Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 1

message: I am attempting to distinguish between proposals and and actual project policy. Some of my additions may read like policy, so I don't want to confuse people into thinking that they are the view of the project until adopted and accepted by the project team. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jokermage, why are you moving everything to the talk page?

message: Can I suggest a weekly/monthly collaboration? As in, we identify an article that is in need of some skeptical attention and work together on it for a set amount of time. I'll happily help out but I don't really know where to start, so having an article that has been picked out as seriously needing attention would be a great help for me.
Also, if there are any useful websites people know of, starting a 'resources' section at the bottom of the page would be a good idea. --Hitchhiker89talk 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Collab is up. We need nominees now. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Reference section is up. Go ahead and add to it. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 18:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion or two...

message: This may not be necessary to say, but I'm putting it into words to be on the safe side. To ensure NPOV on Pseudoscience topics, we must clearly point out that the mainstream scientific view is the mainstream scientific view. I don't see any valid claim of POV against the skeptic point of view if it is pointed out that it is the skeptic point of view. For example:
:Definate POV: "This system does not work and violates several principles in physics."
:NPOV: "Skeptics argue that the system has yet to actually work and that the principles it is based on violate several laws and theories in physics."
The downside of this is that reality has to compromise with fantasy. The upside is that fantasy can't justify removing the criticism through NPOV.
Also, we should always, always, provide references for anything we add to a pseudoscience article. If we can show an interview transcript where a psuedoscience promoter said something, then it is that much harder for the pseudoscience supporters to say otherwise. Reports, studies and tests in reputible scientific journals should be a primary tool in our work. In editing, let the pseudoscience people have some degree of freedom on the pseudoscience sections. If they tell obvious falsehoods in the scientific sections, correct it and offer references to verify your correction. If you make a mistake while editing, admit it and thank anyone who shows you your mistake.
Finally, treat the pseudoscience supporters respectfully. Let the pseduoscience people be the ones that violate NPOV, POINT and WP:Dick.
In short, we are here to represent accurately the views of the mainstream scientific consensus. We should be critical, accurate and honest. 
Please feel free to edit this to improve it. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit"
:I recommended that everybody reads WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, if they haven't already, which explains the Wikipedia-approved approach to dealing with pseudoscience. Qarnos 09:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and Pseudoscience Proposal

message: Now we have a project banner for members, but we should really have a banner for articles which are part of our project. Maybe someone who knows how to make one could do so.Ljstg 17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy enough. I'll do it later; right now I'm waiting to find out if our logo is okay to use. If it isn't, then we have to design a new one. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I can have something made up, but I'm working on a new logo in case the temporary one is a copyright violation. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Banner

message: How many of us also edit at SkepticWiki? We should remember to link to it when possible.
*SkepticWiki
-- Fyslee 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SkepticWiki 

message: These are some thoughts that can be worked on and included in the Scope section. They address the ideal that NPOV should be "created where it does not exist."
From: Inedia: ending on a challenge in Greve.27s favor
My editing here was to clarify what was made unclear. Earlier, before Omegatron's edit, it looked like it was her (Jasmuheen (born Ellen Greve)) claim. Afterwards it looked like Omegatron was confirming her belief. I reinstated that it was her belief. That preserves a NPOV.
Qualifiers must be used when editors write their own words, or when the quotes they are citing cannot be left standing alone, so as to be misleading. (Deceivers must not be allowed to preach unopposed.)
The article should not be a soapbox for either the editors or the persons being quoted. It is the editor's job to neutralize (= to create NPOV by neutering or castrating strongly one-sided or POV statements) obviously undocumented or absurd statements in quotes, and that may even include pointing out their absurdity. This is standard Wikipedia policy, where majority and scientific viewpoints are given greater weight than absurd or minority viewpoints. -- Fyslee 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More thoughts here. -- Fyslee 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutering POV 

message: I've noticed that there are many people using the skeptic userbox now. But not many of them are in the wikiproject, probably because they aren't aware it exists. If someone has some time, I wonder if someone could send out messages to them about the group. Thanks.Maprov
:How can you see who is using it? Is there a central place that registers all users of boxes? That would be nice! -- Fyslee 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Matthew, I haven't gotten a reply to my email.... -- Fyslee 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User_skeptic Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 05:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more skeptics 

message: Members of this WikiProject, and Wikipedians interested in (or opposed to) rational skepticism in general, may be interested in the ongoing debate on Talk:Human regarding how to begin the article Human. The current consensus at that Talk page seems to be that science itself is just one of a number of equally relevant and valid POVs in an article about the human species, that humans cannot possibly be primates, animals, or hominids if any religion is correct, and that any attempts to suggest that the field of biology is an accurate depiction of reality are "anti-humanist" and "controversial", to the extent that there is no willingness to begin the article with any statement that "humans being primates" or similar (unlike Encyclopedia Britannica and most other encyclopedias, which do just that) unless the article first begins with the rather odd disclaimer "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms." (even though the article is actually about human beings themselves, not about "how human beings define themselves"). For example (note that this is not an attempt to take a quote out of context, just to show an example of the current dominant viewpoint therein):
:"I take issue with silence's SPOV (scientific or secular POV) dominating the article much as others have. I also see room for refinement, and changes more suitable to both sides. I have long found the intro an unhappy compromise with secular wikipedians. Humans are, first and foremost, spiritual beings. Thats the only thing we know for certain. All this flesh and blood and materialism could easilly be maya, illusion, window dressing. The soul on the other hand is my self, my being. I know what I am." -User:Sam Spade
I find this debate fascinating, very relevant to the course Wikipedia will take in the future, and a fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality and on interpretation of WP:NPOV, so I'd love to hear what you guys think about it. (Note that this comment is an effort to hear more arguments and discussion on this matter, not an attempt to stack votes or get more editing "manpower" or anything ridiculous like that. Anyone who is interested in coming over to human to talk this over, remember that this is a discussion, not a battle. Anyway, hope to get some responses! :o -Silence 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got involved with this discussion shortly after Silence posted here and I am pleased to say that we have managed to come up with a new version of the introduction which everyone involved has agreed upon. Hitchhiker89talk 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing debate

message: Praise the Lord for this project!  A few weeks ago I thought that Wikipedia was in danger of becoming a blog for pro-paranormal opinions.  In the past I've done a lot on the skepticism side, but not much lately.  I've added some articles to the list on the main page:
* pathological skepticism - the other side considers all skeptics pathological
* Green Fireballs - not much balance here.  I recently added some at the end, see its discussion page.
* Philip J. Klass - the UFO side really hates him.  Read "criticisms" section, which seems too large and one-sided to me.
* Roswell UFO incident - a lot of problems here a couple of months ago, but I haven't kept up.
* Majestic 12 - this had a lot of problems, but I haven't looked at it for months.
* Unidentified flying objects - this had a lot of problems, but I haven't looked at it for months. 
I did some work on all of these except maybe the last one.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise the Lord! 

message: I may have screwed up the TOC (on the project page). Anyone who understands it better might make some improvements. -- Fyslee 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: The Watchlist is a long list of relevant topics to this project.  The Project Work is a short list of articles being actively edited.  Do we have a process for getting active attention on a few articles not on the short list?  Bubba73 (talk), 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist, short list 

message: At one time there was a proposal to write articles from a Scientific point of view policy.  I would be in favor of that, but it looks like it fell by the wayside.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific point of view 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto  Midgley 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC rational skeptics may be interested in 

message: What is the difference between a skeptic and someone being extremely abusive to a person who has seen/encountered something bizarre, even has evidence of said encounter ? I have ran into extremely abusive people who also claimed that they were "skeptics". One "skeptic" cursed and cussed me out, even threatened to have me put in a nut house. Told one Wikipedian the sickening details of that encounter, and apologised for it as well.While investigating a Bigfoot incident in Fouke, Arkansas long ago, some idiot threatened to shoot me IF I was what he called "one of those assholes". I do humbly apologise for that, but the truth has to be told. It was that some "skeptics" had flat out accused the citizens of this small city of lying, being drunk and ignorant hillbillies and worse. We at Wikipedia:Paranormal Watchers do practice skepticisim, to weed out the hoaxers and the real nuts, and we don't abuse those that have had 
strange things happen to them. One deterrence to a hoax and/or a real nut is that those running certain paranormal related websites actually do send out investigative details who investigate the incident in the manner of a police investigation, which includes investigating the claimants, of course in a respectable manner. If the claimed incident is photographed, the camera used is taken apart and examined for defects. If it is on tape, the tape is examined, the tape recorder is dissassembled and examined for defects. During the whole investigation, afterwards, there is no derogatory matter going on. I don't mind skeptics, even like them. Its those that abuse the word "skeptic" by rampantly insulting, abusing, ridiculing, disrespecting people that make "skeptic" a four letter word, and damages what being a skeptic is all about.  Martial Law 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was telling the truth about that idiot in Fouke, and about the "skeptic" in Phoenix, Arizona.
I did not know how some would have taken what I have related here about what happened to me. Martial Law 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see what you mean. Really do. Martial Law 21:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Robertson Panel, Project Grudge. The information for both was obtained by the FOIA. The former was initated by the CIA to "reduce" interest in UFOs after Washington, D.C. was literally swamped with UFOs in 1952, while the latter was a USAF project with appropriate overtones. The Robertson Panel states that shrinks, media people,etc. are to be used in a debunking campaign to "reduce" interest in UFOs, in a nutshell, to ridicule people who have had these encounters. It also says that all UFO organizations are to be spied upon, and there is evidence that this is still going on. What do you think of these "alleged" govt. policies ? Martial Law 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What does this have to do with anything? To charge in, throwing accusations and trying to start an argument on your terms, doesn't inspire warmth and friendship among those you're charging, be they the most gullible or most skeptical.--Prosfilaes 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No accusations, no jokes. Just asking a simple question. Martial Law 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One other thing, is Rational Skepticisim similar to "Objective Journalisim" that is taught in Journalisim class, what is  taught to police, others to thoroughly investigate incidents and things ? Again, I (1)have not accused anyone at all, (2) have not started arguments at all , (3)have made no jokes at all. Just asking some simple questions, no more, no less. I have had some bad experiences with "skeptics" and "believers" as well. Martial Law 23:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the difference between a UFO believer and a complete idiot? Can you read that and not take it as an accusation or a joke?--Prosfilaes 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That I know is a joke. Martial Law 23:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was traveling the South Western US, Western US, Eastern US, basically in a nutshell, the whole US as a gold prospector when I was told that IF there is alien contact, people will rebel in reaction to it, for religious reasons (Some religious sects that I've encountered claim that UFOs and/or aliens are "of The Devil" and cite certain Biblical passages as evidence, thus they'll fight "The Devil and his minions".), out of vengeance for being ridiculed as persuant to certain govt./military protocol. I was after GOLD, meteorites, (Some types of meteorites are worth 20,000 kings' ransom per gram in some cases. One meteorite allegedly sold for $200,000 US, it was claimed it had "Mars bugs" in it, since it allegedly came from Mars. ), fossils, since some of those are worth a LOT of money to private collectors. Some of the areas had private armies in or near the areas I've been to. Martial Law 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I really do appreciate the assisstance. I did not mean to step on anyone's toes at all. I have been caught between two or more, (How do I put this ? ) factions. I sincerely hope we can be allies, since we have similar mission statements. We're just trying to keep the articles NPOV, neither "skeptic", nor "believer", as you're doing, letting the reader make up his/her mind up on what is presented, based on all evidence. Martial Law 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the difference between Skeptics and extremely abusive people ?

message: Could somebody check on the Chiropractic talk again. Too much chiropractors there right now. ackoz  00:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiro 

message: I tagged Holism in science a while ago. There are a number of issues with it. Hopefully people here might help improve this article. --ScienceApologist 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holism

message: I have begun a discussion of NPOV issues related to this group  here. --ScienceApologist 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issue

message: For several months now the article Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal has been dogged by an editor with a strong anti-sceptic, anti-CSCOP bias. Just to give you an idea of this person's thought processes, in my first encounter with him he was arguing that, because some people with Synaesthesia see "auras," they should be awarded the Randi prize. This editor is determined to load the CSICOP article with criticisms of the organization from various parties. There are many valid criticisms of CSICOP to be found, just as there are valid criticisms of any organization. My complaint with this editor is that he wants to insert his POV into the article by devoting disproportionate space to every remotely valid critical comment he can dig up.
Every now and then, a less-biased reader will leave a comment in the CSICOP article's discussion page complaining the article is "way too slanted against the organization" or "reads as if it were written by people who actively dislike CSICOP." (No one has ever voiced the opposite complaint.) But no editor with this opinion (other than myself) has been willing to stick around, add the article to his/her watch list, actively try to improve the article and defend it against the unceasing efforts of its resident malevolent poltergeist editor.
I spent several weeks in active debate with this editor, part of that time with mediation. The compromise we came up with is the version that a few "passers by" have complained was too negative. But this editor isn't happy with that too-negative compromise, and went on to break our mediated agreements and reinsert his POV. Since I have no interest in debating him any further, I'm reduced to "sterile edit warring"--just reverting his stuff whenever I feel he's crossed the line and insofar as the three-revert rule permits me.
So... This is an appeal for editors of a rational/sceptical bent to take an active interest in this article. All that's needed is one more active editor on this side of the fence. With just one more editor arguing against this editor's POV, he'll most likely become discouraged and leave the article alone. KarlBunker 11:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSICOP article 

message: Lots of debate regarding alleged evidence of ghosts and the scientific value of 'ghost hunting'. Balancing opinions needed. Please see Ghost Hunters and The Atlantic Paranormal Society. LuckyLouie 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost Hunters

message: What the Bleep Do We Know!? has a NPOV tag for pointing out, among other things, that the movie was made by people to help spread the teachings of their spiritual teacher Ramtha.  These teachings include the idea that quantrum mechanics allows (proves?) that each person can literally "create their own reality"... a.k.a mind over matter.  I'd like to take the NPOV tag down, but I'm waiting for some discussion to appear on the talk page first either agreeing with me or illustrating what needs to be fixed.  Thanks.  Adelord 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Bleep Do We Know!? 

message: Nonnotable article up for deletion. Let your voice be heard: delete Quackpotwatch - Bolen's propaganda machine
My vote? (I just knew you'd ask.....;-)
:*Delete. Fails WP:WEB miserably. Main content of website is conspiracy theories and libelous statements. No documentation. Admits under deposition his vicious lies are just "euphemism." No evidence of reliability or credibility. Nothing but opinions prefaced with "I believe" and "I think." -- Fyslee 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions.  Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 06:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0