Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Category:Skeptical Wikipedians

• 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)
• Sounds reasonable. I'm for condensing it all. Merging "skeptical wikipedians" into this entire project. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hrm, it would be much easier to do the former idea, and create a new category instead: Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members. What say y'all? Smee 04:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
• No. The merge suggestion involves an assumption that everyone self-identifying as a skeptic wants to be part of this project. That's awfully presumptuous, which becomes downright ironic becomes skeptics strive to avoid engaging in broad assumptions. Doczilla 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• OK, Doczilla, you are quite correct. However, let me start by being clear about what I suggested. It was not a merge, but a rename. Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members does not exist. I do not understand what User:Wikidudeman is suggesting. I think I am agreeing with Smee but I'm not sure what s/he means by the "former". The problem I think arises because Template:User WikiProject Rational Skepticism puts the user into Category:Skeptical Wikipedians and User:1ne/Userboxes/User skeptic does the same. The latter is reasonable. The userbox is making a point. The user self-identifies as a Skeptic. The former is not. Being a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism means just that, and the Project should not be making a POV. I therefore propose:

1. We leave Category:Skeptical Wikipedians alone.
2. We create Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members. The Project members should have their own category as with other Projects.
3. We edit Template:User WikiProject Rational Skepticism to put the user into Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members and not into Category:Skeptical Wikipedians. That would move some users into a different category, but they can always add the other category if they want.

How does that sound? --Bduke 06:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Please see: Category:WikiProject Rational Skepticism members. Let me know what you think, here. Yours, Smee 07:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
• Brilliant. Saves me a job. Thanks. --Bduke 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are most welcome. No worries. Smee 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Carlos Castaneda

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)

Requests for arbitration

There has been a request for arbitration initiated by Minderbinder. You can find it here. [[1]]. 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)

Life coaching

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)

• A most controversial subject, as there are zero credentialing requirements, etc. needed to claim that one is a "life coach"... Remind me later and I will take a look at the article if/when I have a chance, and try to see if we can scrounge up some additional information from other reputable secondary sourced citations. Smee 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

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)

Unification theory

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)

WikiProject Pseudoscience (from the WP:WPPS talk page)

The Project Rational Skepticism deals with the same principles as pseudo-science, as well as WP:NPOV which is a very broad area. Therefore I wonder if this project shouldn't be defined as a "daughter" project of Rational Skepticism in order to help "break out" pseudo-science from the very broad scope of that project? (unsigned, by Chrisbak)

I'm not sure about the activity at the Pseudoscience WikiProject. We used to be rather active, but haven't done much recently, especially after a few of our major editors (Hillman, for example) left Wikipedia out of frustration. Our efforts aren't very organized now. However, we always had a broader scope than just pure pseudoscience, and dealt with quackery and other such topics as well, much like the Rational Skepticism project. It may be better to just merge the two projects. I hadn't realized that this project existed, and so will probably be more active here in the future. --Philosophus ^T 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is OK with me (I'm a member of both projects, but haven't been very active for more than a year.) There are more members of Rational Skepticism project than Pseudoscience project, but there is condiderable overlap between the two sets of members, I believe. Bubba73 (talk), 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need for two very similar projects? Does Rational Skepticism cover anything that is not pseudoscience? - and, of course, vice versa. Totnesmartin 11:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• A most interesting question. I would have to respond with a follow-up question out of curiosity: Which project has more active members, and more activity overall? Perhaps both projects could thus be merged into whichever one that is... Smee 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Rational Skepticism has more members listed, and several people are in both. We probably don't need both projects, probably better to combine them. However, Rational Skepticism probably does cover things other than pseudoscience. First, the philisophy of being a scientific/rational skeptic. Second, "paranormal" and "pseudoscience" aren't equivalent. Bubba73 (talk), 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And RS might also cover philosophical/logic-related topics. Totnesmartin 14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that Rational Skepticism has a tag for articles, whereas Pseudoscience does not. People who believe in pseudoscience usually object to their beliefs being called pseudoscience, so I think it would be better to use Rational Skepticism.

And speaking of the tag, I think there is a bug in it. It doesn't list the "importance" field, although it puts the article in a category by importance. Bubba73 (talk), 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't think there is a bug. I'll check that out when I get a chance... Smee 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

We had a tag for articles, which I made some time ago. It was not well received by supporters of the theories whose articles I tagged. In the end I decided that edit warring over tags was absurd. --Philosophus ^T 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, The current tag is {{Rational Skepticism}}. Smee 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

The tag is still around in some places, because I saw it a day or two ago. But I know what you mean. I remember probably summer of 2005 someone (I think it was C. Hillman) going around adding the tag to UFO articles and I could see UFO true beleivers stalking him and removing the tags. (BTW, there are "paranormal project" tags on things that aren't paranormal.) Bubba73 (talk), 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• For more information on statistics regarding the placement of the tag on articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism/Assessment. Smee 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

That's a good thing. Only 36 articles! (probably should be more.) For the last 15-16 months, I've been concentrating on chess articles. The chess project tag acquired importance and quality parameters only about two weeks ago, and we've been busy tagging articles. I think there are over 800 of them with chess tags. I think the importance/quality tags help us organize the articles and see where work needs to be done. Bubba73 (talk), 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Meaning we should get busy tagging relevant articles to this project. The number in the 30s only means that more other relevant articles out there have not been tagged yet - not that they are not out there... Smee 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Tagging in this case can be difficult. There will be editors who remove them, and most likely even edit war over them, but I expect that we can still be successful if we have enough editors doing the tagging. Another thing to consider is the quality scale. I don't think that the standard quality scale is really relevant to the project; in many cases, articles will be content-complete but highly biased. We might want to think about coming up with a new scheme that will take these things into account - perhaps a two-factor scale, with one being completeness/text-quality and the other being NPOV. --Philosophus ^T 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that editors may encounter resistance regarding the project tags in much the same manner that WP:PARA. People commonly assume that the tag equals a judgement rather than understanding it's real purpose is simply to mark the article as falling under the scope of the project. I would suggest caution since feelings about project tags can explode on a talk page and begin debates that are of little benefit to the article or the project in question. I would also guess, based on past experience, that the project tag for Rational Skepticism would be more likely to be accpeted without controversy than would the tag for PsuedoScience. Just something to keep in mind. If you do meet resistance, I have found the best defense is not to argue the article's content but rather to remind other editors of the role of wikiprojects.LiPollis 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

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).

• 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)

• 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).

• 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)

• 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).

• Excellent --Philosophus ^T 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Well, if there are no objections after a while, I can begin to shift the project over to a new remodeled version which I'll create. Once it's more user friendly, that might also spur more people to either join and/or become more active with the project... Smee 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Foundation for the Study of Cycles

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)

1976 Tehran UFO incident

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)

Articles in need of attention

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)

Conspiracy Con AfD

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)

New Version of main page

• Check out the new version of the Main Page for this WikiProject, and let me know what you think. The old version is archived, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism/Old. Smee 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I haven't read it all, but it sure looks a lot nicer. I noticed that the inactive members aren't listed. Bubba73 (talk), 14:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They are, go to the subpage itself, they just aren't listed on the Main Page. It's hidden. I'll add a shortcut to make it easier to navigate there. Thank you for the kind words. Smee 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

• Shorcut added. You should be able to see it now. Smee 14:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

It says that goal #3 of the project is "To place pseudoscience tags on articles related to pseudoscience". Shouldn't that be "rational skepticism" tags? Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Change the width so it will fit in 800x600 screens. Right now on my 800x600 screen it's too wide and doesn't fit on the screen.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1. This request is easy.
2. This resizing request I don't know how to do. Smee 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not familiar with the style of formating. Who made that page the way it was? There must be some way to make it easily viewable for those with 800x600 screens(most people).Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It runs off slightly on my 1268x1024 screen. Bubba73 (talk), 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• The user who would know more about this is User:Anas Salloum, creator of WP:SYRIA, and I will ask for some input. Smee 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

All the tables and cells of the page are set to expand and contract, so normally it would look fine on 800 x 600. The problem is in two areas.

One non-breaking area is in the "Templates" section and the long no spaced text like {{RationalSkepticismTasks}}. Since lines like {{RationalSkepticismTasks}} have no space in which to break at, the browser can't resize that cell. You'll probably have to break that tag into spaced words, live with the table not being collapsable, or place it in its own row (instead of the right column).

The other non-breaking area is the tables in the "Assessment" area, or more specifically, this table. Like in the above, it doesn't collapse, and would need it's own row or placement outside of that right column.

Hope this helps. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC) <-Code Monkey

• I wonder if Randi's picture should be on the page. He is so reviled by some people that I think that it might be best to leave his picture off. Bubba73 (talk), 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See if you can fix it, Nealparr.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I asked User:Anas Salloum to come and take a look see. Smee 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

I've done some tests on the actual templates lowering their width but it didn't change a thing. The borders on the page in question didn't change at all, only the templates did.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Are you all having trouble viewing WP:SCN and/or WP:SYRIA, or just WP:SKEPTIC ? Smee 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Try it now WDM.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite enough.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We talkin' smidgen here or big gap?

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem's fixed as of this post, but let me clean it up some more. It was the Assessment and Category boxes. Give me a few moments.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for me on my 1280x1024 screen, it no longer is wider than the screen. Thanks Neal! Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm done. I also fixed the "edit"/"watch" links. They were messed up on a few boxes. Enjoy! I'll send you the bill : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Heim theory

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)

Request for comment, BDORT

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,_science,_and_technology#Clinical_and_medical_topics
• Talk:BDORT#Request for comment

Thanks. 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas and Brown's gas

You all might be interested in the deletion debate over these two articles. They are supposedly "promotional" and non-neutral, though I've been working very hard to present them in a neutral way, add notable criticism from reliable sources, etc.

I really think it's important that we have articles about these, as long as they are maintained in a neutral state. A lot of people believe the "water-fuelled car" crap and we need to debunk it.

Considering that promoters of this "technology" have tried to get the article deleted in the past, I think it's going in the right direction.  :-) — Omegatron 13:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, a small majority (including several admins) voted to keep the article, but it was deleted by a biased admin anyway. It is now up for deletion review, but even that continues to be a ridiculous mess. They continue to make claims like violations of WP:NOR and WP:RS, despite the fact that we've already demonstrated sources in the AfD, and despite the fact that DRV is only for discussing the deletion process itself; not the merits of the article.

But apparently it is so fundamentally impossible to find reliable sources that the opinions of a majority of competent editors are irrelevant: "Claiming Randi is a valid source for criticism is ludicrous." *Rolls eyes* — Omegatron 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Isaac Asimov has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

103 articles in the project

Someone has evidently been tagging away with {{Rational Skepticism}} -- Good job! Smee 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Jamie Hyneman

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)

New article to ponder

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)

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)

Dealing with those dammed new agers

After being exposed to mouth breathers who actually believe in quacks like Sylvia Browne, I'm wondering how you guys deal with the thousands of editors who should have been blocked for spreading propaganda. I mean why is it against the rules to call the scum that is Ms. Browne a Quack? She is for Christ sake! Apparently, I can't tell them to get lost casually (I made a banner telling them to). How do you deal with these magic-minded fools?Science Solider 18:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Science Solider perhaps you misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia. As editors, is it not our job to police beliefs we disagree with. Our only job is to document the notable. New Age beliefs are not actually all that new, they are just recent remixes of various forms of pre-existing Mysticism and retreads of Spiritualism which was once so common in the US and UK as to almost be mainstream. I do not say that those beliefs are valid but their validity isn't up to me. Our job as editors is merely to document what is notable and insofar as she has sold millions of books, the woman certainly is notable. What rational Skeptics CAN do is seek to esnure that there is balance in articles dealing with what we consider to be fringe beliefs. We do this by documenting any controversies and referenciing those opposing views with reliable sources.

For example, I am an anthropologist and Folkorist. I have been working on documenting the controversy surrounding the teachings of Carols Castaneda. Mind you, people in my field were enthralled with this man for decades despite his published works being clearly just a bunch of almagamated nonsense. it is my opinion that his work is BS and therefore not my job to try and get articles on him and his offshoot topics deleted. it's also not my job to "expose" him. What I have done is describe the existing controversies over his works and cult of personailty and provide references for those statements and/or facts. In my view, this is the most productive thing we can do - seek out solid academic statements and references and add those to such articles to properly document that there is more than one view.

If Science Soldier's name was "Christian Soldier" and his statement about miss Browne was left intact, it would read like a POV attack from one religion to another wouldn't it? We must be ever aware of the danger of letting ourselves fall into the practice of Pseudoskepticism. Should we, as rational skeptics, get ourselves that worked up about beliefs we don't find valid? Isn't that too similar to fundamentalism? How do we deal with these "Magic minded fools"? Well first off, calm the heck down. Second, remember it is not the job of a scientist or science advocate to try and apply scientific reasoning in the area of religion. You m ight want to look at what Stephen Jay Gould had to say about the issue of Non-overlapping magisteria. Basically he states that Science and religion don't mix so don't try and force them to mix. So don't let religious people apply religious reasoning to science and in turn, do them the favor of not applying scientific reasong to their religious or magical beliefs. fair enough? I promise you, if you do that, you won't need as much Maalox and you'll be more fun at parties!LiPollis 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Lisa writes, but I think that we need to make sure that we maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia in terms of fact versus fiction. I was under the impression that this was what this WikiProject was about. If there are statements Sylvia Browne which indicate that she actually possesses psychic powers, that would be a compromise on the integrity of the encyclopedia. However, if there are statements to the effect that she believes she has psychic powers even though her claims have never been subjected to any testing, that would be an acceptable analysis. --Mainstream astronomy 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is that User:Science Solider is a Straw-man sock puppet like User:Chemist3456 was. Has all the same signs, e.g. the user makes many spelling errors (i.e. "Solider") - LuckyLouie 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream astronomy brings up a valid point and that is this - where New Agers or anyone else for that matter makes scientific claims, we are certainly acting within the scope of the project if we include material from reliable sources that counters those claims based on verifiable facts. The problem I have with skeptics getting twisted up in knots over people who claim to talk to the dead like Ms. Browne or who claim to see the future or be psychic is that those claims cannot ever reasonably be evaluated. Certainly there are some purported psychics who have submitted to lab testing but Ms. Browne is notoriously evasive about this. I feel there are other areas of New Age and religious beliefs written about on wikipedia that deserve our attention.

For example, medical quackery and/or religious groups promoting various treatments known to be harmful and/or obvious cons and marketing schemes. Here we can really make an impact. While I would never tell someone what they can choose to believe in terms of religion, I don't have a problem sharing with them research and facts that cast doubt on some aspect of their "Faith" that involves outting their trust in quackery. I got interested in Carlos Castaneda's article because his "Magical" group degenerated into a what appeared to be a suicidal cult of personality at the end. I know it is often hard for skeptics to look at articles about UFO abduction, conspiracy theorists, channelers who talk to Chopin and so on and not get steamed up. I'm only saying that there are much more dangerous beliefs being written up as truth without a balancing viewpoint being added. I've always been glad to see that our list of open tasks generally hovers around issues of medical quackery, free energy schemes and so on. Obvious fruad dressed up as alternative views is worth hetting steamed about. The NESARA conspiracy interests me as a skeptic because at its heart, it has always been about propping up an old pyramid scheme. As a Folklorist, I have been fascinated to watch how the defense of that well-documented Con has ballooned into an all-inclusive mother of all conspiracy theories and the lengths to which believers will go to try and get the fictitious law enacted or to bring atention to it. That article was targetted for deletion when what could be done is to further document it as the fiction is has been shown to be.

That's all I'm saying - I'm imploring members of the project to pick some non-ghost, non-UFO, non-witchcraft or New age articles and give them your best shot. The Indigo Children article really needs some help from us. Now there is a dangerous fiction if ever there was one! It gives parents of autistic kids this false hope that their child is a harbinger of a new age, an avatar even. I had added some material to the article documenting parallel beliefs but another skeptic zapped it as "nonsense" without discussion because the sources I quoted were from new Age publications. There's more to it than that but here's my point - that particular belief, Indigo kids, and the related beliefs in Crystal Kids and Starkids need our attention because there is an entire subculture of quack therapy, self-help books, vitamin supplements, and other such remedies that has sprung up to "serve" these kids and their parents. It's now very big business. Comedianne Jenny McCarthy even ran a website for a time (that she took down) called Indigomoms.com encouraging parents of autistic kids to consider this alternate diagnosis. If every member of this project spent half of the energy they spend working for deletions on improving exisiting fringe articles by adding balance to them, we could make a real difference. If you like, I could come up with a list of the articles I feel are in most need of help in this regard.LiPollis 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your goal 4.

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)

How is that not consistent with Wikipedia's aims? — Omegatron 23:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Vaguely related new noticeboard?

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard needs more eyes. Moreschi ^Talk 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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)

Two proposed logos

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

1. 

2. 

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)

Why do we need a logo? --Mainstream astronomy 20:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Both logo's have their problems. Firstly, both suggest that skepticism is a branch of paranormal investigation when it is in fact a multi-disciplinary branch of investigative science that often works with things that are completely unrelated to the paranormal. For example, the investigation of perpetual motion or alternative scientific hypothesis and history. Secondly, both suggest that skepticism is aimed at debunking. Debunking is the purposeful pursuit of evidence against something. skepticism is the investigation of all evidence and the reaching of conclusions based on said findings. A person who sets out specifically to find evidence against something isn't a skeptic, they are a non-believer, which is very different because they have a preconceived bias that said something is false. The current log is best. - perfectblue 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The logo is useful for our project templates. Scorpion, were you aware of the Earth and ? image? I think it's the best of the three. Λυδαcιτγ 23:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

On the project page there is a request for a logo for this project in the things to do list, so I assume that either there is a problem with this image such as a copyright issue, or this is a old request that needs to be removed. Personally I still like #2 better but i'm biased.--Scorpion451 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I prefer the current logo (#3). Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I've taken the request off of the list. Λυδαcιτγ 03:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, at least no one else will be confused by it =P--Scorpion451 04:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Velikovsky

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)

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)

What is a problem editor? Is this a designation we can label people somehow? --Mainstream astronomy 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Edit war at Lunar effect

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

Pigasus Award AfD

Pigasus Award is up for deletion. Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative therapy (disability)

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)

Panspermia

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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a tough one to judge on, because it is one of those that there is enough real science in it (as in organic chemicals from comets jump starting life, ect.) to have real research into it, but also "fringe" enough to attract the, shall we say, "wishful thinkers". We may need to get wikiproject science on to this one.--Scorpion451 rant 23:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The result of this arbitration is now up. Totnesmartin 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the interpretation of "Adequate framing 6a)"? Does it mean that you should not use "self-described psychic XXX" or that you can, but only once? Bubba73 (talk), 14:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

looks like you can't say "self described" - I think if you say someone is a psychic, then that's enough, the reader will decide for themselves if psychic phenomena exist or not. All that's requred is a citation to say that the person is considered, or held to be, a psychic, rather than saying that psychic powers exist, or don'r exist. (Perhaps someone else can explain better than I can?) I can see a problem here though - what about fake psychics and stage psychics? They aren't psychic at all, but that would need to be said, surely. Totnesmartin 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me at if you say that "X is a psychic" and the psychic article defines a psychic as a person who has psychic powers, then you are saying that "X has psychic powers", even though X has not been proven to have psychic powers. I think that is a problem. Bubba73 (talk), 14:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it's a good job that the article doesn't say that. Totnesmartin 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the psychic article DID say that. At least not too long ago. Bubba73 (talk), 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look again, it seems (or at least the intro does, which is the most important bit) to be fairly neutral now - psychic abilities are merely said to exist, rather than definitely existing (or definitely not). Totnesmartin 15:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but someone is complaining about neutrality, facts, and weasel words. I assume that the "weasel words" are the qualifiers. Bubba73 (talk), 15:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we go over there and do some cleanup? Totnesmartin 15:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My last attempt on that article was not welcomed. Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is used to frame other articles, the Psychic article has to be very carefully done (not that it wouldn't anyway). I look at it this way: the word "psychic," when seen as a cultural artifact, encompasses the entire controversy surrounding whether the powers are real or not. A proper understanding of the word "psychic" includes knowledge of the controversy. Thus, if a reader is linked to the Psychic article, and the Psychic article contains information about the controversy, it is OK just to say someone is a psychic. If you want to distinguish a mentalist, you just say that the person does not claim to actually have psychic powers, but only simulates them. Otherwise you just say "psychic," and thus refer the reader to the controversy. This system won't work unless articles which we use to "frame" the subject do contain a section on the controversy (in cases where the subject is taken seriously- I doubt you'd need a whole section in an article on unicorns).

So here's the formulation: "A psychic is someone with psychic powers. Critics say psychic powers may/do not exist." That's what the word "psychic" tells the reader. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Er... if they don't or may not exist, how can one have the powers? How about "A psychic is someone who claims or is claimed to have psychic powers. Critics say psychic powers may/do not exist." Vsmith 02:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When we say "psychic" we mean the formula above. The person exists, but whether they have powers is controversial. The word "psychic" includes this controversy.

Where you have a problem is that you're confusing words with things. We can have words for things which don't exist.

To say a person is a "psychic" is the same as saying the person is claimed/acclaimed/supposed/purported to have psychic powers. That's because the controversy is included in a full understanding of the word "psychic." Now, if we said, "person X has psychic powers," then that would be POV.

So maybe a better way of saying the formula is just that: the word "psychic" includes controversy within it, just as the word "Earth" includes both land and sea. The word "psychic" contains the necessary qualifiers within itself. That's what ArbCom said:

""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." [2]

The reason this is true, is that those kinds of words contain the controversy within themselves. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure those folks coming to Wikipedia to investigate the subject would be miffed if, after digging through many different Wikipedia pages, they finally discover that we refuse to fully define "psychic" because "those kinds of words contain the controversy within themselves." At any rate, since, as you state, "To say a person is a "psychic" is the same as saying the person is claimed/acclaimed/supposed/purported to have psychic powers", then we should do the reader a favor and give the fuller explanation since many are not yet aware that "psychic" == "purported to have psychic powers". Antelan ^talk 14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, (as per the conversation above) a person who behaves as a psychic for show, but makes no claims to having special powers is often called a mental magician. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Or Mentalist. --Wfaxon 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, I'm merely repeating what the ArbCom decided. We don't include full definitions of each word in an article. Rather, we link it where it is important. Now, if there were no skepticism in the Psychic article, then you would have a really good point. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

James Randi defines psychic as "an adjective, describ[ing] a variety of supernatural forces, events, or powers." Psychics (noun), he defines as "designat[ing] a person said to be able to call upon any of many psychic forces."[3] Randi is about as skeptical as it gets, so there's really no reason to add unnecessary qualifiers at Wikipedia either. Notice there's no "alleged", "purported", or other WP:WTA in these definitions. That's the suggestions (not rulings) that the arbitration made. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Casein

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)

New Age nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

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)

Orthomolecular medicine

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)

Having looked over the article, I was shocked to find the rarest of all articles on a fringe theory: a well cited, mostly balanced and NPOV (not perfect, but it presented both sides fairly evenly), well written (again, mostly), article that avoids ranting about pharmacuetical companies for the most part. The problem seems to come in that the above mentioned author is terrified that the article will be deleted as OR or having unreliable sources, so has included every single source that appears on google or elsewhere. I think that this is one case where the problem might be convincing the person that it is okay not to cite so many viable sources.--Scorpion451 rant 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon

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)

It's spam of some kind - I just snipped two very similar following posts. 82.25.230.202 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Growing earth

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)

I just added our tag to the article's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oil pulling

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)

Reiki

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)

Facilitated communication

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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10