Talk:Skeptical Inquirer

message: I saw something strange in the article. There is the usual header at the end of it called "See also" where it lists similar topics with links. One of them is Reason magazine, which is not a magazine dedicated to critical thought or the advancement of science but a political magazine with an ideological agenda. I think the entry should be removed since I fail to see it as relevant and also because it smells like someone using the article to subtly propagate their political agenda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.230.7 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason (magazine) 

message: On October 9, 2010 CSI met to discuss future plans and to expand the Executive Council.  The results were published in Vol. 35 No. 1, I feel this information is relevant to the article and I propose to add this section to the site.  SGerbic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Executive Council 

message: an enquirer inquires. the editors of the afore mentioned periodical should consult a dictionary. i appreciate this has nothing ot do with the article, i just dislike bad english. Jonomacdrones 01:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Oxford American Dictionary says that inquirer is correct.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: enquirer?

message: When I typed Zetetic scholar into Wikipedia, it bounced to the Skeptical Enquirer page.  It should not, because the SE was originally The Zetetic, and was renamed SE.  Truzzi founded the Zetetic Scholar after leaving CSICOP.
Martinphi 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it.  That was due to a misunderstanding by THB.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: 'but it is not a formal scientific journal.' Can anyone explain what this means, and if it is a clear distinction. Liam195.7.54.2 10:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a magazine, not a journal that specializes in publishing scientific research, like JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, etc.. You won't find its articles listed at PubMed. -- Fyslee 10:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal?

message: I noticed that this article and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry don't follow WP:GTL guidelines regarding some section namings.  It seems to me that the section presently named References should, to follow GTL guidelines, be named Further reading and that the section now named Notes should be named References.  Is there any opposition to changing these names per GTL? -- Boracay Bill 07:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two item under "references" are indeed references (Harvard referencing), they are cited in the text.  So they aren't "Further reading".  Maybe "notes" should be renamed "footnotes", but I need to read the GTL.  Bubba73 (talk), 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I partially agree. The items in References are definitely references, but the "notes" are references too, and not "explanations or comments".  Bubba73 (talk), 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "notes" are all external links, though.  Bubba73 (talk), 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are exactly right in your pbervation.  Books that are referenced are Harvard-referenced in the text and the references section.  Most of the footnotes are external links, but some in the other article are not.  Somewhere else I've read something to the effect "better any kind of reference than no reference". What do you suggest about the conflicting styles?  I strongly prefer Harvard referencing, but I'm not up to changing the notes and links.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it is worth, this former Feature Article Paul Morphy uses notes (footnotes), references, and further reading.  But in that case, notes are true footnotes. Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard appendices and descriptions & WP:GTL 

message: I made this change because that harvard source is directly contradicted by the official website, so it must be wrong. Their official website:
# states that it's a magazine and says nothing about being a journal. Their subtitle is "The Magazine for Science and Reason" 
#does not claim anywhere to be peer-reviewed
#doesn't explain any method to recruit reviewers and apply for being a reviewer. 
Maybe the Harvard source was mis-interpreted --Enric Naval (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not peer-reviwed, and not a journal 

message: Nightscream: What do you mean when you say "Skepticism is an approach or methodology, not an approach"? 
Are you arguing that SI would print an original article (not a rebuttal) by Peter Duesberg on the uses of skepticism in viewing HIV as a cause of Aids? 
The global warming paper is specifically stated right on the cover to be a "position paper", and it's published by the CFI, an affiliate of SI. Readers can certainly take it to be SI's formal position on the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the Edit Summary. I meant to say, "Skepticism is an approach, or methodology, not a position." As for the paper, yeah, you're right. I wasn't sure whose "position" it was, but I looked over that issue, and yes, you're right. Since SI is the magazine of CFI, I agree it's reasonable to call it a position of the magazine. However, I would caution that this assertion is somewhat more subjective with respect to the other topics. Some skeptical publications like SI do print rebuttals or other material by people opposed to its material. (I seem to recall Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer having a point-counterpoint dual essay in Skeptic.) But whether they would publish such a thing or not, is not the issue. When you start assuming that a skeptical or critical look at a subject is the same as a position, you're treading into WP:SYNTH. I suggest restoring the bit about the global warming position paper, but not others unless they're explicitly stated to be position pieces like the global warming one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I've removed this section as it doesn't seem to fit well with the overall article - it gives too much weight to two particular issues. Feedback is welcome here.  SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Apologies for my poor word choice. I have added those two subjects to the list within the Content section, which is where they belong. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Position on major issues

message: This page seems horribly outdated. I'm going to give it a go at a rewrite. Give me a week or so and see what I come up with.Sgerbic (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it in only a couple days. YEAH! I am not 100% sure that the magazine covers are going to be okay, I uploaded them under the WP:NFCC licencing as they are low rez, I will think of something else if they are not right. I was able to get a copy of the Scientific American article from 1982 that really pulled the rewrite together. There also exists a Reader's Digest and a Psychology Today article that I read the first page of, I didn't see anything worthwhile on those pages, but possibly somewhere in the rest of the article. If someone finds them please review and see what you think.The Reader's Digest is July 1978, written by Frazier. I don't think there was anything else I was trying to find, but you're welcome to it. Enjoy!Sgerbic (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Near the end of the article there are two references to the "CSI Online Store". Is this consistent with WP:SPAM? I'm a little unclear on what is and is not allowed.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional link? 

message: I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, SECONDARY citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS], WP:NOTADVERT, WP:NOR, et al. I don't know who's responsible for this, but there is no way in hell that Wikipedia permits an article on magazine with this much information supported by a total of sixty-one primary citations of the magazine itself, or its parent body, out of a total seventy-one citations, not to mention an entire final section that's completely unreferenced.
This diff shows where the material was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: Hi! I believe that the mission statement and the influence section are problematic and should be shortened significantly to prevent the highly promotional feel of the sections. 
My analysis below:
Mission Statement: Main quote (taking most of the section) is written by people that have contributed to the publication or are closely related to it. If the mission statement was notable enough, third party non-partisan (re: non-Skeptic) sources would have talked about it. Until that is shown, the section should be shortened to just the sentence from Scientific American. If people want to know the mission statement, they should go to the page's website. There's a reason why Apple Inc.'s mission statement is barely described in its article and is only mentioned in a very brief sentence within a large section about their branding.
Influence: None of this is written by RS sources that would have the reputation to warrant their opinion's inclusion. Descriptions of people playing D&D, enthusiastic letters from fans, or an opinion from a contributor to the publication are not notable assessments of the publication's legacy. Something like NYT, New Yorker, academic sources, or other such publications would be much better. I think the section on the art project is probably fine, but if you remove the biased sources you'd probably just have that and a sentence or two from Hofstadter (he was given an award from SI's parent company so his bias could be put in question, but seeing how the linked article is paywalled I'll AGF on that). A. C. Santacruz  ⁂  Talk 18:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Statement and Influence too puff? 

message: I think the lead could be rewritten and truncated a bit to bring it in line with MOS:LEADREL
Here is my proposed rewrite that removes some some LEADREL considerations, including the "celebrated its 40th anniversary" and the extended explanation of the renaming of CSI, which is confusing, because it was published by the same org the the whole time:
:
to
:
What do you think? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed lead rewrite

message: It seems undue weight to start the Mission statement section with the critique that it is seen by some as a publication for “old white men, for old white men"'. Also, does everything have to be about race and gender now?? 82.35.81.189 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight?