What was done on these two pages is a bit different from the pages I'm used to seeing.  Most of the pages I've looked at place a  tag in a section named References, and populate that section with inline REF_ITEM instances, where REF_ITEM is often formatted by one of the citation templates from WP:CITET.  Individual REF_ITEMs in the text hook to their References section appearances via numbered links and backlinks supplied by the mechanism behind the , , and  tags (the Cite.php extension to MediaWiki) .  The {{ref}} & {{note}} template family can also be used to supply connective links and backlinks, but don't do auto-numbering of links.

WP:GTL describes the References section as containing "... [items] that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article. An example is then given using , which puts the example item into a  collection under an example section named (confusingly, to me) Notes instead of References.

What appears to have been done on the two pages being discussed here is that the items which would go in the References section have been broken up into (1) some harvard-referenced books and (2) other stuff  mostly web pages but some books as well on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry page , with the harvard-referenced books being put in a bulleted list in a section titled References and the other stuff in a list auto-numbered with  etc. in a section named Notes.  That's what threw me  I'm not used to seeing that done .

WP:GTL does say "it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system."  I have plenty of other things on my plate at present, so I think I'll drop the matter here.