Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 4

message: *I think this category should be renamed to :Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members, particularly because it is populated by use of Template:User WikiProject Rational Skepticism. It should just flag members of the project and not express a POV. Any comments before I put it to WP:UCFD? --Bduke 02:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that sound? --Bduke 06:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Skeptical Wikipedians]]

message: As part of the Paranormal project, i have been working on this article to try and bring some balance to it.  it was lacking in documentation of serious critical views and could use some more work towards that end.  I mention it here as part of this project because members of this project may be able to help me bring in some well-structured documentation of serious academic issues with Castaneda's works - works he and his publisher have always mainatined are works of nonfiction.  A recent article in Salon spurred me towards action.  That article covered some of the more disturbing aspects of Castaneda's movement and personal life.  Ex-members of his inner group have published books about their experiences wiith the self-described sorcerer and those may be good primary sources.  I tagged the article as under the jurisdiction of the paranormal project because Castaneda did promote the view that he was  spritiual leader with revealed wisdom of sorcery.  LiPollis 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Carlos Castaneda]]

message: There has been a request for arbitration initiated by Minderbinder. You can find it here. []. If you've been involved in this and would like to become an involved party then just add your name to the list and add a statement concerning your opinions on this matter.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for arbitration 

message: I am interested in adding perspective to this article.  At present, the article is rather vague in its deiniftion of what Life Coaching is or isn't.  The section on criticism is equally vague.  Since this is one of the topics covered in last year's season of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, it might be good to try and improve the article.  Any help others can give me would be gretly appreciated.LiPollis 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to keep an eye on this article and I would appreciate it if some other rational skeptics would consider adding it to their watchlist.  I am constantly having to revert edits from Life Coaches inserting either OR, sneaky mentions of their own services or outright linking to their business pages.  People are also inserting vague BS here and there with no sources trying to paint Life Coaching as this, that or the other pet idea they have about it.  I am in dire need of some actual sourced info about the origins of the term and its practicing as well as any views from genuine and credentialed mental health professionals as either for or against the spread of this lay therapy. any help you all can give would be very much appreciated.LiPollis 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Life coaching]]

message: This long article (Unification theory - not to be confused with Grand unification theory) has just been resurrected, after being deleted once, and I have proposed it for deletion again. The article is not per se about Grand Unification Theory, a legitimate topic of enquiry in physics. Rather, it is a long, rambling treatise which veers off into pseudoscience. Please have a look and comment on its Articles for Deletion page if you wish to support (or oppose) my deletion proposal.—greenrd 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Unification theory]]

message: Would anyone object to there being a list of relevant AfDs for the project? If not, I will probably start such a list, and would appreciate it if other editors would add relevant AfDs that they start or notice.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philosophus (talk • contribs).
*I have recently done some remodeling of the Project, WP:SCN, and we have a sub-page now where we list relevant AFDs.  If you like, I could remodel this project in the same fashion at some point...  Smee 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The remodeling is amazing! As a minor suggestion, however, it might be better to have Current/Older (open/closed) instead of Most Recent 10/Older, since there is a clear Recent/Not Recent distinction with AfDs. --Philosophus T 23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thank you for the compliments on the remodeling!  Can you clarify what you mean on the Current/Older?  I will attempt to modify and see if I understand correctly...  Smee 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *AfDs are either open or closed. I think it would make the most sense if the list were divided by that, instead of being divided by Most Recent 10/Older, since there will be some people who will only be interested in open AfDs. --Philosophus T 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please do re-check WP:SCN, particularly WP:SCN/AFD.  I have modified the sub-page accordingly.  This would be the model for a new project page...  Smee 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Excellent --Philosophus T 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfDs 

message: I'm not sure what the general method of notification for this project is, but for WikiProject Pseudoscience we used to use the project talk page to notify people of current or upcoming controversies, so I am following that method. RayTomes is back, working on a new article on the Foundation for the Study of Cycles (though it appears to just be mostly the same old article) on a subpage of his user page, User:RayTomes/Foundation for the Study of Cycles, for eventual inclusion into Wikipedia, and is asking for help editing. Some of you may remember Ray, as he was one of Hillman's adversaries, and the Foundation for the Study of Cycles article was redirected to Edward R. Dewey after an AfD resulted in a lack of consensus between deletion and redirection. --Philosophus T 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation for the Study of Cycles 

message: In reading 1976 Tehran UFO incident, I remember seeing a TV program that showed the tape of the F-4 radar.  It showed the object "flying" under the surface of the Earth at one point, hence the radar was having problems.  Does anyone know of a source for this?  (It isn't in Randi's book.)  Bubba73 (talk), 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1976 Tehran UFO incident 

message: I have been looking over the cultural phenomenon of "Indigo Kids" lately since it's getting a lot of press now that Comedianne Jenny McCarthy has been discussing her belief in this concept. (She has aan autistic child who she believes is an Indigo child).  In looking over the two articles on the subject here on wikipedia, I detected a noticeable absence of criticisms of the concept/phenomenon despite there being a large body of criticism.  Perhpas some members of this project might wish to look the articles over and determine if some balance can be added.  Please be aware that these beliefs border on areas of spirituality and religion and as a result, generate very strong feelings in some readers and editors.  Also, since these children are usually also suffering from autism or some other disorder, please be cautious about any characterizations of the children themselves. 
The articles are:
*Indigo children -  They are alleged to be kids born with special powers who have been "sent" to earth to save us from ourselves.
*Kryon - the entity Indigo kids believers  say is behind the sending of the Indigo kids.
Please take a look-see when you have time.  There is quite the cottage industry now in supporting the homeschooling of "Indigo" kids and in alternative therapies for their many mental health and physical health issues.  There is even a new subdidvision of "Indigo" Kids called "Crystal Kids" butthere is not an article on them yet.  Just google the terms and you'll see how popular these subjects have become.LiPollis 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles in need of attention

message: Conspiracy Con has been nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² (t|c) 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Con AfD 

message: Scientific skepticism has had a lot of material tagged as uncited and removed, replaced, and removed again.  It may need attention to cite things.  (A strange thing is that PerfectBlue97 is tagging and removing, yet PerfectBlue removes cited material, removes citations, and changes sourced statements to read differently from what the source said, in at least one other article.)  Bubba73 (talk), 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's also adding fact tags to his changes, and adding fact tags to things where sources can be found in less time than it takes to add the fact tags (quotations easily found in reliable sources through Google, places where references aren't given but the reader is pointed to more detailed articles where references are given, and so on). --Philosophus T 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So just remove the "fact tags" and put the sources in place. If he tries to remove the sources then put them back and we can get him on the 3rr if he is truly doing it not in good faith and not explaining his reasoning.Wikidudeman (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mainly reverted him for his changes to the text, which in my opinion were not improvements. I was also too tired at the time to add the sources; thank you for doing so. --Philosophus T 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific skepticism article 

message: This article is a mess again. Heim theory is a notable borderline-pseudoscientific theory, but the article is currently presenting it as real science, and giving excuses for the lack of reputable sources. We need to improve this to comply with WP:ARB/PS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. --Philosophus T 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heim theory]] 

message: There is a request for comment on the article BDORT, which is about a patented "alternative medecine technique". Thought this request might interest someone here. It is not about the validity of the technique (which few people in the argument are seeking to defend), but whether a New Zealand medical tribunal is discussing the patented technique or something else with the same name. See:
*Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology#Clinical_and_medical_topics
*Talk:BDORT#Request for comment
Thanks. 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment, [[BDORT]] 

message: Someone has evidently been tagging away with  -- Good job!  Smee 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  103 articles in the project 

message: A user prematurely wants to jump to arbitration after just a few edit reversions in the Jamie Hyneman article. From a quote in which Hyneman said he is pretty much against the whole God thing without explaining the specifics of what he meant, one user is insisting on calling either an atheist or (worse because it involves vague language we don't use in an encyclopedia) likely an atheist. There is a clear difference between atheism and agnosticism, and the Hyneman quote does not indicate that he is either. Actually, a person could be against God and still believe God exists. That seems unlikely in this class, but that's my point: It involves telling the readers how to interpret his sentence. Could someone please weigh on in the issue at Talk:Jamie_Hyneman and maybe help those people resolve this? Doczilla 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jamie Hyneman]]

message: Geologic column looks fairly reasonable (if unreferenced), but most references to it on the web are from creationist sites (at least, the ones I clicked on were). Is this a creationist neologism? Totnesmartin 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who made this article had objectionable content on her user page and has continued to make edits in contravention of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I suggest that members of this project look carefully at User:Janet1983's contributions from time to time to make sure she isn't unduly promoting creation science in Wikipedia pages. --Mainstream astronomy 10:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article to ponder 

message: I'm alarmed by no. 4 of your goals. Wikipedia is not a campaigning organization. The project should not be dedicated to rooting out the truth about pseudoscience. Many would consider that to be a worthy aim, but if you consult the policies, you will see that it is not consistent with Wikipedia's aims, which are more limited. Can you assure everyone that this is not a POV project? Itsmejudith 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that not consistent with Wikipedia's aims? — Omegatron 23:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported.  - if the fraudulent claims are made here on Wikipedia, then it's obvious POV and must go. But if it's elsewhere, then we can only cite someone else's criticism of it, rather than provide our own (which would be Original Research). Totnesmartin 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the point of this particular goal. To give an unbiased examination of the facts of such illegal or unethical activities by such organizations.--Scorpion451 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your goal 4. 

message: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard needs more eyes. Moreschi  Talk 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaguely related new noticeboard? 

message: I thought some of the editors here might be interested in this noticeboard, which seems to deal primarily with fringe theories, which seems to be at least part of the scope of this project. John Carter 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard]] 

message: I saw that there was a need for a logo upon joining this project, and I have provided two.  #1 is a more simplistic image, #2 is a bit more detailed but also my preffered choice, as it is slightly humorous while encapsulating the goal of the project
# 
#
See what ya'll think. They are my own work and I still have the base files so I can easily make any changes you would like.--Scorpion451 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need a logo? --Mainstream astronomy 20:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put simply, because projects have to have a logo on wikipedia. Also it can be used in userboxes, on the tags for revision, ect.  It is supposed to be distict and representative of the project.--Scorpion451 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do projects have to have a logo? What's wrong with the Earth with the question mark? --Mainstream astronomy 20:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A problem with yours is that they show a POV (that ghosts and witches are not real), whereas I think this project attempts (at least in theory) to follow NPOV by presenting the arguments on both sides of such issues. Of course, in most cases we seem to be doing mostly debunking of paranormal claims. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with either of them, but I actually really like the current logo. I'd like to hear from other members. Λυδαcιτγ 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer the current logo (#3).  Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of liking the current logo or not. As I said above, there is either a problem with this logo of some sort, or the request needs to be taken off the to do list. And to explain the idea behind #2, it is a play on removing spooky, unsubstantiated or transparent explanations, hense erasing a ghost.--Scorpion451 16:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the request off of the list. Λυδαcιτγ 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, at least no one else will be confused by it =P--Scorpion451 04:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two proposed logos 

message: I lost my account password on my other computer and so began editing as User:Velikovsky to look at some of the catastrophism pseudoscience. I was surprised that Ian Tresman was editing he is extremely well-connected in the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies and makes much of his living by doing web-design for that group. I don't think he should be editing those pages and posted a WP:COI warning on his page which he did not take kindly too. He also reverted a change I made to Anthony Peratt's page about his new-found amicas with Velikovsky supporters. This user reverted it and placed a warning at User talk:Velikovsky. I'm in over my head. Can anyone help me? --Mainstream astronomy 20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian Tresman is a problem editor.  I didn't know about his conflit of interest.  I've had difficulty with Velikosvky-related articles, but more with a different editor.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a problem editor? Is this a designation we can label people somehow? --Mainstream astronomy 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind!  This user is too much. The kind of absurdity he is promoting is way over my head, and so I've decided to volunteer elsewhere. Good luck, you all need it. --Mainstream astronomy 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Velikovsky

message: Two editors seem to be in an edit war at Lunar effect.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war at [[Lunar effect]] 

message: Pigasus Award is up for deletion.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pigasus Award]] AfD 

message: I've recently started an article with this topic to move adverts from the Dyslexia article to a more appropriate place. The problem persists: the link to Alternative therapy (disability) has been repeatedly deleted from the Dyslexia article, and there is an edit war between me and user:armarshall who works for www.dyslexia.com, a website promoting a batty therapy called Davis Dyslexia Correction. I had to include a table explaining the reason for certain therapies being controversial (there are loads more to come) so that they wouldn't be deleted from the article. It seems that nothing really helps. The Dyslexia article has been improving, but it's still a mess, and I'm having problems with the alternative page. Could you help me with this? You could leave your comments in the talk page. I've expressed my willingness to make improvements to reach a consensus, but I guess my opponent simply wants to destroy the article. Piechjo 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative therapy (disability)

message: Could someone with a proper academic background please take a look at this article. During the last few days it has been the subject of a whitewash that introduced a bunch of details from Red Rain studies. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial changes reported panspermia as a "proved process", but it has since been toned down to hypothesized process, which is an appropriate label. I was hoping to recruit someone with a background in earth sciences or climatology to examine the claims made regarding the Red Rain in Kerala. I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology are more appropriate venues. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Panspermia]] 

message: The Casein article is in need of some premptive editing- it is headed towards an edit war, as good information is being buried under contrevsial claims. For example, a paragraph about a study linking casein to blockage of flavenoids in the bloodstream (a valid study, interesting) ends with the candid quote from a magazine, "[i]t probably also blocks tea's effect on other things, such as cancer."(word for word quote)  Casein also has been tenatively linked to an aggravation of symptoms of autism (not a cause, an aggrivation), but the studies on this are still in early stages and the jury is still out.  The theory is that the digestive problems frequently accompanying autism cause the body to process casein incorrectly. 
To add to the pot, casein is a naturally occuring edible polymer found in milk. It is used in everything from plasics to dietary suppliments, even paint, protective coatings, fabric, and oddly is a primary ingredient in cotton candy (providing structure). Due to the amount of space devoted to the "dangers of evil satan-invention casein" there is little information about a chemical that like duct tape seems to be everywhere and holds our planet together. (by the way, I think it's in duct tape too. XD)--Scorpion451 rant 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casein 

message: This article has been nominated as a candidate for the collaboration above. If you would be interested in helping to improve this article in this collaboration, please indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[New Age]] nominated for [[Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive]] 

message: Any chance of a blitz on this? 1) The style has gone completely pear-shaped; it's been allowed to develop into a turgid academic literature survey of every damn thing published on the subject, rather than an accessible Wikipedia article for the general reader. It needs heavy trimming and editing for style. 2) There are big article ownership issues, with it dominated by one openly biased editor who is devoted largely to collecting pro-orthomolecular references. 81.132.98.197 02:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Orthomolecular medicine]]

message: hello administrators of site  en.wikipedia.org I not so a long ago got over in Moses Lake  
and so, that I cut intercourse short with valuable  a man, Spike  Michael - Meg  Margaretson, and now try to find him, last that I know so it that he lives in citi, and often vi 
sits the resources of type your en.wikipedia.org, in a network has the name Hayleykon 
, if suddenly will see this nik write that this man contacted with me  . I very much I miss  without socializing with this man.To reason wanted to say thank you  to the command  your resource. So to hold boys. Only little request of,sdelayte prepotent spam filter and little by little begin ustavat' from every there Viagra
:Can you give us any more information on the identity of this person? A hint as to his username (if he had one), specific articles he edited, or something else which we could use to pinpoint him would be very useful. John Carter 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's spam of some kind - I just snipped two very similar following posts. 82.25.230.202 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good afternoon 

message: I thought this wikiproject might be interested in this article Growing Earth Theory and since I didn't see it categorized by this group, I decided to bring it to your attention. Remember 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added our tag to the article's talk page.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growing earth 

message: It's real and passed AFD, but needs work on OR, NPOV and reliability of sourcing. 86.155.205.243 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oil pulling]]

message: I'd like to recruit a bit of a hand in poking the Reiki article into neutrality. There's currently a bit of a true believer, who has a contribution history over the past 3 months of nearly nothing the Reiki article. He seems to listen to argument, but every change in the direction of NPOV comes with a certain degree of struggle... POV and weasel words could be reduced, along with general wordiness and an amazing degree of over-citation of questionable literature... -- Xinit 12:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reiki 

message: Hi.  I perhaps mistakenly put my notice of concern about Facilitated communication up at  Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard.  The editor who responded wasn't aware that FC is completely bogus.  Maybe someone here with some knowledge and energy can act?  --Wfaxon 16:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Facilitated communication]]