Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 2

message: I'm not sure if this is exactly the place to put this, but it seems at least plausible.  I am having a load of trouble keeping things NPOV over there because some editors (members of this utopian ("utopian?") community, I suspect) feel the need to delete all criticism of the community (particularly in regards to free speech, which is rather creepy).  The site's important to the Rational Skepticism Wikiproject, I feel, because Auroville is the creation of Mirra Alfassa, proponent of  "Supramental Truth Consciousness", out-of-body experiences, and cellular consciousness.  If I could just get a couple of people monitoring the page with me to maintain NPOV, it would be extraordinarily helpful.  Thanks, --TurabianNights 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as urgent now - we've gotten some rational editors in.  I would still appreciate it being on a few people's watchlists, just in case.  Love and Thinkees, --TurabianNights 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help on [[Auroville]], please 

message: For well over half a year, I've been battling with pro-paranormal editors who are trying to insert false and dubious claims from sleazy newspaper tabloids (such as Sun and Pravda RU) and self-published personal web sites into the Natasha Demkina article. Despite Wiki guidelines against the use of such sources, a few editors continue to insist that those guidelines need to be ignored in the interest of adding more information favorable to the Demkina's claims. I'd welcome the help of other rational skeptics in keeping such disreputable sources out of Wikipedia.  Askolnick 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more rational skeptics to help with [[Natasha Demkina]] article 

message: Article for deletion: EmDrive. linas 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  news flash! perpetual motion! 

message: The hagiography of Michael Menkin, inventor of the "thought screen helmet", is up for deletion. Byrgenwulf 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop alien mind control 

message: Does anybody know more about this? Any critical sources? --Hob Gadling 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dorn method]]

message: I have started a discussion on the talk page for out-of-body experiences (OBEs) to address some pro-psi POV issues by presenting the alternative view based on neuroscientific data from Olaf Blanke that these experiences are a result of brain activity in the right parieto-temporal junction (see the talk page here).  I will probably have a chance to write a block of text this weekend to add.  At this point, the discussion is still civil, and I haven't actually started the article yet, but if anyone here would like to add their two cents to this discussion, any input would be appreciated.  Edhubbard 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Out-of-body experiences]]

message: User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration members of this project may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfArb

message: This looks to be like a very important case, in my opinion. You may wish to watch parts of it or comment on talkpages even if you are not directly involved: . --ScienceApologist 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience arbitration

message: I'm not sure whether one may nominate articles for revision here, but I feel that some articles, such as Telepathy, urgently need attention. Moreover, I believe it would be beneficial to keep an eye on articles part of the Wikiproject Paranormal in order to maintain a neutral point of view in these articles. --Tail 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the need to point out that Wikiproject Paranormal's membership roll includes skeptics (myself included), and I somewhat resent the implication that its members, regardless of their personal beliefs, de facto wouldn't be just as dedicated to WP:NPOV. — e. ripley\talk 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have wondered about the members of that project, and I'm glad to know what you told us.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we can take it for granted that such projects, including this one, are infiltrated. -- Fyslee 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that there are no skeptics in the Paranormal project, but rather that articles on paranormal phenomena (articles part of the Wikiproject Paranormal probably make a good list of these) would benefit from skeptical input. --Tail 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you weren't trying to offend, but it did rather imply that the Wikiproject Paranormal participants wouldn't be able to do that themselves. — e. ripley\talk 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in need of attention 

message: * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathological skepticism. Read, comment, enjoy. --ScienceApologist 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Of possible interest

message: I think they need a fair bit of work.  I think skepticism should just be a brief dictionary definition of skepticism and the rest being just a disambiguation to other kinds of "skepticism".  --Havermayer 06:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they need work but disagree with the end result.  I briefly put the case for summary style at Talk:Skepticism --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that skepticism should be a summary-style article instead of a disambig page.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scientific skepticism]] and [[Skepticism]] 

message: This article needs some de-POVifying attention, I think. I added a line of criticism from Quackwatch, but the rest of the article reads like an impenetrable press release from the institute. — e. ripley\talk 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Institute of Noetic Sciences]] 

message: The following has been added to a prominent position in the Institute of Noetic Sciences article:
The skeptical organization Quackwatch lists IONS as a voluntary organization it views with "considerable distrust."  I have started a discussion on the talk page on whether this group and their views are relevant enough to warrant such a position with the aim of gaining some level of consensus. I should also note that Quackwatch have not made a direct statement to do with IONS they have simply included them in a list with over 500+ other organisations. - Solar 10:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institute of Noetic Sciences and Quackwatch 

message: There is now a new category for tagging non-mainstream proposals that the scientific community has ignored in the journals. Check out :Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation and tag it to appropriate articles. --ScienceApologist 12:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New category

message: The CSICOP article is mainly being edited by pro-paranormal editors.  Someone might want to take a look at it.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSICOP article 

message: Is there a way to officially join the group, or do I just add my name to the page?  —Długosz 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just add your name to the main page under Project/Active members, or something like that.  And welcome aboard! Bubba73 (talk), 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I sign up? 

message: I am in an AfD-debacle over retrocausality and I think we should list supercausality for similar reasons, but as I'm tied up with a debacle, could I ask someone else to help? Thanks. --ScienceApologist 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD debacle

message: A lot of things we "know" from reading books and websites, such as how Psychic detectives are really a second wave of preditors, have never solved a case, etc.  But where do I go to point to primary source for such statements?  I'm afraid of circular references, and websites like http://randi.org are more scattered in their coverage.
So what are authorative sources we can easily use and cite?
—Długosz Dec 18, 2006
:Attribution is the best way to go, even though it does seem circular, practically any of the famous skeptics, CSCIOP, Randi, Skeptical Inquirer, etc. are all fine. Be careful in your wording, though. Instead of saying that "psychic detectives have never solved a case", it might be better to write something alon the lines of: "Critics of psychic detectives such as James Randi have pointed out that psyhcic detectives do not have a particularly good track-record with solving criminal cases.Put your citation here". Make sure your reference is to an actual statement by Randi about the subject at hand, and not just to his website in general. The better the reference, the better the chance your prose will be kept. The point is that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablility and not truth. You want the prose you write to be so ironclad in how its referenced that even after your gone and the page becomes innudated with ne'er-do-wellers, editors who are less familiar with the material than you will be confident in reverting to your version because you properly attributed and referenced your contributions. --ScienceApologist 07:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as psychic detectives, the book The Blue Sense by Author Lyons and Marcello Truzzi examined all of the major psychic detectives, and none of them ever solved a case.  And the authors state that they don't know of any valid case. Bubba73 (talk), 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to Find Sources? 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards