Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Skepticism: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:41, 22 October 2008 editConsumed Crustacean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,320 edits →Flying monkeys in Tennessee, USA: scrapped← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:32, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,268 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 11) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{talkheader}}
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive nav}}
|maxarchivesize = 256K
|counter = 11
|algo = old(64d)
|minthreadsleft = 5
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{oldmfd|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism|date=], ]}} {{oldmfd|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism|date=], ]}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Skepticism}}
}}
{{Shortcut|WT:SKEPTICISM|WT:SKEPTIC}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Skepticism/Nav}}


{{archive box| {{archive box|
Line 6: Line 19:
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
;Historical
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
|search=yes
}} }}

==Phthalates==
"Rational skepticism" template was removed from the ] 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 ] listed below. Would anyone want to review this article, and see what you think? ] (]) 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
:See discussion at ].] ] 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. Misplaced Pages is not the Skeptical Inquirer, If I had wanted to read articles edited by SI I would go to their site, not Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 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! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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...--] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

== School of Economic Science ==

I was wondering if anyone could have a look at ]. 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 ]. This is quite frustrating, as the article does not reflect the level of controversy associated with the School :( ] 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 ], because science does not establish facts, science disputes claims of fact by testing hypotheses against new evidence. ] 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.--] 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. ] ], 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. ] ], 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. ] 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Proposed deletions ==

<!--''no articles are ] at this time''-->
*{{prodded|Secrets of the Psychics||}}
:: --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Archaeological forgery ==

] was recently placed under this project's banner. I don't really think that it belongs. Any takers? - ] 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:Banner was placed by me, on the basis of the article being included in the ], a subcat of ], which is itself a subcat of ]. As per ], 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. ] 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 ]. I ask members of this community to help fight against the ] of this particularly uncivil editor. See . ] 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. ——''']'''</span><sub> (] Ψ ])</sub> 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::Impersonating a template is in very poor form. I suggest, Martin, that you extend ] 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? ] 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. ——''']'''</span><sub> (] Ψ ])</sub> 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:Relax SA. It's ]. Parody is a very civil way to criticize. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 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. ] 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. <b>]</b> 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 (: ——''']'''</span><sub> (] Ψ ])</sub> 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(
). ScienceApologist has been contributing to this project for a long time and calling him a "vandal" is a CLEAR violation of ], ], and ]. You were totally unjustified in doing that. An apology is in order. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

==Shroud of Turin nominated for Featured Article Review==
] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. 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 ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. ] | ] 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

==Discussion about particular attribution==

I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at ]. Thanks ] 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

==]==

I added the above to RS. Of particular concern is the health section ] 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 ], Arbcom candidates have submitted ], 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 ] 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 ] 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, ] 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

::] 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. ] 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 <i>can</i> 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. ] 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 ] 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?
::] 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, ] 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Paranormal arbitration case decision contains wording and recommendations that reflects what Misplaced Pages 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. ] <small>]</small> 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. ] 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. (and my personal favorite) 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages'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 ], on ], on ], 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 Misplaced Pages, which I think is a far better predictor of what kind of decision-making they'll bring to the Committee. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You could mention the ] as well. Or is that too straightforward a case? ] 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 , I noticed the edit about a week later and . 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. - ] 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?"] (]) 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. &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

==Skinwalker's 3 questions==
''Note: I have copied them here.'' <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 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.
*'''Finding of Fact''' - Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.
Are these proper decisions? If so, on what grounds? If not, why not?
<font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 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.

:<s>'''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. ''']''' (]) 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</s> Fylee's--below-- is better than mine.''']''' (]) 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

::Now, this one is a fair question. It's already been answered . ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

==(Important) Note about Arbcom proposal ==

An editor . I thought everyone here should know this due to the possible implications of every member here. ] <sup>]</sup> 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"<ref name=SI>'''' website</ref> puts on critics of paranormal investigations, ] of the ]<ref></ref> 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 criticisms of paranormal studies."''<ref name=carroll>] "." '']''</ref>

: The actions of these infiltrators are consistently characterized by "skepticism of critics and 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Refs:
{{reflist}}
::* 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 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. ] ], 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That proposal is very difficult to take seriously given its length, breadth, width, scent, and flavor. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 07:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

: I agree, but I can imagine that some parts of it might get implemented. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 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 Misplaced Pages should be encouraging. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:::^ Yep. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::www.wikinfo.com ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] <sup>]</sup> <small>—Preceding ] was added at 08:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It is important to remember the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages - 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:

#<u>''The best articles''</u> are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "]" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are ], rather than ] who exercise POV ]. Collaborative editors work in a "]" 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 ].
#<u>''Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy must not be misused''</u> so it becomes synonymous with ], ], ], or ]. Editors must ''actively enable'' the presentation of ''all'' significant sides of any ]. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Misplaced Pages 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. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 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. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

::Misplaced Pages's article on ]s 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 ] is "The unicorn (from ...) is a legendary creature." The 1913 Webster again says "A fabulous animal...". ] 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 Misplaced Pages and the dictionary put that fact right at the start.--] 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. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 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?--] 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. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 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--] 15:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:You should seek help at ]. For best results, collect links and diffs that support your case and post there. Cheers, ] 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::In which specific articles is this happening? ] 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Looks like it's ] and ] 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. ] 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.--] 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
::::: I have commented at COI/N and you are welcome to use it on her talk page. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the only independent source for ] that fits ] standards is a criticism article from a newsletter. If more independent sources that fit ], especially on self-publication, can't be found, I recommend nominating this article for AfD. ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
:Recommend followed. See ]. ] 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? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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 ] and in the immediately preceding subsection. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 18:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
This article seems extremely heavy on the critical viewpoint and light on the neutral and supporting viewpoints. Any ideas how this can be rectified? -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 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). <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 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 ], but now it seems to be something else. Any input you all can give there would be most appreciated. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

== Possibly related WikiProject ==

There is now a proposal at ] for a group which would work to help ensure that our content complies with the principle of ]. 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. ] 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] under attack ==

The ] article is being used as a vehicle (or ]) for attacking scepticism. An excerpt: "Such beliefs form a central core of their philosophical dogma, which usually precludes any belief in the existence of spirits and they are thus as fully inarguable..." — &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 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. --] (]) 09:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

==Wheatgrass etc==
Could someone check over ], ] and ]? 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 (). ] (]) 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Very unreliable sourcing. Please define what you mean by that? ] (]) 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 ] than that article does, but I'm too busy to update it.

* {{citation
| last = Bausell | first = R. Barker
| year = 2007
| title = Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine
| publisher = ]
| ID = ISBN 978-0-19-531368-0
}}

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


==] needs your help!==

] needs some serious cleanup. In particular, it has perhaps the worst cite I've seen on Misplaced Pages in the last few years:

<blockquote>

"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"'''"

</blockquote>

See ] and ] for good citation style. -- ] (]) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Comments requested at ].

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


== ] ==

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

== ] ==

An article on ] and blogger ] has been created. So far we have some good references to establish ], 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! ] (]) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

==An important RfC==

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

].

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

] (]) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up. Definitely an interesting discussion going on there! -- ] (]) 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 :-) ] (]) 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

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, ] 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:.
Thanks!--] (]) 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 ]. Thank you in advance. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] etc. ==

Hoping someone here can advise how best to tackle ] (marked ''"may contain original research or unverified claims"'', ''"may not meet the general notability guideline"'' and ''"may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards"'') and ] (marked ''"may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms"'') Related articles are ], ] and ].

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 Misplaced Pages 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, --] (]) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


==]==

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? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
:::So this is like ] or the ]? We have some documentation but no physical, observable proof? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:BTW, it remains a featured article at this time and is under review ] (]) 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, --] (]) 03:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi all,

Though ] 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). ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 '']'' has had the habit of reverting without consensus.

*''Do we need more people...''

:We do need a RFC of the Misplaced Pages skeptical community on this page.

:—] 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. ] (]) 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. —] 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
::::A comment better placed on SRA, or simply used to add content to the page. ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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... ] (]) 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? —] 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. ] (]) 14:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::]. ] (]) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

==The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview==
''What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Misplaced Pages report on pseudoscience?'' Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Misplaced Pages, ] and ] will go head to head on the subject of '''Misplaced Pages, Science, and Pseudoscience''' in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of ]. ] will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at page. ] (]) 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? - ] (]) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

::: - ] (]) 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

== cool template ==

{| class="navbox collapsible autocollapse" style="margin:1em auto;"
! style="background:darkgray; text-align:center; font-size:larger" | <font color="white"> '''Related topics'''</font>
|-
! style="background:#d9d9d9; text-align:center; font-size:larger" | ''']'''
|-
|] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ]
|-
! style="background:#d9d9d9; text-align:center; font-size:larger" | '''Concepts and methods'''
|-
| ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ]s | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ]

|- style="vertical-align: top;"
! style="background: #d9d9d9; text-align: center; font-size: larger;" | '''Phraseology'''
|-
|] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ]

|-
! style="background:#d9d9d9; text-align:center; font-size:larger" | '''Organizations and resources'''
|-
| ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ]

|}<!--reference: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/responding.htm -->

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

: Yes, go to ] 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. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== This page needs some work from skeptics: ==

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

==RfC on ]==
See ], all comments welcome. ] (]) 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?

] (]) 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. <font color="#0000b0">]</font><sup><font color="#b00000">]</font></sup> 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelan: Thanks for your intelligent post.
<br>
"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.'''
<br>
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 ] on whether that article should mention scientific inaccuracies in that film.
Misplaced Pages 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.
<br>-- ] (]) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

::]: Sorry, but that debate has already been closed. Misplaced Pages is a collection of verifiable things. This is stated in the policy ] which is one of the founding principles of Misplaced Pages. 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 ]. This one is simple: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

] (]) 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.

:::] (]) 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?".

] (]) 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. <font color="#0000b0">]</font><sup><font color="#b00000">]</font></sup> 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

== Covered? ==
Came across your project on another page and wondered it any of these might fall under it.
*]
*]
*]

Thanks --](<sup>]</sup>''/''<sub>]</sub>) 10:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

== Richard Dawkins FA ==

Hello. I have nominated the article ] 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, ] (]) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

== ] is up at ] ==

] is up at ], comments would be appreciated. FAC discussion page is here: ]. ] (]) 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:The FAC nom for this was restarted. Comments would be appreciated at the FAC discussion page. ] (]) 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

== RfC on ] re effectiveness of chiropractic care ==

Please see ]. Comments are welcome; please see ] for comments so far. ] (]) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

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. ] (]) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

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? ] (]) 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 10:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

==] 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! Thanks] (])
: The simple answer is ] per ]. ] <sup>(])</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages as if that will somehow make them go away. Those are the hallmarks of ], an outlook that bears a strong resemblance to orthodox religions and one I would hope rational skeptics would seek to avoid.] (]) 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 ]. I don't see anything that this orthodontist has done that places him in a category of a biography notable enough for inclusion. ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

== ] for article ] ==

I have listed the article ] for ]. Input would be appreciated at ]. ] (]) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

==] needs more cites for balance==

] 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 ] sources relevant to this subject?<br>(Obviously, edit at ] -- I'm not just looking for comments/feedback here on this page.) -- ] (]) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

==Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme==

As you ], we at the Misplaced Pages 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 ].
*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 ], 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 ].

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at ]. 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. ] is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please ] 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 Misplaced Pages 1.0 scheme! For the ], <font color="green">]</font>'''&nbsp;<small>(<font color="red">]</font>)'''</small> 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

==Cold fusion issue==

A new tactic being advocated is that ] doesn't apply to ]. I started a ] on the subject. ] (]) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

::There is also one now asking whether ]. ] (]) 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 {{date|2008-07-14}}.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See ] for details. Subscribing is easy - just add ] to your project page. <small>If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at ].</small> --] (]) 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Well, it does not look borked. List will be ] when populated, and is linked on the main page. - ] <small>(])</small> 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, could benefit from the attention and input of a few experienced, skeptical editors. ] (]) 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
:It helps if you link to the article. Here's the link: ]. 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.] (]) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== NLP: deletion discussion ==

Please consider assisting at ]. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

==New policy proposal and draft help==

]

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 Misplaced Pages (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 ] and ] 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 ] 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 ] 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.

] (]) 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:

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

Thoughts? --] (]) 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 ] of ]. --] (]) 09:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

== Robert Spencer Carr ==

If someone's interested, ] might be a nice article to expand. Right now, pretty much all it says is about his science fiction writing, but 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.--] (]) 17:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

== RfC on reliable source guidelines for medicine-related articles ==

There's an RfC open ] 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 {{tl|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. ] (]) 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 ].] (]) 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages 0.7 articles have been selected for Rational Skepticism ==

] is a collection of English Misplaced Pages articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The ] has made an .

We would like to ask you to review the . 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 ]. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at ].

A , 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 ], 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 ] of ]. 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 Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial team, ] 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== Exclude Cochrane and similar reviews from ]? ==

It's been suggested to exclude ] and similar medical reviews from ] on ] grounds. Comments are requested at ]. ] (]) 07:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ] ==

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

== Hasty generalization ==

The definition of a ] 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==] needs review==

] 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 ] and especially ]. -- ] (]) 13:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)




== RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE ==
==]. Hoax?==


== How to add an article to this WikiProject? ==
We have an article ]. 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''.)<br>Is there anything constructive that can be done with this? (Note, I've posted to ] and ] on this to see if anybody there does have any reliable source.) -- ] (]) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


There is a new article ] which seems to be right in your wheelhouse. I have looked through the content here, and I can't see how to add this article for the WikiProject. Can somebody please tell me how to add it? ] (]) 11:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
==] needs review==


Could people please take a look at ]? Contains various statements that IMHO need to be tweaked a little. -- ] (]) 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC) :I think (It's been awhile since I did it) just add the tag to the talk page of the article. ] (]) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Any part in particular? After a quick read-through, it seems fairly well explained. -- ] <sup>(] &#149; ])</sup> 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


== It's time to tackle the list of books about skepticism ==
== Aura as pseudoscience ==


This is a big project, but over the years people have been adding books to this list that are NOT Misplaced Pages notable. I suggest that people take it in turns to cut this list by about 3/4's - if the book does not have a Misplaced Pages article, then it needs to go. Double check that there is no article before you remove it from this list, as they might not have been hyperlinked in this list. ] Good luck! ] (]) 07:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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 ] ] (]) 03:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:In a first step, I automatically replaced the italic titles by wikilinks. Now we can easily tell the redlinked ones apart from the bluelinked ones. --] (]) 07:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::It has been reverted by someone who does not get it, but it does not matter. You can see in the old revsion which books have an article about them and which do not, which was the point. --] (]) 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: I because first, you removed the italic markup from book titles. Book titles should always be italicized (see ]). Second, you created redlinks by linking the book titles with no Misplaced Pages articles. Redlinks shouldn't be used unless an article is likely to be created (see ]). —]] 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::As I said, my edit has fulfilled its goal even if you do not understand it. The revert does not matter. It's fine. --] (]) 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::great idea Hob. ] (]) 16:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey, gang - I've started working on this project. As I understand it, I'll be removing books from the list in question that do not have their Misplaced Pages pages. One immediate question I have is the following: Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page? The first one I came across goes to an image file. I will go ahead and edit the links to go to the relevant page. ] (]) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


:I'm not sure what you mean by the "Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page?" Only books that have Misplaced Pages articles should remain on this list. Everything else should go. If people write new articles for books, then they can add them to the list. I'm expecting when this is done there will be a quarter of the list left. It's been added to for so long without following the rules. ] (]) 18:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't really understand this. I have a number of books that are very clearly reliable sources on psuedoarchaeology which don't have their own articles. Great sources, but not on the list. Eg see ]. I'm sure I have others whose authors don't have their own articles. ] ] 14:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The list should contain only books that have Misplaced Pages articles, notable on their own. It does not mean that a book can't be a reliable source, but we need to pair this down otherwise it just becomes a list of every book on the subject of scientific skepticism and I see inclusion of pure science creeping in. We don't want this to become another list like a UFO "notable" events, who decides what is notable. Many of these books being removed, I have in my own library and find them useful but they probably shouldn't be on the list. I would love to see our community buckle down and write articles for the books that are notable enough to pass the strict standards of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Why not also include those whose authors have articles. Note that my concern is the lack of books on pseudoarchaeology.. ] ] 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's just opening a can of worms, anything by the author? You can still use the book as a reliable source if it does not have a Misplaced Pages article, that won't change. This list is just for books that are notable on their own. If you have a book that you know has the citations that we can build a Misplaced Pages article for, please let me know, I'm happy to write the article. ] (]) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::''Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past'' by Jeb Card has four reviews in the Misplaced Pages library plus this which in the past has been considered a reliable source.
::::::''Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public'' has one in the Library plus ,
::::::''Fantastic Archaeology'' by ] - 10 reviews in the Library. ] ] 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span>&#32;to the article ] has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8#Conspiracism}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


==Flying monkeys in Tennessee, USA==


==]==
Believe it or not, we have an article ] which claims that<blockquote>"mythical Harpeth Hills Flying Monkeys ... are reported to live in Percy and Edwin Warner Parks in ] ], 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."</blockquote>This is complete crap, right? Made up only to advertise this race? Anybody want to do anything with this? -- ] (]) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a flourishing pseudoscience. Currently the page is a redirect to ], the concept from which it sprung. It's all about negative and positive energy and most of the people selling "orgonites" are happy to make all sorts of medical claims, as well as physical, psychological, social and spiritual. It is linked, at least in the commercial aspect, to just about everything from reiki to chakras, from auras to EMF to 5G, from frequencies to crystals to phases of the moon. It maybe that there is not enough RS for an article, but if there is I think it might be very useful for some readers. All the best: ''] ]''<small> 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
:Pretty odd. It was totally a copyright violation though, ripped right off the race's page, so I've scrapped it. -- ] <small>(])</small> 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:32, 22 December 2024

Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on October 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Shortcuts
WikiProject Skepticism
 · Scientific skepticism article
 · Join the Project
 · Main Discussion (w)
 · List of topics
 · To do
 · Project resources
 · Article alerts
 · Fringe theories noticeboard
 · New articles (l) (r)
 · Article list
 · Popular pages
 · Needing attention (-1)
 · Needing improvement
 · Cleanup
 · Did you know?
 · Requested articles
 · RFC
Assessment
 · Project banner
 · Statistics
 · Log of changes
Articles by quality
 · FA 23
 · FL 2
 · A 0
 · GA 91
 · B 590
 · C 1253
 · Start 1681
 · Stub 132
 · Unassessed 31
Articles by importance
 · Top 64
 · High 284
 · Mid 808
 · Low 2679
 · Unknown 151
Related WikiProjects
 · Science talk
 · Physics talk
 · Medicine talk
 · Philosophy talk
 · Epistemology talk
 · Logic talk
 · Philosophy of science talk
Projects to monitor
 · Alternative medicine talk
 · Alternative views talk
 · Astrology talk
 · Creationism talk
 · Cryptozoology talk
 · Homeopathy talk
 · Objectivism talk
 · Occult talk
 · Paranormal talk
 · Parapsychology talk
Tools
 · CatScan 2.0
 · Red link recovery
Archiving icon
Archives
Historical

This page has archives. Sections older than 64 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE

How to add an article to this WikiProject?

There is a new article Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure which seems to be right in your wheelhouse. I have looked through the content here, and I can't see how to add this article for the WikiProject. Can somebody please tell me how to add it? Gronk Oz (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think (It's been awhile since I did it) just add the tag to the talk page of the article. Sgerbic (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's time to tackle the list of books about skepticism

This is a big project, but over the years people have been adding books to this list that are NOT Misplaced Pages notable. I suggest that people take it in turns to cut this list by about 3/4's - if the book does not have a Misplaced Pages article, then it needs to go. Double check that there is no article before you remove it from this list, as they might not have been hyperlinked in this list. List of books about skepticism Good luck! Sgerbic (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In a first step, I automatically replaced the italic titles by wikilinks. Now we can easily tell the redlinked ones apart from the bluelinked ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It has been reverted by someone who does not get it, but it does not matter. You can see in the old revsion which books have an article about them and which do not, which was the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: I reverted your edit because first, you removed the italic markup from book titles. Book titles should always be italicized (see MOS:ITALICTITLE). Second, you created redlinks by linking the book titles with no Misplaced Pages articles. Redlinks shouldn't be used unless an article is likely to be created (see WP:NORED). —Bruce1ee 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
As I said, my edit has fulfilled its goal even if you do not understand it. The revert does not matter. It's fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
great idea Hob. Sgerbic (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, gang - I've started working on this project. As I understand it, I'll be removing books from the list in question that do not have their Misplaced Pages pages. One immediate question I have is the following: Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page? The first one I came across goes to an image file. I will go ahead and edit the links to go to the relevant page. Drobertpowell (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page?" Only books that have Misplaced Pages articles should remain on this list. Everything else should go. If people write new articles for books, then they can add them to the list. I'm expecting when this is done there will be a quarter of the list left. It's been added to for so long without following the rules. Sgerbic (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't really understand this. I have a number of books that are very clearly reliable sources on psuedoarchaeology which don't have their own articles. Great sources, but not on the list. Eg see Ronald H. Fritze. I'm sure I have others whose authors don't have their own articles. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The list should contain only books that have Misplaced Pages articles, notable on their own. It does not mean that a book can't be a reliable source, but we need to pair this down otherwise it just becomes a list of every book on the subject of scientific skepticism and I see inclusion of pure science creeping in. We don't want this to become another list like a UFO "notable" events, who decides what is notable. Many of these books being removed, I have in my own library and find them useful but they probably shouldn't be on the list. I would love to see our community buckle down and write articles for the books that are notable enough to pass the strict standards of Misplaced Pages. Sgerbic (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sgerbic Why not also include those whose authors have articles. Note that my concern is the lack of books on pseudoarchaeology.. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
That's just opening a can of worms, anything by the author? You can still use the book as a reliable source if it does not have a Misplaced Pages article, that won't change. This list is just for books that are notable on their own. If you have a book that you know has the citations that we can build a Misplaced Pages article for, please let me know, I'm happy to write the article. Sgerbic (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past by Jeb Card has four reviews in the Misplaced Pages library plus this which in the past has been considered a reliable source.
Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public has one in the Library plus ,
Fantastic Archaeology by Stephen Williams (archaeologist) - 10 reviews in the Library. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Conspiracism to the article Conspiracy theory#Conspiracism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8 § Conspiracism until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


Orgonite

This seems to be a flourishing pseudoscience. Currently the page is a redirect to orgone, the concept from which it sprung. It's all about negative and positive energy and most of the people selling "orgonites" are happy to make all sorts of medical claims, as well as physical, psychological, social and spiritual. It is linked, at least in the commercial aspect, to just about everything from reiki to chakras, from auras to EMF to 5G, from frequencies to crystals to phases of the moon. It maybe that there is not enough RS for an article, but if there is I think it might be very useful for some readers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC).

Categories: