Talk:Journal of Scientific Exploration

message: This quote Some observers (such as Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) regard the JSE as a legitimate attempt to explore the frontiers of science is it correct?  It would seem that, when reviewing CSI's published information and articles, the SSE and JSE was generally viewed negatively?  is an example. Shot info 09:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember that the evidence for this phrase is that JSE was mentioned on http://www.csicop.org/resources/ . However, it certainly is not there anymore, and what I found on CSI's website is indeed negative. For instance, http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/sheaffer.html is rather damning. Hence I deleted that bit; I'll leave it to others to decide whether more should be done. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSI claim 

message: As a reminder, if there are disagreements over this article, please remember to discuss controversial issues at the talkpage, don't just battle it out in edit summaries.  Thanks, Elonka 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Slow edit-warring

message: The current article has a section entitled "Scope of Research", but it is not about that at all. I have changed this to "Academic reception" which, though not ideal. seems more apt. I have put this brief justification here rather than just doing it. Thoughts?GusFoy (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This section also has the line "Some academics have noted that JSE publishes on anomalous issues, topics often on the fringe of science" which, given the entire content of the article, has a touch of the "No shit, Sherlock!", about it. Will check the link and see if anything more substantive can be said. If not then remove?GusFoy (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of Research section

message: JournalScholar press releases are just that, material released to the press. They are perfectly reliable for the opinion of CSICOP. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the CSICOP piece a press release? Yes or No see WP:RS.--JournalScholar (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you actually read WP:RS. It does not even mention press releases. If it is a press release or not is completely irrelevant; it is perfectly reliable for the opinion of CSICOP. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Repeatedly deleting parts of an article after they have been restored is disruptive and contrary to WP:BURDEN; you need to give people time to improve it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read WP:BURDEN? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You have failed to provide a verifiable reliable source for the information you kept reverting.--JournalScholar (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: It is not disruptive to remove any material that cannot be verified by a reliable source, see WP:V and WP:RS. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but you are wikilaywering, you are quoting policies without reading them. It does not say anything of the sort in WP:V or WP:RS. Specifically it says in WP:V: "Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." By not giving people adequate time you are being disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the source exists you should be able to cite it. I cite sources for EVERYTHING I add to Wikipedia, try it sometime.--JournalScholar (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't strip all unsourced content out of articles, because of WP:PRESERVE we aim to fix it: "requesting a citation by adding the  tag". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Contentious material must be verifiable from a reliable source, see WP:V and WP:RS. --JournalScholar (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: FYI before I remove unsourced claims I perform searches to see if it can be verified so when I remove the information it is highly unlikely a reliable source exists to support the claim.--JournalScholar (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed information with a source and are unable to support why with any policy based argument. You have been asked to give other editors time to find sources for the other content, this is common practice. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Contentious material can be immediately removed if it is unverifiable from a reliable source.--JournalScholar (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Show me the wikipedia policy that states that self-published sources (press releases) WP:SPS can be used about a third party. --JournalScholar (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  seems to be someone with a very clear COI on the topic, and clearly aims to whitewash the article of any and all criticism, or anything remotly construed as criticism. Things like this is clearly not contentious material, nor is remotely close to being WP:OR. Same for this, and many many other edits made on the article.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, they are quoting the policies without even reading them. I don't see why material on CSICOP would be considered self-published. They have editorial oversight. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced content being removed 

message: Slim, Why are you inserting a second mention of the editor? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what I would consider comparable articles: Neuroquantology, Rejuvenation Research. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor