Talk:Center for Inquiry

message: Permission to use copyright has been given.
::: unsigned comment by User_talk:64.65.247.81
: Thanks, under which license? <drini ☎> 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written for confirmation of permission. --Ngb ?!? 18:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmation received; Amanda Chesworth at the Center writes, 'I don't know this user and we didn't give permission but we would like to now'. --Ngb ?!? 06:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An "importance" tag has been put on the article. The criteria for importance is:
An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
*1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
*2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
*3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
I believe that this article meets both #1 and #2. Also, there are at least ten articles that link to it, not counting talk pages, redirects, and WikiProject pages. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then too there's the fact that Nobel laureates like Leon Lederman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, and Francis Crick, and many other important intellectual leaders (such as Carl Sagan, his widow Ann Druyan, Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Neill de Grasse Tyson, E.O. Wilson, and so on), have played leading roles in founding and/or supporting the work of the Center for Inquiry, its Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and other divisions. Many of the world's leading scholars and scientists write for its publications. And if that's not enough to explain CFI's importance, there's much more I could list. Askolnick 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, CSICOP itself has a very long list of articles which link to it. CPI is the parent organization of CSICOP. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we can take the "importance" tag off. Any opinions or discussion? Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm removing the "importance" tag. If even for no other reason, the article is important because at least ten other articles link to it. If the article is removed as being unimportant, then there will be at least ten dead links. Perhaps someone could expand on the importance of the CFI in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance? 

message: I've added the section, CFI Organizations and Programs, with subsections for each of the CFI organizations and links to the pages in question. I oppose the mergers but a directory is needed in any case.
Also this section should be combined with the CFI Divisions section. ---George100 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you oppose the merger, then you need to state so in the Merger section above. Bubba73 (talk), 14:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The way it works is that if you oppose the merger, then you should state so in that section. If the consensus is against the merger, then it will be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment I don't see any consensus for merging. The only one in favor of merging is the one who proposed it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section for subdivisions

message: Merged Center for Inquiry - On Campus and Center for Inquiry Libraries but not Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. -THB 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see any consensus on the merger for the On campus. --George100 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mergers

message: (Moved from User:THB's talk page)
Why did you merge Center for Inquiry - On Campus into Center for Inquiry? There was no consensus for that on the talk page. --George100 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus on anything. There was opposition to merging CSER so it wasn't. Two for, 1 against merging -On Campus, no one commented on the Libraries at all. So I decided to be bold and merge the latter two into Center for Inquiry. If you noticed, most of the links went to a redirect page at the old name anyway. The two or three small paragraphs about the on campus group make more sense in context anyhow. My thinking is it never should have been a separate article at all, but that when there is enough information about it in the Center for Inquiry article, it should be separated. -THB 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only one I see for the Campus merger was you. I said it was "OK", but I wasn't for it. I later noted that there was no consus, and no one was in favor of the mergers, except THB. Bubba73 (talk), 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Center for Inquiry

message: :Image:Centerforinquiry.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Centerforinquiry.gif

message: "Religion, ethics, and society
The Center promotes, through its connection with Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, critical inquiry into the foundations and social effects of the world religions. Since 1983 it has focused on such issues as fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam, humanistic alternatives to religious ethics, and religious sources of political violence. It is also the home of its affiliated organization, the Council for Secular Humanism, publisher of Free Inquiry magazine, a bi-monthly journal of secular humanist thought and discussion."
This refers to a date before CFI was started. Also, there's no citation for this. What's up with this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofurson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I think the whole page is quite confusing.  This is one of many areas where I found it hard to figure out what is going on with CFI.  I looked at Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion and it looks like it was founded under another organisation prior to establishment of the CFI and only later became part of the Center.  But it's far from clear.  If I can figure it out I will try to fix it. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK it's taken me an age but I've tried to make it clearer.  I've taken out some of the internal structure stuff (which wasn't encyclopaedic or even interesting in my view); fixed broken citations, added some new ones where they were lacking; added critical and independent citations which was a big shortcoming, and also added some pictures from commons.  It looks like I have somehow also broken all the pictures so now I have to fix that. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since 1983? 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Center for Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305180453/http://www.cfiwest.org/ to http://www.cfiwest.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Center for Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226190541/http://www.skepticstoolbox.org/ to http://www.skepticstoolbox.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904120328/http://fr.starafrica.com/actualites/le-conseil-des-droits-de-lhomme-tient-une-reunion-debat-de-haut-niveau-sur-la-lute-contre-les-mutilations-genitales-feminines.html to http://fr.starafrica.com/actualites/le-conseil-des-droits-de-lhomme-tient-une-reunion-debat-de-haut-niveau-sur-la-lute-contre-les-mutilations-genitales-feminines.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just posted this in the article: "In 2016, the atheist Sikivu Hutchinson criticized the merger of the secular organizations Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science which gave Richard Dawkins a seat on the board of directors on the Center for Inquiry. Her criticism was that both organizations had all white board of directors."
I cited the Huffington Post. 
This is what Wikipedia says about the Huffington Post: "In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked No. 1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[14] In 2012, The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize."
So I believe I met Wikipedia's requirements for the material to be added.Knox490 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sikivu Hutchinson is a prominent atheist who is frequently cited on matters related to atheism, race, and social justice -- also, Wikipedia also commonly cites columnists. Because of this, this info should definitely be kept in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm okay with deleting all of the material that Harizotoh9 deleted. Huffpost isn't exactly RS, if there was coverage by other more notable sources then I could see using Huffpost to fill in some details. But in this case not enough. As Harizotoh9 said, this was not picked up by the mainstream media and if we allow content such as this, then we are opening the door to every criticism. This would not be allowed on other organizations either. Hutchinson is notable (I wrote the Wikipedia page) but her concerns with CFI do not rise to the merits of worthiness for being included on the Wikipedia page. IF it had been covered by mainstream media then that would be okay. Senapathy is non-notable, we have to enforce rules consistently across Wikipedia. If her concerns are allowed, then we have to allow everyone's concerns. That is a floodgate I'm not willing to open up even a little. Sgerbic (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Agree Sgerbic (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I am outvoted, so do as you wish, but I still think this issue (with two separate instances) received enough attention to be included here. And I think at least the Sanapathy part (which was what I added) was written in a fair manner. Be aware that the section's removal will likely be noticed and may result in even more negative media coverage for the organization. (I can see headlines now... "Was CFI behind the Wikipedia "whitewashing" of its racial record?") This is especially sensitive as part of what is documented here is that CFI purged all of Senapathy's contributions from its sites (only reverting their deletions under pressure from members the skeptic community). So if you really want to go there, fine, do a revert. RobP (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the discussion. I will revert. Sgerbic (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed back the edit. I agree with RobP. Furthermore, Sgerbic is an atheist/secular activist and at least in my estimation she is acting in a partisan matter. Objectively, CFI does have a lack of diversity on their board of directors and a notable atheist has noted this fact (namely Sikivu Hutchinson).Knox490 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you are saying I have a COI? Okay then we will just have to ask someone else to deal with this issue who isn't partisan (according to you). Remember I'm the one that wrote Hutchinson's Wikipedia page years ago. You know that because you reached out to me only a couple months ago to ask me to help you get this edit to stick on the CFI page. Remember that? Sgerbic (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the link on my user page with you asking me to help you edit these pages - For some reason you deleted your post on my User page. Not sure why but thankfully we have the use of "history" Sgerbic User page - 2 months ago Sgerbic (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Oh this was PRICELESS - you tagged me on Hutchinson's Talk page as if you wanted my opinion then you told me that you were busy doing something off Wiki and then TOLD me to make these edits. That was hilarious and I laughed for days over that, heck I'm still chuckling. I love how you numbered the actions you wanted me to take ... "Sgerbic, I have been asked to get involved in some off wiki endeavors that is going to be taking up my time for awhile. I would appreciate it if you: 1) Got a brief mention of Sikivu Hutchinson's protest of Silverman holding a prominent position at Atheist Alliance International (AAI) at both pages. 2) Restored the more readable/digestible section format that I created at the Sikivu Hutchinson article. Knox490 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments below in the edit war section.Knox490 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of racial diversity on its board of directors 

message: There has been no discussion regarding the current tags on this page. They are being removed pending justification and discussion. Drobertpowell (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing tags 

message: When I look at a page that has editors edit warring, one of the first things I do is look at the sources. Many times the content dispute disapears after I remove material that is unsourced or sourced to an unreliable source.
Looking at this page, I see some serious sourcing problems:
* https://www.huffpost.com/
: "HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online.[14] Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor". --WP:RSPS
* https://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/
: See WP:BLOGS.
* https://dangerousintersection.org/
: See WP:BLOGS.
*http://www.ustream.tv/channel/clairaudient-test
: See WP:SPS.
* Center for Inquiry (forty three citations!)
See WP:PRIMARY.
Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Religion News and Christian Post
I think that we should remove all unsourced and poorly sourced claims and remove most of claims sourced to CFI per WP:PRIMARY. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometime in the next few days, I am going to do a compete rewrite, keeping only those claims which conform to our policies WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:PRIMARY. If anyone has a problem with this, now is the time to speak up. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it to you then Guy. Looking forward to seeing the new page. Sgerbic (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I have started my complete rewrite. Lead is done. Far too many things are sourced to CFI itself and will have to be removed. If anyone has suggestions with reliable secondary sources, post them here and I will add them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it Sgerbic (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting rewrite 

message: The controversy section does not paint a more realistic and neutral viewpoint of the organization. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Why do you think that is? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view