why or why not?

Proposals

This is an important topic, but I think the question needs to be narrowed in order to get a useful response. Perhaps offer several actual findings, and ask if they think these are proper. Here is my suggestion in place of (1):

1) The following are a real principle and finding of fact from a previously decided ArbCom case:

• Principle - Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing. [12]
• Finding of Fact - Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor. [13]

Are these proper decisions? If so, on what grounds? If not, why not? Antelan ^talk 06:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 2

Original

2. What is the specific role of Arbcom in arbitrating disputes concerning fringe theories? Should it address user conduct issues, clarify policy, or both?

Question 3

Original

3. How should advocates of fringe theories be treated when their advocacy becomes perceived as disruption? Some admins and arbitrators have indicated that both sides should be treated equally, while others have expressed the view that some behavior tolerance is allowed for editors who uphold NPOV.

Proposed modification 1

• How should advocates or opponents of fringe theories be treated when their advocacy becomes perceived as disruption? Some admins and arbitrators have indicated that both sides should be treated equally, while others have expressed the view that some behavior tolerance is allowed for editors who uphold NPOV. DGG (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Fylee's--below-- is better than mine.DGG (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed modification 2 (Proposed because it is of principle importance for all editors on all subjects.)

• How should editors on opposite sides of controversial issues be treated when their advocacy becomes perceived as disruption? Some admins and arbitrators have indicated that both sides should be treated equally, while others have acted as though some disruptive behavior should be tolerated for editors who uphold NPOV. -- Fyslee / talk 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, this one is a fair question. It's already been answered here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(Important) Note about Arbcom proposal

An editor has proposed that all editors who belong to this project be prohibited from editing paranormal related articles. I thought everyone here should know this due to the possible implications of every member here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It has many elements and many are problematic. One positive one would be to prevent membership in both projects, since there are problems with infiltration here by those who claim they are skeptics, but whose edit history and comments on talk pages show they are pseudoskeptics as described by Carroll: Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."

The actions of these infiltrators are consistently characterized by "skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies", quackery subjects, and alternative medicine subjects. It should be possible for members to boot out anyone who shows that their sympathies are elsewhere. They should be expected to be honest and not devious. Anyone can be skeptical, but that doesn't make them a scientific or rational skeptic. It depends upon what is the object of their skepticism. Those who are "primarily" (some skepticism is always good) skeptical of science and unskeptical about alternative medicine should not be here.

Such infiltration by skeptics in the paranormal project should likewise be discouraged. -- Fyslee / talk 06:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Refs:

• As far as I know, neither project is partisan. They are both intended to cover certain areas, not to have certain viewpoints, and so there is no "infiltration." I seem to recall that partisan WikiProjects are proscribed by policy, and I believe that they probably should be. However, as I've noted in the RfA, this particular proposed remedy has serious procedural problems, much like many other issues in the RfA, such as essentially making me a party to it in several places without notification or actual listing. --Philosophus ^T 07:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The proposal seems to take it for granted that having a POV implies being partisan, which is reality, a reality denied by unrealistci wikipolicies. -- Fyslee / talk 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that a rational skeptic could easily be interested in "improving articles about the paranormal", which is the goal of the paranormal project. Bubba73 (talk), 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but for very different reasons and with different endpoints as the objective. Deletionism and inclusionism are also factors here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That proposal is very difficult to take seriously given its length, breadth, width, scent, and flavor. Antelan ^talk 07:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I can imagine that some parts of it might get implemented. -- Fyslee / talk 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've forced my hand - I'll have to reply legitimately. Regarding your point regarding it being a good thing if you couldn't have comembership - there are many Wikiprojects that could be seen as conflicted in some sense, I'm sure. There's no reason that someone couldn't be legitimately interested in an Israel and a Palestine wikiproject (as a hotbed example). My concern with proposals of this type is that they punishe official membership in Wikiprojects. If you simply watchlisted the Wikiprojects of interest and participated as if you were a member, you could avoid all Wikiproject-related restrictions. This type of clandestine activity and factionalization is not something Wikipedia should be encouraging. Antelan ^talk 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

^ Yep. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am tired of clandestine activity and of not allowing people to openly assert their POV, or rather, punishing them if they do. Wikipolicies can sometimes do that. We need to deal with reality - editors have POV, that is fine, and they should stick to them but not allow them to prevent NPOV editing. In fact they should write for the enemy, or if they aren't good at it, at least not be deletionists of well-sourced inclusions that happen to conflict with their own POV. NPOV is supreme. -- Fyslee / talk 08:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

www.wikinfo.com ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that everyone has their own POV, and don't think that people shouldn't be allowed to state such views. In fact, I believe that hiding views can be detrimental. However, having WikiProjects devoted to particular POVs is a different matter, as they can then be said to be organized in order to push a particular POV, flood discussions, and so on. To some extent, we can prevent overfactionalization of Wikipedia by making it harder for like-minded editors to form close groups, though on the other hand, this can simply push those groups to off-wiki areas, thus making them harder to track. I'm uncertain of my opinions on the matter. --Philosophus ^T —Preceding comment was added at 08:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important to remember the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to document all notable opinions and POV. We do not concern ourselves with truth (since we all think we believe it!), but documentable opinion and POV (which should certainly include "truth", but also includes much nonsense), using V & RS, and then framing it in an NPOV manner. Since POV exists (that's reality), it is only natural that editors with those POV will be here (that's reality), and if they abide by NPOV principles, they can combine their efforts to ensure that good sources are found to document their POV, which is the purpose of Wikipedia - to document the existence of their POV (if it is notable enough). Other editors with other and opposing POV do the same and have the same right and obligation. If no deletionism of well-referenced POV is occurring, the end result should be the inclusion of opposing POV in an NPOV manner:

1. The best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "write for the enemy" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are inclusionists, rather than deletionists who exercise POV suppressionism. Collaborative editors work in a "checks and balances" relationship. This ensures that all significant POV are presented without being promoted. What could be more Wikipedian than that? It's fantastic when it works, but such a relationship is rare on controversial subjects.
2. Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must actively enable the presentation of all significant sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

The article and its talk page are the table at which all factions meet, openly declare their POV, and attempt to cooperate in a collaborative manner that ensures that their own and the other POV are included in the article. -- Fyslee / talk 08:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How can you have it so right in theory, fyslee? Unfortunately, the attitude of some editors is that NPOV requires that articles be written from the POV of an (totally undocumented) skeptical "majority." If this attitude were given up, there would be little problem in the paranormal articles. For instance, people could see that defining what a word or subject is does not constitute an admission that the thing itself exists. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on dragons starts out "The dragon is a 'mythical' creature...". The online 1913 Webster definition doesn't wait so long to reveal that dragons aren't real, as the first two words refer to that fact: "(Myth.) A fabulous animal...". The first sentence of unicorn is "The unicorn (from ...) is a legendary creature." The 1913 Webster again says "A fabulous animal...". Bigfoot starts out "This article is about the legendary creature. For other uses,...". I guess we could skip the disambig notices and go to "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a figure in North American 'folklore alleged to inhabit'...". (No 1913 Webster entry, sadly.) It seems that if the thing doesn't exist, both Wikipedia and the dictionary put that fact right at the start.--Prosfilaes 04:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And when a thing is not known to be mythical, as in the case of clairvoyance or God, WP does not state so at the start. There are levels of knowledge, and I suggest that you go over and edit the God article accordingly, as God is less likely than Clairvoyance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So the minor fact that definitions usually do include whether or not the thing is real isn't going to change your mind, is it?--Prosfilaes 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get caught in the trap. There is nothing to suggest that an encyclopedic subject needs a definition within the encyclopedia, per se. That is what Wiktionary is for. The lead serves to introduce and summarize, not necessarily define, the subject. Many encyclopedic subjects are too complex to define in a sentence, as well they should be, so a summary is as good as it may get. Antelan ^talk 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

help with conflict of interest issue

I was wondering if anyone had any advice for dealing with a conflict of interest issue. I'm editing on dyslexia related topics and have discovered that one of the editors is employed by a commercial dyslexia "treatment", manages their (many) websites that in turn recommend her book and her own website. She is quite assertive at pushing her product, slanting things in the general discussion of dyslexia to include the non-mainstreamed non-researched perspective, and yet managing to downplay competitive commercial products. Yet she has not acknowledged her financial interest but instead projects herself as a neutral expert. To make matters harder, she apparently has a background as a lawyer, and so is quite good at deflecting and turning things into an attack. Any help much appreciated--Vannin 15:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You should seek help at the conflict of interest noticeboard. For best results, collect links and diffs that support your case and post there. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In which specific articles is this happening? Doczilla 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's Davis Dyslexia Correction and Dyslexia mainly. I left a note on Vannin's talk page urging him to take this to COI/N - if he doesn't in the near future I will, since this looks pretty egregious. Skinwalker 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help on this Skinwalker and Doczilla. I have taken this to the COI/N and will follow through.--Vannin 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have commented at COI/N and you are welcome to use it on her talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the only independent source for Davis Dyslexia Correction that fits WP:V standards is a criticism article from a newsletter. If more independent sources that fit WP:V, especially on self-publication, can't be found, I recommend nominating this article for AfD. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommend followed. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Davis_Dyslexia_Correction. Doczilla 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Where I can find good quality films online

Where I can find good quality films? Can anyone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.107.209.145 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

Water fluoridation controversy really could use a few more sets of eyes. I'm currently "discussing" the placement of a subsection in the article on it's talk page here and in the immediately preceding subsection. · jersyko talk 18:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative therapy (disability)

This article seems extremely heavy on the critical viewpoint and light on the neutral and supporting viewpoints. Any ideas how this can be rectified? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

At very first blush, one problem seems that the article may be overly broad in its focus. Regarding the content itself, I haven't looked into it deeply enough to know if the article is inappropriately POV, or if it is just appropriately representing mainstream vs fringe (or if it is weighted appropriately but worded inappropriately). Antelan ^talk 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am not sure how to even suggest how to narrow its scope though. My first impression was that the article was a WP:POVFORK, but now it seems to be something else. Any input you all can give there would be most appreciated. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly related WikiProject

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Due weight for a group which would work to help ensure that our content complies with the principle of WP:Undue weight. One of its foci could definite be the so-called fringe theories, including fringe scientific theories. Any editors interested are encouraged to show their support there. Thank you. John Carter 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Séance under attack

The Séance article is being used as a vehicle (or WP:COATRACK) for attacking scepticism. An excerpt: "Such beliefs form a central core of their [sceptics'] philosophical dogma, which usually precludes any belief in the existence of spirits and they are thus as fully inarguable..." — — BillC ^talk 15:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I've removed the superfluous references to dogma in an attempt to make it more neutral, since they don't add anything to the article. --Skeptic za (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wheatgrass etc

Could someone check over Wheatgrass, Ann Wigmore and Charles Francis Schnabel? Very unreliable sourcing, uncritical view of historical background and health claims, and main editor is a SPA with a clear promotional and anti-mainstream agenda see ([14]). 86.140.107.204 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean... I'll give them a thorough going-over ASAP. --Skeptic za (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So what is a SPA? Anthon01 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Very unreliable sourcing. Please define what you mean by that? Anthon01 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative medicine, placebo effect

There is a new book about C&AM, with several chapters about the placebo effect. It will make a good reference and source of information. It has more of the early history of the term placebo than that article does, but I'm too busy to update it.

• Bausell, R. Barker (2007), Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-531368-0 {{citation}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |ID= at position 1 (help)

I've added it as Further Reading in a few obvious articles (the big ones), but it can be used in many individual article. Bubba73 (talk), 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rennes-le-Château needs your help!

Rennes-le-Château needs some serious cleanup. In particular, it has perhaps the worst cite I've seen on Wikipedia in the last few years:

"An international spiritual ascension community has formed around what is regarded by the "new age" community as a strong energy centre in the Rennes Le Chateau region causing real estate prices to have sky rocketed in recent years" -- Cited as: "this is common knowledge in Southern France - the trend can be verified with a cursory reading of net postings""

See WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE for good citation style. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested re merge of Complementary and Alternative Medicine-related articles

Comments requested at Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine#Request for Comments: merge proposal for complementary and alternative medicine articles.

To be clear - I'm not advocating for the change, just requesting formation of consensus... Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Littlewood's law

Some discussion on the Talk page of Littlewood's law from people who apparently believe that this "law" is not worthy of any serious consideration. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Steven Novella

An article on podcast host and blogger Steven Novella has been created. So far we have some good references to establish notability, but not a whole lot of content. We can use your contribution! Head over to the page and give Steve the smartly written and impeccably referenced page he deserves! JFlav (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

An important RfC

Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:

Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?.

Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Definitely an interesting discussion going on there! -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting indeed. I've weighed in already myself but if anyone else here hasn't they should. It's a very interesting question and I'm eagerly awaiting the results of this RfC :-) Elhector (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lourdes Medical Bureau

This article is mostly written by one editor and since it doesn't go into the specifics of any one case listed, has lots of talk about experts but is light on their details, does not mention any dissent and has very few sources, I'm a little skeptical. I didn't want to just slap a tag on the page, but if anyone is familiar with the organisation and its work, would you mind checking to see if the article a little one sided? In particular, why are the listed cases notable and why are the things I mentioned above all but missing? If this isn't the right place to ask for a second opinion, I apologise. Thanks for your time, Ben 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal edits

Hi, I've picked up on a significant number of recent "paranormal" edits into article about Connecticut places that may deserve some attention from this group. Please refer to this user history:[15]. Thanks!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments

I was toying with the idea of running for admin and since I often participate in discussions about paranormal and fringe topics, I was hoping to get some feedback on my editing. Anyone interested can participate in my RfC at User:Nealparr/RfC. Thank you in advance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Polyphasic sleep etc.

Hoping someone here can advise how best to tackle Polyphasic sleep (marked "may contain original research or unverified claims", "may not meet the general notability guideline" and "may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards") and Uberman's sleep schedule (marked "may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms") Related articles are Steve Pavlina, Claudio Stampi and Why We Nap: Evolution, Chronobiology, and Functions of Polyphasic and Ultrashort Sleep.

The term polyphasic sleep says what it means and means what it says, IMO. Within the last 5-6 years, the term has been adopted by people calling themselves 'the online polyphasic sleep community', initiated in an Everything2 article by a young blogger calling herself PureDoxyK; she coined the terms Uberman's sleep schedule and Everyman sleep schedule (that article was recently deleted and redirected to Uberman's).

The article Polyphasic sleep opens with a neutral description. What I'd call the weird stuff, the fad stuff, appears first under the subtitle Intentional polyphasic sleep. Thus the lead does not summarize the article. But that's the least of the problems.

I've not been editing Wikipedia all that long and I wonder if tagging for original research / unverified claims / cleanup / notability should be allowed to just stay there indefinitely. If not, what should be done here? I've already started a minor edit-war which has been reverted and died down. I recognize that that is not the way to go. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Golden plates

This article, which was a featured article.... is in a sad state. It seriously underplays that this a theory and belief and one not accepted within mainstream society and academia.

Btw and I reporting this to the right place? Sethie (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the religious dogma inherent in the plates are not accepted within mainstream society/academia or do you mean that the religion it comes from is not mainstream? Rhetth (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No... That the plates actually exist! The article does not cover any of the ways in which the existence of the plates is contested by scholars. Sethie (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So this is like Noah's ark or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? We have some documentation but no physical, observable proof? Rhetth (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. And for my taste, and quite a few others, the article is not explicit and clear enough about this.

And I will say, praise God! ;), there has been an inch of progress. Sethie (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it remains a featured article at this time and is under review Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Need more info on Rational Skepticism...

Hi, I just happen to come across this wikiproject, but after reading the intro page, I have a question about the scope of the project. Obviously NPOV and Verifiability are cornerstones, but this is not the NPOV/Verifiability Wikiproject. So is this project just focused on science/philosophical NPOV/Verifiability, or is there something deeper I am missing? Does it look out for the crazy article entries like "According to Dr. Quack, acupuncture can cure HIV/AIDS" or is it meant to ensure that acupuncture itself is not cited to have qualities which it doesn't have in the first place? I hope this make sense, and if I'm in left field on this, I'd love to hear where I've misunderstood. Thanks, --Rhetth (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

Hi all,

Though Satanic ritual abuse currently has a religion wikiproject tag at the top, I think given it's current status and page contents rational skepticism might be a good source of input as well. It's a pretty heavily referenced page, but it's also in need of some more experienced editors, calmer opinions and general guidance. Would anyone be interested in having a look? The page is locked until Feb 19th, after being locked for a couple weeks before, and there's an active set of editors discussing on the talk page (with middling civility). WLU (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU, while rational (and POV) scepticism is present on the SRA page, the "current status and page content" reflects basically mostly your own position, don't you think? Because it was you who changed the page as soon as the block was removed. Posting it here might be a way to get some editors to support your position, but do you really think that, given the many sources and quotes others can provide, that you need support of other editors for a position you yourself cannot hold? Do we need more people shouting that at least they themselves have not seen any evidence not have they seen any of the sources cited and as long as they themselves have not seen it, they have reasonable doubt and grounds on which to revert any edits of editors who very much strife to keep it safe and sourced? Just asking. --Gwyndon (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• the "current status and page content" reflects basically mostly your own position, don't you think?

No: the current page doesn't still give due weight to the majority (skeptical) position among sociologists and criminologists.

• but do you really think that, given the many sources and quotes others can provide, that you need support of other editors for a position you yourself cannot hold?

Yes: because one pov pusher who believes in fringe nonsense like Michelle Remembers has had the habit of reverting without consensus.

• Do we need more people...

We do need a RFC of the Wikipedia skeptical community on this page.

—Cesar Tort 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Several of the 'pro' SRA are borderline single purpose accounts while I at least maintain a fairly lengthy watchlist that takes a significant amount of my time on wiki - the amount of time I have is divided by the number of pages I edit, leaving little time to review sources and add. Abuse Truth in particular (and Biothantoi to a lesser extent) edits pages related to abuse, with a very definite POV and purpose - to push the idea that abuse is a very bad thing and that anybody who says they have been abused must have been abused, and that all abuse allegations are automatically excellent evidence of abuse. AT is very knowledgeable of one side of the literature and edits only towards that one side. Though civil, this ends up skewing pages out of NPOV and towards a very, for lack of better term, credulous POV. Rational skeptics would a) have a better grasp of skeptical topics in this area, as well as the recovered (i.e. induced artificial) memory research which touches and b) social phenomenon such as alien abduction, bigfoot, and other 'contaigen'-type social phenomenon which receive little scholarly input but lots of popular attention. Finally, if none are interested, none will show up. If some are interested, they'll probably be motivated, experienced, knowledgeable editors who will be able to provide input. Either the page will be improved, or nothing is lost. Hence a net gain. The page attracts a lot of fringe attention and is quite exhausting. The little group of editors is starting to strongly polarize and views are being crystalized which don't help the page. Fresh input is a good thing and hopefully skeptics will rely on evidence and reliable sources to justify their edits and to help mediate. As is, it is getting harder to edit and discuss civily and I'm getting quite frustrated. It's now becoming an effort to hold back my, ahem, less nuanced opinions and as I'm one of the more towards the center editors (not far, but at least I'll acknowledge that there is pro-SRA exists literature) I could use some help. I'm willing to write for the enemy, but my patience is running thin. Feel free to bring this up at another wikiproject if you'd like or otherwise comment.

A note to Cesar - please remember to comment on content, not editors. If the skeptical position is to be given its due weight, skeptical sources of the most reliable kind need to be found and added to the page. I've gotten several books out of the library with this in mind, and will try to read through them. A source is worth a thousand characters on a talk page. WLU (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ok. I purchased professor David Frankfurter's academic book on SRA, Evil incarnate. If you need input from this RS, just ask me. —Cesar Tort 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment better placed on SRA, or simply used to add content to the page. WLU (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page. I am a member of the Religion project, and I think of this project as well. I regret to say that my schedule is kind of busy right now with other things, but will try to add such material or information as I can. It should be noted however that the banner is actually for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Left Hand Path work group, which deals with Satanism and related beliefs, and I have every reason to believe that the members of that group are very skeptical of many of these claims, as I am. Like I said, I may not be able to contribute much directly, but I do remember the panic about SRA a few years ago and have a definitely skeptical opinion on most of the claims. John Carter (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The page itself is a lot shorter, but the talk page grows daily and vigorously. Welcome, if you do end up participating. One of the points I would make is that I don't believe the SRA panic, or most ritualistic abuse cases, are really related to the official Church of Satan. SRA refers to old-school satan, the actual devil and sacrifices designed to bring him to earth (if you believe the more extreme claims). Anyway, input is appreciated, but not as much as sources! Or input on sources as well... WLU (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• "I regret to say that my schedule is kind of busy right now with other things, but will try to add such material or information as I can."

It's not so much a matter of adding info but of preventing an user from his nasty habit of reverting without consensus. He has just re-added +36,000 bits of info that we had agreed to move to another article. Now we have content fork articles. What can be done with this sort of behavior? —Cesar Tort 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove the material deleted by consensus, and drop a notice to the editor involved about 3RR. I'm a new admin and have never actually done a protection myself, so I feel uncomfortable about protecting the page myself without a formal request. However, I've revived a thread at the Fringe theories noticeboard and have added a comment on the talk page of the Psychology WikiProject as well, so there should be a bit more neutral, objective input on the article shortly. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to the Fringe noticeboard. WLU (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why this entry was published on this project's notice board, but not on the Project Paranormal noticeboard? - perfectblue (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

??? - 66.30.77.62 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

cool template

Here is a quality template. This can be added to many articles related to skepticism. Any suggestions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go to WP:NAV and create this as an actual template. If this gets posted on many articles, it will make editing it easier as you will only have to do it in one place. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This page needs some work from skeptics:

Ussher_chronology No really any mention of the real scientifically accepted chronology.--155.144.251.120 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Orthomolecular medicine

See Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Request for comment on the attribution of criticism in the lead, all comments welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Interdimensional Creatures

Just a quick check to see if this has project backing....

Would I be right in saying that there was a project consensus that the idea that "ghosts, aliens and things that go bump in the night are creatures from other dimensions that are crossing over into our dimension" should be treated in the same manner ask David Ike's alien lizards, rather than as hard science?

perfectblue (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, but I would say that context is the missing clue here. Some examples: if, in some abstruse context, it appeared that these were plausible ideas, then there should be a mention explicitly stating that these are not actually real. If they are clearly being mentioned within the context of a book or an explicitly fictional television series that does not mimic a documentary (like Lost, not What the Bleep), then there is no reason to emphasize the scientific aspect. Does this make sense? Basically, if someone is passing off imaginary things as real, this should be corrected; if someone is passing off imaginary things as imaginary, there is no need for correction. Is there a particular subject or article you're thinking of here? You're probably thinking of something concrete, so my answer in the abstract may not be all that helpful. Antelan^talk 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelan: Thanks for your intelligent post.
"The" problem here is that a horrifyingly large percentage of contemporary people have no functioning "baloney detector" to speak of ( http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html ), and in addition are completely ignorant of everything except pop culture. In other words, many people are unable to figure out for themselves whether things are being passed off as imaginary or as fact.
Examples:

• "British youths think Churchill went to moon" ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/22/challenge_churchill_oh_yes/ ) (survey also found "a third of kids expressing the belief that Earth is not officially a planet.")
• 24% of people polled stating that the Sun goes around the Earth, etc. ( http://genefinding.blogspot.com/2008/01/latest-survey-on-public-knowledge-of.html ) -
• The discussion at Talk:10,000_BC_(film) on whether that article should mention scientific inaccuracies in that film.

Wikipedia is supposed to be, essentially, a collection of true things. If we don't very explicitly tell people, "This is true; that is untrue; this other is fantasy", very many people will not be able to figure these things out for themselves.
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Writtenonsand: Sorry, but that debate has already been closed. Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable things. This is stated in the policy WP:V which is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. It has also been decreed by ARBCOM that the dividing line for scientific V unscientific is "framing" and verifiability. This means that you can write about "baloney" so long as 1) you can verify the existence of said baloney in a third party source, and 2) You put the baloney in a clear context. For example, you can write about a serial killer found in an urban legend so long as you can prove that the legend actually exists and so long as you state clearly that the killer is from an urban legend and is not a real serial killer. The same Arbcom ruled tat using terms such as Myth, legend, and so on are sufficient framing to tell people that you are not talking about a real thing that you could find in the history books but rather a real myth or a real legend that you could find in the folklore section of your local library.

Moving on to your example of the debate at Talk:10,000_BC_(film). This one is simple: Wikipedia regs (specifically WP:V and WP:OR) state that in order for you to include something a third party must have written about them in the current context. This means that a Wikipedia editor can't look in a textbook and find elements where the film diverts from reality. Instead somebody else must have done it, and that somebody must specifically be referencing that films. For example, you couldn't write a criticism section for the film Superman 3 which criticized Superman for being an outmoded male stereotype and then source it to a film critic whom was talking about Superman 2.

Put simply, in order to point out the scientific errors in the film (I haven't seen it so I can't comment on it) all that you have to do is to find evidence that somebody of note has found some inaccuracies, and then cite them.

perfectblue (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your baloney detector. The first three issues that you raised aren't so much to do with people being able to tell fact from fiction, but are more to do with the fact that the British school system has a very poor record for teaching British history because the government there has this fetish for "multiculturalism" which is short hand for being afraid that if it teaches too much about Britain and British history it might disenfranchise immigrants and children of immigrants. Most British children couldn't name their last three monarchs or sing their own national anthem.

Some of the questions on that survey were also somewhat loaded because it purposefully used many names that have pop-culture symbolism. For example, in Britain Mars and Churchill are two well know brand names. Equally, the survey was an online pole for children aged 6-14. It was conducted by Walt Disney on the website of their Jetix channel.

perfectblue (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the point

OK, context, context, context.

Let me provide an example.

There is a modern myth about a monster/ghost/specter of some sort. It has been verified to a reliable source as being an existing myth (The myth is real, the creature is not. This is not in dispute). Notability has been clearly established (this is also not in dispute). The entry has been correctly framed by its introduction, which describes it as a creature from modern myth (It is made clear that it is "baloney").

One variation on the myth says that the creature is from another dimension, and that the site where it is supposed to live is a nexus that allows it to wonder in and out of our dimension more or less randomly.

The question is "is there a consensus that, because this is an unreal creature, the fact that it is said to come form another dimension should be treated as something that is also unreal, and not as an issue of serious physics?".

perfectblue (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it would hurt to add in a sentence saying that this doesn't jibe with the current understanding of physics. On the other hand, if the sentence was more along the lines of "Within this myth, a monster comes from another dimension," there might be less need to talk about physics at all, though. Antelan^talk 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Covered?

Came across your project on another page and wondered it any of these might fall under it.

• Bullshido
• Bullshido.net
• McDojo

Thanks --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Users who are interested in the article can make contributions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting It: The psychology of est is up at WP:FAC

Getting It: The psychology of est is up at WP:FAC, comments would be appreciated. FAC discussion page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est. Cirt (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The FAC nom for this was restarted. Comments would be appreciated at the FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Chiropractic re effectiveness of chiropractic care

Please see Talk:Chiropractic#RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care. Comments are welcome; please see Talk:Chiropractic#RfC: Comments on claim of bias and proposal for fix for comments so far. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator

No balance whatsoever. There are various meta-analyses and properly run studies that show how this therapy is useless for various issues, and while there are positive ones they're usually of pretty low quality, or meta-analyses relying on studies of low quality. In any case, some balancing and less how-to/advocacy is needed. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Wyllie

This is an article started recently, but the original editor has now left, and needs a lot of work. From what I gather he has published information on "non-human intelligences" such as angels. Would this fall under the remit here? Paulbrock (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

your multiple tagging of articles

you can't place your project tag on every article which you don't agree with. since when do single persons decide, on wiki, if a aricle shall be the "playground" for you skeptics?! this is what _I_ call vandalism. examples are articles which are related to the ufo phenomena. this is not your personal playground nor the skeptic inquirer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.54 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This project is dedicated to improving articles related to the subject of rational skepticism. As such, the project tag is placed on articles having to do with rational skepticism. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems you are pasting your template everywhere. And what is an improvement for you can be considered vandalism by others, especially if you edit the meaning of the article so that it falls lock step in behind the Skeptical Inquirer.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

it isn't "vandalism" by any stretch, but driveby article tagging can indeed be disruptive. Remember that you can also improve articles without owning them, and without decorating their talkpages first. dab (𒁳) 10:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Cuozzo article in need of some skilled editing

Please help me try and figure out what to do with this big ole mess of an article! ThanksLiPollis (talk)

The simple answer is WP:AFD per WP:NOTE. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism certainly is one way to approach problematic articles but not often the best way. If we were to delete all articles about Young Earth Creationists and/or other fringe belief promoters, we might give the false impression that they don't exist. The fact they DO exist is all the more reason to make certain that articles about them are as factually accurate as possible, written clearly and contain appropriate mention and citations for criticisms of their views. By balancing articles in that way, you arm the reader with information rather decide for them that the topic is something they shouldn't be exposed to. It's the same thing with Holocaust deniers and Moon Landing Hoax proponents - let their stated beliefs speak for themselves and readers can then judge them for themselves. I am always astounded when other Skeptics suggest the best way to deal with fringe beliefs and their promoters is to make them disappear or argue them off Wikipedia as if that will somehow make them go away. Those are the hallmarks of Pseudoskepticism, an outlook that bears a strong resemblance to orthodox religions and one I would hope rational skeptics would seek to avoid.LiPollis (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but even Holocaust denail and Moon Landing articles need to meet at least base standards for notability per WP:NOTE. I don't see anything that this orthodontist has done that places him in a category of a biography notable enough for inclusion. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAR for article Dianetics

I have listed the article Dianetics for Good article reassessment. Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dianetics/1. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Abduction phenomenon needs more cites for balance

Abduction phenomenon is tagged as being improved by this WikiProject. The article has dozens of cites, but they're almost all from contributors to Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference. Anybody have any other good sources relevant to this subject?
(Obviously, edit at Abduction phenomenon -- I'm not just looking for comments/feedback here on this page.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion issue

A new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also one now asking whether Cold fusion can be categorized as a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 713 articles are assigned to this project, of which 366, or 51.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We have a lot of pretty fringey articles that attract, er, unverifiable edits so the cleanup count will probably always be somewhat high, but over half seems a little silly. I can put in this request next week if nobody objects. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does not look borked. List will be here when populated, and is linked on the main page. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Item for Consideration?

Rational Skepticism looks like an interesting topic with lots of high priority items that I'll consider commenting on as I'm a skeptic by temperament and rational by training.

I've got something to suggest to this group with a relatively low priority, namely, an article that currently exists on Wikipedia concerning so-called "wilderness diarrhea," which is among other things, a pseudo-category of medicine.

The topic is the subject of much folklore among backpackers. There is a fair bit of research that makes clear that a good bit of the issue is based on confusion and hysteria. I think the item as it currently stands on Wikipedia, could benefit from the attention and input of a few experienced, skeptical editors. Calamitybrook (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It helps if you link to the article. Here's the link: Wilderness diarrhea. I had never heard of this before but I'll look into it. If there is in fact, a fair bit of research, you could help out by citing it and/or linking to the research you would like us to use in the article.Thanks.LiPollis (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NLP: deletion discussion

Please consider assisting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLP Modeling. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some existing articles - opinions?

While I've been editing wikipedia for quite a while, I've just joined this wikiproject after stumbling upon it by accident. I'm trying to get a feel for the scope of articles generally considered appropriate here. Here are a few perpetual motion related articles that I think might be appropriate to tag, and I'd like to get some opinions on whether others think that they are in scope or not. Obviously, feel free to tag any that you think are unquestionably in scope:

• Free energy suppression
• Gasoline pill
• History of perpetual motion machines
• Motionless electromagnetic generator
• Oxyhydrogen
• Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy
• Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell
• The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman
• Water-fuelled car

Thoughts? --Athol Mullen (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion debates

Members of this project may be interested in the articles that have been nominated for deletion mentioned at this section of WP:ANI. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Spencer Carr

If someone's interested, Robert Spencer Carr might be a nice article to expand. Right now, pretty much all it says is about his science fiction writing, but [16] talks about his originating a lot of details for the modern UFO myth. I have to save it for someone with more time and hopefully more knowledge about at least the surrounding concepts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC on reliable source guidelines for medicine-related articles

There's an RfC open here about a proposed guideline for choosing reliable sources in medicine-related articles. In general, the guideline prefers up-to-date secondary sources (i.e., reviews) published in refereed scientific journals and recent medical textbooks. This RfC may interest some members of this project because of this project's work in some medicine/alternative medicine articles, and because it might (I suppose) someday be used as a model for a more general "science" RS guideline.

I thought I'd publicized it enough, but the most recent response indicated otherwise. His user page says he's a member here, so I'm spamming this notice to you all as well. In the WPMED tradition of providing perhaps excessive opportunities for community-wide comment, we've {{proposed}} it as a guideline and opened a policy/guideline RfC, as well as making a few announcements. The views of all interested editors are welcome and wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

Due to its relation to this project within WP, members might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Rational Skepticism

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exclude Cochrane and similar reviews from Chiropractic?

It's been suggested to exclude Cochrane Collaboration and similar medical reviews from Chiropractic on WP:OR grounds. Comments are requested at Talk:Chiropractic #Request for Comment: Excluding treatment reviews. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard good article reassessment

L. Ron Hubbard has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasty generalization

The definition of a Hasty Generalization would seem to preclude scientific study. For instance, the Polya conjecture example might indicate to some readers that a generalization is hasty if it holds for 906150256 entities, but not the 906150257th, even if the 906150257th hasn't been investigated yet. This would indicate that we can reasonably make no conclusions, for instance, in the evolutionary biology, because the 906150257th fossil might be a human skeleton in Jurassic rock. This is probably not what the article intends to state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HorridRedThings (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alien autopsy needs review

Alien autopsy is IMHO surprisingly bad. The overall tone of the article is, "Although scientific and medical experts as well as the makers of the films themselves state that the films are hoaxes, the question of their authenticity remains open." I think that this violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and especially WP:WEIGHT. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Double-nosed Andean tiger hound. Hoax?

We have an article Double-nosed Andean tiger hound. Seems to me that that's very likely a hoax. (Article cites a BBC photo of a dog with a "double" nose, but I've never heard of a "double-nosed" breed.)
Is there anything constructive that can be done with this? (Note, I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs on this to see if anybody there does have any reliable source.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Firewalking needs review

Could people please take a look at Firewalking? Contains various statements that IMHO need to be tweaked a little. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Any part in particular? After a quick read-through, it seems fairly well explained. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Aura as pseudoscience

I don't know if it is either way, it seems more like newage religious mumbojumbo than anything, but if anyone knows of any sources stating it one way or the other it would be appreciated Talk:Aura_(paranormal)#Aura_is_Pseudoscience.3F.3F 24.76.161.28 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Flying monkeys in Tennessee, USA

Believe it or not, we have an article Harpeth Hills Flying Monkey Marathon which claims that

"mythical Harpeth Hills Flying Monkeys ... are reported to live in Percy and Edwin Warner Parks in Nashville [ Tennessee, USA]. According to the legend, the flying monkeys, named the after the geologic region where they reside, are an endangered species and are only rarely seen by humans."

This is complete crap, right? Made up only to advertise this race? Anybody want to do anything with this? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty odd. It was totally a copyright violation though, ripped right off the race's page, so I've scrapped it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it may have been totally made up to promote the race. the current legend told in the reference used was certainly not very reliable. It looks like there could be a basic colonial myth under it that is suffering from some serious damage from a agame of telephone amongst college athletes.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Effective microorganisms

There is a oddly phrased article at Effective microorganism that seems a bit unclear on whether it is NPOV or sourced correctly. Thought this project might like to be made aware of it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10