Talk:Australian Skeptics

message: I am skeptical about the information in this article. How can the jornaul of an organisation that has existed for only 24 years have been published for 25 years?
the same way that someone can press the 5 key instead of the four key. (that is, it may just have been a typo)--202.161.1.167 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the foundation dates for both the Society and the Journal and sourced them. --Bduke 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does the list of disputed claims really add anything to the page?
The Australian Skeptics are sceptical of all paranormal and amazing claims. The list could easily be 10 or 100 times longer. Putting a list of topics is rather whimsical. Readers of the page could easily get bogged down on the list and never see any details that appear after the list. I'd suggest we remove the list from Wikipedia and just make a link to the list on the Australian Skeptics website. I'd make the change immediately but I'd like to get feedback on the idea.
Zuytdorp Survivor 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds sensible to me! That way the AS are responsible for keeping the list up to date. Gillyweed 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deleting from the article. It's ugly and uninformative (under TLDR). --ZayZayEM 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is TLDR? Gillyweed 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read and it is NOT a policy or a guideline. It is just an essay, so it not a reason for removing this list. However, I do think the list was not inclusive and I am happy it is gone. --Bduke 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even know it was an essay. TLDR is a general term that applies to any form of information media intended for an audience. The list is unencyclopedic indiscriminate, incomplete information that contributes nothing substantial to the article. It would be like if Greenpeace had a list for every environmental activity they involve themselves in. They do a sensible thing and list the verifiable priorities ()--ZayZayEM 02:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Claims 

message: It has been proposed by User:ZayZayEM that No Answers in Genesis be merged here. Please give your views below. --Bduke (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[No Answers in Genesis]]

message: The opening statement of this article expresses a POV by saying that AS investigate various claims by "scientific methodologies", but no substantiation or elaboration of this is provided in the text. It should say "claims to investigate various claims by scientific methodologies", which would be neutral and impartial.
Sardaka (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, the word 'claims' is disingenuous.  The organization does actually investigate.  Whether the quality of the investigation is acceptable might be questionable, but not actually the fact. Gillyweed (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  contains the following, "[...] Australian Skeptics, a group that investigates theparanormal [sic] from a scientific viewpoint." - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  has, "[...] the Australian Skeptics, a group that investigates the paranormal and pseudo-science from a scientific viewpoint [...]" - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The lead states "The Australian Skeptics is a non-profit organisation based in Australia". This is not strictly true. A better description would be "The Australian Skeptics is a loose affiliation of several non-profit organisation based in Australia". This link here describes it as "Australian Skeptics is a loose confederation of groups across Australia". There are quite independent non-profit organisations in each State and some in areas far from the State capital. For example, there is "Border Skeptics" as well as "Victorian Skeptics" and "Hunter Skeptics" as well as the NSW Branch, which somewhat misleadingly is legally called "Australian Skeptics Inc". "Australian Skeptics Inc" publishes the magazine and appoints the Executive Officer, but it is still the NSW Branch with members only in NSW. This link here states "To join Australian Skeptics, subscribe to our quarterly magazine the Skeptic or contact one of the many active Skeptics groups and activities around the country". The first part is again misleading, since subscribing is just that - you get the magazine sent to you. You do not actually belong to any organisation with a structure. Of course the loose confederation of groups does do many things together, such as having an annual convention that is organised in turn by some of the more active groups. Could someone who is neutral look into this and make some changes. I have a conflict of interest as I resigned from one of the groups after trying to persuade the groups around the country to set up a better structure and make subscribing to the magazine actual mean that you did join a structured association. --Bduke  (Discussion) 08:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agree with your point. There are many criticisms that can be made of the Australian Skeptics. I do hope there's more criticisms that get incorporated into the article. JohnAugust (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of the Australian Skeptics. 

message: I am going to remove the word 'atheist' from the first sentence of the lede. Not only does it appear to be unsourced, but given the complete lack of further discussion of this, is arguably not even relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While most Australian Skeptics are atheist, I know that several are not. --Bduke  (Discussion) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'atheist' 

message: I am going to remove the statement that Australian Skeptics are "inextricably linked with the Friends Of Science In Medicine and the Young Australian Skeptics". I asked for a citation for this, and have been presented with nothing but a couple of links presumably intended to indicate that Loretta Marron is apparently connected in some way with all three organisations. This clearly doesn't support the assertion - in fact, given the explicit nature of the claim, I can't see how anything other than a reliable source which stated outright that the three groups were "inextricably linked" could support it. And furthermore, without explaining how they were linked, it seems to me to be a rather pointless assertion to be making. Are these 'links' formal? Do they hold joint functions? Or are they just 'linked' in that they have similar(ish) goals, and consequently have supporters in common? And if they do, why is it significant, and why should Wikipedia be asserting this in the lede? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree particularly about including this in the lede. However I do think the link should be mentioned lower down, but not as "inextricably linked". Loretta Marron is an active member of the Skeptics, speaks at most of tier annual conferences and was made "Skeptic of the year" in 2011. Friends Of Science In Medicine was "Skeptic of the year" in 2012. See - http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/merit-awards/ The Young Australian Skeptics have also received strong support from the various Skeptic organisations in Australia. --Bduke  (Discussion) 19:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the interconnection between the groups discussed in reliable sources? That should really be our guide regarding what we have to say on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not for the Young Australian Skeptics, but the two "Skeptic of the year" awards were certainly discussed in the press, although I forget what they said in detail. See my contributions further up. The problem with this article is that much that is written is not supported by reliable sources and so-called "reliable" sources are sometimes wrong. But also note my COI. --Bduke  (Discussion) 20:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - I'd missed the COI post, thanks. Rereading the 'Reorganisation' thread, I have to agree that there is a fundamental problem with this article, in that it isn't really clear what exactly the subject matter is - is it 'Australian skeptics organisations', or is it the organisation calling itself 'Australian Skeptics'? All rather confusing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed the confusing problem. The 'Australian Skeptics' is NSW based, but it is the one that has the money that pays for an executive director who is also the editor of the "Australian Skeptic" magazine, publishes the magazine and I think pays for the awards we were talking about. Any other national structure is very informal. The various groups, for example, agree among themselves to take turns in running an annual conference. The article should cover skepticism in Australia and it is doubtful that any one group is notable and covering the lot gives more information for readers. --Bduke  (Discussion) 21:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Which takes us back to the problem you've already noted - that there don't seem to be reliable sources covering the topic in the detail required. Sadly, I suspect that neither journalists nor (non-partisan) academics are generally much interested in-depth analysis of skepticism - people who believe that the moon is fake and is projected onto the sky-dome by lizard-men are inherently more interesting than people who don't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'inextricably linked' 

message: Hello all - I've been working on a re-write of this page. The original was pretty confusing, so I've tried to clear up some of that and fill in the gaps where information was missing. There are still a lot of holes in it so we need to add to it over time and keep it up to date. Most of the information I've got up there so far has come from the ASI group and the the Skeptic Magazine, so it might seem a little NSW-centric to begin with, but this is mostly because they publish regularly and their content comes up on google searches, so it's the information that I was able to find. We should try to get more representation from the rest of the groups, as well as lots more images and details of the regional groups and the various podcasts.
Eventually we can split this page up. Have one that represents the ASI and it's branch groups, and a separate page that represents the broader community and all the non-incorporated groups. We can also split off the podcasts section into it's own page, and expand it to include many more skeptical podcasts, not necessarily produced by people who consider themselves skeptics, but a collection of podcasts that are skeptical in content and approach.
So far on my list of things we need to work on into the future there are...
* add in some more referencing where it is needed
* add in more podcast and regional group images
* add details about why each winner of the "skeptic of the year" award was chosen
* add in more details about the winners of the "Eureka / Critical Thinking Prize"
As I said, it's a work in progress, but I feel like this is a good start and it's a lot better than what was there beforeMichelleFranklin (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  major updates 

message: Now that the Launceston Skeptics have their own Wikipedia page, I'm wondering if we should delete much of the content about the Launceston group? The information that is listed here would be found on the separate WP page. This would help make the Australian Skeptics page smaller. I'm afraid that if we make the Launceston area small, it will make the group look less important and people might not notice the hyperlink. Maybe once other groups get WP pages written about them, we will be able to remove most of the content and that will allow the entire chart to reduce in size?  So maybe hold off until then, but keep this in mind as the ultimate goal to make the page smaller?Sgerbic (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Australian Skeptics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120618112034/http://www.catholicweekly.com.au:80/02/dec/8/16.html to http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/02/dec/8/16.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927143149/http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/tank.htm to http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/tank.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140820040341/http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/ to http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140820040341/http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/ to http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Australian Skeptics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20001007033130/http://www.egroups.com:80/list/qskeptics to http://www.egroups.com/list/qskeptics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I will be adding 2017 award information to this page. Drobertpowell (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 award winners 

message: I have redirected Bent Spoon Award here, as being duplicative but worse than the the section here. Alternative would be WP:SPINOUT of the section here to that article, but given the presence of so many other lists here, slight preference for remaining consolidated here for consistency. Link/section here not updated yet to allow slightly easier reversal ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bent Spoon Award]]