Talk:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry/Archive 3

message: Per request here and WP:RFPP -- Samir   धर्म 10:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: This isn't an article about Fate magazine, but if it's a comparison you're after see this from Hanson's article:
"After the moderate members left [following the mars-effect controversy], little dissent or criticism of the Committee has been seen in the pages of SI. The magazine nearly always presents only one side of a controversy in its articles. Although SI sometimes publishes letters of complaint, full papers from CSICOP’s critics almost never appear. This is in remarkable contrast to refereed parapsychology journals and even some of the pro-paranormal magazines. For instance, the popularly written magazine Fate has carried full articles by CSICOP members Susan Blackmore, L. Sprague de Camp, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Philip Klass, Larry Kusche, Lawrence Jerome, David Marks, Joe Nickell, James Oberg, Dennis Rawlins, Robert Sheaffer, Gordon Stein, and Marcello Truzzi. In keeping with CSICOP’s one-sided approach, SI has given scant attention to papers in well-known, orthodox scientific journals that present evidence for psi (e.g.. Child, 1985; Jahn, 1982; Radin & Nelson, 1989; Rao & Palmer, 1987; Winkelman, 1982)." Davkal 23:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant response to an irrelevant question

message: Any objections if I do some archiving?  This page is enormously long.  I'd archive everything up to my initial mediation. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll do that this evening; and I'll also assemble another version of the paragraph in the section above, and include all the refs from the original, for everyone to take one more look at before we make the change. Mike Christie (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done; I renamed the old archive page, which had a slightly non-standard name. Mike Christie (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Askolnick has indicated he's willing to try again to work with the mediation.  Based on some of the discussion above, I would like to propose the following ground rules to simplify and speed up this process.
# Everyone agrees to abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, no matter how irrational you think the other person is being.
# We'll pick a topic -- I'll start with a piece of the Demkina paragraph -- and work on that; one topic at a time.
# We will only post comments that are directly related to the issue at hand, rather than expanding into general comments or citing examples from other areas of the dispute.
# I will try to identify an acceptable consensus and verify it with the group before making the edit.
If the above works on the first topic, we can start multiple sections in parallel.  In that way we could have a section to discuss if Josephson can be described as a parapsychologist, a section to discuss if an Associate Member is different from a Member, and so on.  That would dramatically speed up the process.
In addition, I suggest that where people depart from the above -- e.g. by violating WP:CIVIL etc., or by drifting off topic, I will post a note saying so.  If I have managed to retain mediator neutrality, I think a note from me asserting a violation is less inflammatory than a note from one of the other participants.  I'll do my best to post quickly after others, in order not to let a conflict develop, but of course work and sleep will sometimes prevent that.
Finally, I suggest that edits to any text that has been agreed on through mediation (currently only the first two paragraphs of the controversy section) be reverted by any one of us immediately, and a discussion started here.  I would like to see you revert a change to that text even if the change is one you agree with -- keeping the agreed version in place is more important than supporting a particular POV.  If there is a real improvement to be made, let's bring it back here to discuss.  Edits to text not yet agreed on -- well, I think it would be better to get agreement first, but do as you see fit.
I'm going to go ahead and start a new section right after this.  Once I see Karl and Askolnick participating, at least, I will immediately start some further sections for discussion of other aspects of the Demkina paragraph.  Davkal has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR so he will not be posting till tomorrow, at least.  I will be checking his talk page for his comments (he can still edit his talk page) and will incorporate his input as appropriate.  Let's also post suggestions for new sections to discuss under a "Next topics" section.
Please let me know here if you don't want to participate.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With such an excellently thought-out plan, how could I not? Askolnick 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, while I agree the plan is excellently thought out, I won't participate any further. Thanks, Addhoc 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested ground rules