Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/List of questionable claims

message: Hi QuackGuru. Congratulations are in order, and Happy New Year! I expect this could be a parallel to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎. The concepts are often related, but not identical.
I don't know how you have found all these articles, but when the Quackery category was deleted, a few (some obviously pro quackery) editors immediately removed the category tag from a whole lot of articles. It was proper for them to do so, since that category had been deleted, but I suspect they did it with glee! I suspect that many of the articles you already list are among them, but by following those editors' tracks, we might be able to find more. Just watch my edit history and you'll be able to figure out what was going on and who deleted the category tag. Then follow their tracks. If you will please activate your email, I'll email you the names to watch. Let me know on my user page. -- Fyslee 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent idea! 

message: Yikes! This sounds like a Nixon’s enemies list. Or a McCarthy commies list.  We will put you on the list because we hate you and you convince us you are not a quack/commie, OK?  Placing things on a list that it is labeled Quackery and letting the reader decide is already coloring their perceptions. So that suggestion by QuackGuru, is obviously a bad one.
The problem is that making a list of things that people can’t stand is making a mockery of Wikipedia.  Why not make up a list of articles that people find refreshing?  Please don’t.
Who decides what is quackery?  Ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett?  He flunked his psychiatrist boards and then misrepresented himself as an expert witness in psychiatry (!) in legal matters. (go figure)  Yet his website has been placed prominently at the bottom of this “list” as the so-called “clearinghouse” of good taste by Fyslee, former assistant list-master to the hate-master and who has a long personal history of cozy togetherness.  See what I mean? A bit self-serving, yes?  And, oh yes, the more links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!), the more exposure for Fyslee web activities.  Way to incestuous and self-serving.
This list has become yet another abuse of Wikipedia as link-farm to dubious ‘skeptics’ (a euphemism for hatred) bigot sites.  Hey! How about this as a name for this list:  A list of things that will likely ultimately lead the reader to one of Stephen Barrett Enterprises hate-sites? (Donations gladly accepted!)
Let’s save us all a lot of time and bad feelings and have a big bonfire with marshmallows and say a few eulogies and voluntary self-delete this questionable activity.  Steth 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Steth for your edifying additions to this discussion.  Maustrauser 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See?  Even Maustrauser agrees with me! Any others? Steth 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for providing evidence that you haven't even looked at the list very carefully (it covers all sides), since your ad hominem and straw man attacks are off-base, as usual. Please take your personal attacks elsewhere and stop violating wiki policies by treating others with bad faith, and by making false charges. I actually removed a link to Quackwatch, I'm the one who added psychotherapy, and there is no labeling being done here, and no links that benefit me. My activities (practically none) outside of Wikipedia are not for you to comment on Wikipedia. Your sense of smell is your POV, and your POVpushing suppressionism and deletism of opposing POV (which is not evident in this list, since it covers all sides) is not allowed here. -- Fyslee 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My sincere apologies Steth, but I was being sarcastic.  For the record, I do not agree with you.  As a science writer I find this list incredibly useful as a resource.  It does cover both sides and thus cannot be considered POV.  It is the articles themselves where POV battles take place - not a list (I apologise for repeating myself but clearly Steth hasn't read my earlier contributions).  Maustrauser 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This "list" passes the smell test since all dissenters failed to demonstrate any POV. Their comments only have strengthened the necessity for this list because we now know who the true quacks or should I say the trolls are! --QuackGuru 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  A list of topics "related" to the discussion of quackery are just that - related to the discussion of quackery.  No one can deny that many of the topics on this list are frequently included in discussions of quackery - therein lies its usefulness as a list on WP.  As others have said before me, the list includes a strong disclaimer stating that in no way is WP saying the below items ARE quackery.  I don't really see the problem here.--TN | ! 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like an end-run & rerun of previously deleted "quacky" sentiments.  Here Q-related creates an obvious +1 subjective "heroes" list interspersed with a -1 subjective "goat" list still susceptible to all the  ills identified previously. Another QW spamsite and link page hobby horse; AfD, rename or at least more objective accuracy and move to personal subpage.--I'clast 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed to explain anything specifically except your trollish behavior. This here is just a list. --QuackGuru 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I found it. "...I created this new article as a back door to the category that was wrongfully deleted by voting. Those voters who did not like the category are perfect examples of the quacks who sell snake oil and so forth. The category is gone but the truth lives on! --QuackGuru" This quote is also insulting and completey mistaken as to the background & motivation of at least this editor. Troll??! WP:NPA. --I'clast 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! The category is gone but the truth lives on! I enjoyed reading my comments again. We know the motivations of the editors. The truth will come out. Thank you so much. --QuackGuru 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't know skat, about me. Also you might review WP:AGF. "The truth" has a zealous sound to it.--I'clast 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your words of encouragement. I appreciate it. --QuackGuru 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Iclast, for saving me the trouble of looking up the AfD catagory:quackery. :) This "list" is no different than the problems that it had.--Hughgr 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fails the smell test 

message: The long and bitter controversies that surrounded the Category:Quackery led to the deletion of the category. Why? Because of NPOV issues that can be dealt with in articles, but not in categories:
: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." 
A list is "a better option," and that's what we're doing here. By keeping it a bare list, we avoid NPOV issues altogether, yet we have a valuable resource.
More good information can be found here, where the option is "can", not "must":
* Lists
-- Fyslee 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me speak a little louder this time. This is just a list with a disclaimer at the top. Editors contribute to the list. Enough said. --QuackGuru 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to yell;)  I think you made your point.  Thank you for you time. --Dematt 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me point out a clear declaration of POV (as well as choice of name) by QuackGuru,& section above.--I'clast 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your words of encourgement. I'm loving it. You have a lot of great ideas for this article list. --QuackGuru 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists versus categories 

message: Why are the links external links to Wikipedia categories, such as Category:Hoaxes (Category:Hoaxes) rather than :Category:Hoaxes (:Category:Hoaxes)? — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related categories 

message: Some comments
* Both the title and the lead violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (see the examples in that guideline). The use of the words "topic" and "people" rather than "article" is essential here. Other self-ref is the inclusion of Wikipedia categories and WikiProjects.
* The "inclusion criteria" are wide and vague, trying to achieve the impossible: namely including a list member without daring to say why.
* The core list of articles is deliberately uncategorised, which is unhelpful to the reader and apparently only done in an attempt to "avoid NPOV problems".
* The list is completely unverified. If it were to be verified, then the act of doing so would automatically place a member into the "quack" or "anti-quack" category. Any editor blanking much of this list (as it stands) would technically be supported by WP:V policy (though I wouldn't support such wholesale disruption).
* The list includes living people. I'm sorry but saying that e.g. "Andrew Wakefield" is "related to quackery" is a potentially libellous statement that needs a reliable source, which in turn ultimately tells you why the editor thinks they are related to quackery.
* The list tarnishes broad categories of medicine with the "quackery" brush. One only has to read the history of Western medicine to know that many of our well established drugs were discovered by those who's beliefs would be regarded as quackery today. Two examples: aspirin as an anti-fever drug and potassium bromide as an anticonvulsant both owe their origins to wacky ideas.
* Whilst categories are problematic (an article's inclusion in a category is rarely accompanied by a reference), this list is currently no better.
* If e.g. WikiProject Pseudoscience wish to keep a private list of topics that interest project members, then that is fine. Currently, IMO, this vague list has little encyclopaedic merit.
Colin°Talk 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. --Dematt 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Alert on WikiProject Medicine 

message: Those writing this article might consider a similar article written about the creation-evolution controversy. --ScienceApologist 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea. Why not write a long article about the Quackery vs. Alternative Medicine controversy and direct all controversies there. MaxPont 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider this...

message: Why is this included on this list?  How is this "quackery"?--66.82.9.53 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read the introduction you would note that these are articles 'related' to quackery.  Not articles about quackery or necessarily quackery.  The Consumer Bill of Rights helps consumers protect themselves from quackery. Maustrauser 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consumer Bill of Rights 

message: Why is organic food on this list? I don't get it. --LadyLiz 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic Food 

message: Article is deleted. I redirected the page to save me any further embarrassement. --QuackGuru 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this process doesn't work that way, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion & Colin, typically 5+ days so everyone gets to vote & comment. Then an admin will make a determination and close the vote page.--I'clast 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The votes are in. 

message: If this article gets deleted, shouldn't this also be deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism/List_of_articles_related_to_quackery
It seems odd to me that a deleted article can be moved elswhere in WP. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks Steth 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's in a project space.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't that part of the vote, Delete or Move?  If it gets voted to delete and someone decides to move it anyway, then what is the use of everyone taking the time to vote and discuss if one person can do whatever they please?  Steth 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I got the impression that it was safe in project space.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.--I'clast 14:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for everyone 

message: I have re-read the initial entry at the top of this page :Excellent Idea!" and the more I read it more I think something is fishy here.  It is this quote that concerns me:
::"...but by following those editors' tracks, we might be able to find more. Just watch my edit history and you'll be able to figure out what was going on and who deleted the category tag. Then follow their tracks. If you will please activate your email, I'll email you the names to watch. Let me know on my user page. -- Fyslee 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It screams WP:AGF to me... Shot info 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Assume" does not mean blindly do so, Steth is voicing concern and asking questions about possible evidence, not directly accusing. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include...sockpuppetry... Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." It's getting warm in here.--I'clast 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see being able to format a list correctly as suspicious, especially since the Wikipedia categories are formatted as external links rather than as the obvious (to any experienced Editor) :Category:category name. S/he could, I suppose, have experience in another Wiki? — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''ALERT! ALERT!''' 

message: Ongoing comments by Steth is not assuming good faith. Steth has not helped in any way in improving the list. Seems odd to me. Has not added anything to the list. The only thing Steth has done is continued to be negetive. I smell it now a troll that is.
Please comment on improving the list and stop your strange behavior. --QuackGuru 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note regarding Steth 

message: People who are opposed to quackery are listed on this article. The title of this list is "List of articles related to quackery".
People who are genuine and notable opposing to quackery deserve to be on this remarkable list. Related to quackery does not mean quackery. It means related in some way. People who oppose quackery are on this list too. --QuackGuru 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I doubt that you, and many of QW followers really mean certain fiercely contested mainstream medical notions as quackery, as "anti-quackery" might imply for CABC as a researcher.--I'clast 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the readers decide their own conclusions. FYI, I am a leader not a follower. BTW, this list will be gone very shortly anyways. Note---->
Note to all editors: Does anyone have another title for this list that does not have the "Q-word" but still have a similar meaning. --QuackGuru 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: This list has gone thru a major clean up. I removed the persons section so their is no WP:BLP concerns. I suggest the title could be changed to > the 'List of articles related to skepticism'. Suggestions are welcomed on how to improve the list. Thank you. --QuackGuru 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Please comment on improving the article. The article is going thru an unprecedented transitional period at the moment. I hope we will have good comments and ideas here. Thanx. --QuackGuru 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean House 

message: This is a current problem! This list is not to be edited by just any editor at wikipedia. This is private area. -- Fyslee 12:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? This is a wiki, we don't have bit that all wikipedians can't edit!--Docg 12:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my observation, it seems that the requirements to edit this so-called "private" area is to be obsessively consumed with hatred of non-drug types of methods.  Oh, yes, if you populate this list with any links that eventually lead a reader to any of the 'non-profit' sites owned by Stephen Barrett Enterprises where donations are gladly accepted (!) well then that would certainly be OK, too!" Steth 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, just as well I have my anti-woo spray on, Steth almost got me there.  Needs more CAPs though to really cut it :-) And it's Stephen Barrett Enterprises TM :-) Shot info 08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by project detractors and supporters of pseudoscience 

message: The title of this article should be changed to something neutral. My suggestion for the title change is the 'List of articles related to scientific skepticism'. Frankly, I would like this article peer-reviewed by professional admins. who have experience with overviewing and editing articles. Any suggestions on focusing this list would be helpful. Thanks you. --QuackGuru 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Title 

message: This is the current lead:
*"The following is a list of Wikipedia articles and categories that are related to the subject of skepticism and to a degree about quackery. Inclusion here is not a statement that the subject is quackery or the person is a quack, only that scientific skeptics, debunkers, and consumer protection advocates consider the article to be related to the subject and of possible value when investigating the subject of quackery. Some listed items may be considered by them to be forms of quackery, promoters of quackery, openly against quackery, red flags for quackery, or mechanisms and thought patterns conducive to it. Both sides of the issues are included. See the individual articles for more information."
Can we consider taking all the references to quackery out? --Dematt 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: I think you are confusing people with what you will allow and not allow on this list that they are afraid to add anything and are getting discouraged from Wikipedian collaboration and good fellowship.  I am confused too, with what you allow here.  I want to contribute, but maybe I should clear it with you first.
a) According to the article on Quackery, A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." Quackery  So if, say, Stephen Barrett fails his psychiatrist boards and then represents himself as an expert witness in psychiatry and/or testifying as a legal expert with no legal training, and gets paid for this, is he a quack and can this be listed here?  Is this considered skepticism or fraud or what?
b) If, let's say a dermatologist, and the country doesn't matter, like Canada or the US, has issues with women and badgers them relentlessly or assumes a women's identity for the purpose of subterfuge on the internet, should't this be listed here with the related links to confirm this?  This is behaviour that is unprofessional, but I don't know, I am just trying to understand the criteria for inclusion in this controversial list. If you don't think these things should be included, then I am totally confused and perhaps you would consider just letting the list be deleted and be done with the whole bloody thing, eh?
Thanks and Goodwill towards you and all Wikipedians. My best to you!  Steth 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for Qguru 

message: I have started the process of changing this list to better reflect the change of title and the change to Project space. Please help to continue doing this. --Bduke 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent change.  Now we're talking.  I am fine with that. --Dematt 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup? I took a "quick" run at the start of list for short, quick corrections, skipping the longer entries with longer strings of references. Three pieces of dreck, still not "clean" or done with the "A"s. Augean task. Still think personal page or offsite best placement.--I'clast 10:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now a list in Project space. Why does it need references? Why does it need anything other than the article name in the list? Remove them would be my advice but I have done enough for today. It is late at night here. --Bduke 12:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: \star  This is a Project page, NOT an encyclopedia article  \star
This project page is a constantly changing workplace and source of reference for project members.
It may not conform to all the standards expected of "articles-in-progress", such as NPOV, verifiability and no original research since that is not its purpose.
To use it as a Watchlist, just copy this link to your user space.
-- Fyslee 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything about NPOV and Wikiproject policy being different.  Do you have something along that line? --Dematt 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I really wish I could find something that said they were not required.  Mostly all that is out there is that it is required in wikipedia articles.  I agree the requirements should be less, but it would be nice to find something that stated that specifically. Any problems with the addition of npov, v and or in the template above? --Dematt 01:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer we do not drop the standards for this list. An inch equals a mile. I propose we maintain the course and uphold the strictest standards. I added the "watchlist box" at the top of the intro. It is not centered. It is at the left hand side. If anyone knows how to center it in the middle, then feel free to give it a try. I do not know how to do that. Thanks. --QuackGuru 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed box for top of article 

message: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator could very well be on this list, but I'd especially like to make users here aware that that article is currently undergoing a substantial amount of editing by users who have deleted its "skepticism" section and seem to have declared that they will do the same to its "criticism" section, per Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Heads up. — coelacan talk — 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MBTI 

message: I removed articles as suggested by many editors. Thanks. --QuackGuru 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The big issue with this article is that it treats scientific skepticism as a belief rather than a methodology of believing. Perhaps this is where QuackGuru is getting tripped up. By incorrectly holding scientific skepticism as a belief, he/she thinks there must be a group who subscribes to this belief known as "Scientific Skeptics". Thus, whatever this group deems to be quackery or pseudoscience or just plain bunk is thought to be "related to" scientific skepticism. Aside from this being highly POV, unencyclopaedic and perjorative in nature, it makes a false assumption that scientific skepticism can be reduced to "what" someone believes rather than the method by which someone arrives at their beliefs. Scientific skepticism is merely a way of thinking... about anything. If you think with scientific skepticism, then you approach everything with the need to have it explained rationally by the scientific method. It is the opposite of accepting something on faith (without scientific evidence). Therefore, there is nothing in the universe that can be more or less related to scientific skepticism; after all everything can be equally analyzed by the methodology of scientific skepicism ... an apple, a quasar, a theory, a thought, etc. "Is the apple real?" "Prove it." "Is the theory sound?" "Prove it." The list of articles related to scientific skepticism truly would be as long as n (where n represents the amount of articles in Wikipedia). In essence, this list is of no practical importance. Levine2112 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Per Comments At AFD