This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves. linas 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
I should add that the article is basically unsourced, which is problematic for both sides. -- TurabianNights 01:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Article for deletion: EmDrive. linas 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The hagiography of Michael Menkin, inventor of the "thought screen helmet", is up for deletion. Byrgenwulf 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know more about this? Any critical sources? -- Hob Gadling 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
I have now made some additions to the out-of-body experiences page by adding a neuroscientific explanation of the experience, and have tagged the article with numerous {{primarysources}}, {{fact}} and {{unsourced}} tags, as appropriate. If anyone here would like to help to eliminate the pro-psi bias on that page, it could actually start to become an example of how Rational Skepticism can provide scientifically verifiable accounts of phenomena that, until recently, had been thought to be explainable only in psi terms. Edhubbard 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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: [1]. -- ScienceApologist 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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." [2] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Other wikiprojects seem to be based around particular topics, with the goals of improving those articles. This wikiproject seems to have a particular belief system as a condition of entry. Does that contravene any guidelines? If not, is it appropriate? Le on 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I share Leon's concern about the apparent entry condition for this WikiProject. Other projects are open to everyone. WikiProject Christianity, for example, is not a project for Christians, but a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Christianity. WikiProject Paranormal is not a project for believers in the paranormal, but a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. WikiProject Rational Skepticism, in contrast, explictly casts itself as "the central hub for Skeptical Wikipedians to get together and work on improving Wikipedia." Improving Wikipedia is great, but factionalizing it is not. Inasmuch as this project's typical subject area is largely covered by other projects like WikiProject Pseudoscience and WikiProject Paranormal, and inasmuch as it employs a divisive and exclusionary condition of entry, I join Leon in questioning its validity and appropriateness. Tim Smith 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Skepticism is not just about science. It's about asking questions and not settling for poorly validated answers. Skeptics seek truth. Some unbelievers call themselves skeptics when they are simply unbelievers. "Trust those who seek truth. Doubt those who find it." Doczilla 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Okay, maybe things are straightened out.
Try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercausality. -- ScienceApologist 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article on Orthomolecular medicine is currently embroiled in a very verbose, very contentious edit war. A helping hand from rational clear thinkers is needed. Caution: I am finding that a band of kooks and cranks are now attacking me on my own talk page; so getting involved may be hazardous for your nerves. linas 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
I should add that the article is basically unsourced, which is problematic for both sides. -- TurabianNights 01:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Article for deletion: EmDrive. linas 04:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The hagiography of Michael Menkin, inventor of the "thought screen helmet", is up for deletion. Byrgenwulf 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody know more about this? Any critical sources? -- Hob Gadling 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
I have now made some additions to the out-of-body experiences page by adding a neuroscientific explanation of the experience, and have tagged the article with numerous {{primarysources}}, {{fact}} and {{unsourced}} tags, as appropriate. If anyone here would like to help to eliminate the pro-psi bias on that page, it could actually start to become an example of how Rational Skepticism can provide scientifically verifiable accounts of phenomena that, until recently, had been thought to be explainable only in psi terms. Edhubbard 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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: [1]. -- ScienceApologist 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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." [2] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Other wikiprojects seem to be based around particular topics, with the goals of improving those articles. This wikiproject seems to have a particular belief system as a condition of entry. Does that contravene any guidelines? If not, is it appropriate? Le on 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I share Leon's concern about the apparent entry condition for this WikiProject. Other projects are open to everyone. WikiProject Christianity, for example, is not a project for Christians, but a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Christianity. WikiProject Paranormal is not a project for believers in the paranormal, but a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. WikiProject Rational Skepticism, in contrast, explictly casts itself as "the central hub for Skeptical Wikipedians to get together and work on improving Wikipedia." Improving Wikipedia is great, but factionalizing it is not. Inasmuch as this project's typical subject area is largely covered by other projects like WikiProject Pseudoscience and WikiProject Paranormal, and inasmuch as it employs a divisive and exclusionary condition of entry, I join Leon in questioning its validity and appropriateness. Tim Smith 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Skepticism is not just about science. It's about asking questions and not settling for poorly validated answers. Skeptics seek truth. Some unbelievers call themselves skeptics when they are simply unbelievers. "Trust those who seek truth. Doubt those who find it." Doczilla 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Okay, maybe things are straightened out.
Try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality (Second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercausality. -- ScienceApologist 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
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
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)