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 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

There is currently an RfC on whether or not to include a reference to NoFap in Masturbation. Interested editors can join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place of power. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Organic_frequencies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am still not really interested in returning to Wikipedia to undertake the sort of housecleaning here, but a constellation of pages regarding Werner Erhard, his EST organization and their descendants has some serious, serious, serious WP:NPOV issues. Recommend somebody with some knowledge of MLM and cults have a look to improve. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Skepticism is only semi-active these days. I took a look at the Erhard page and see that it has ongoing attention from editors and is not currently tagged for NPOV issues. I'm afraid that you need to give a more definite indication of what you think needs to be done, perhaps in the form of an entry on the talk pages of the articles in question.  —jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:CFD that may be related to the topic of this wiki project. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

What's going on? Did people move somewhere else?

Also, am I missing something or are there no archive for 2014 and 2015? Karlpoppery ( talk) 07:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The 2013 archive actually covers 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016! Lots of projects have become less active with time. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Karlpoppery ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @ Karlpoppery: I think it is "semi-active" because we need more people like you to help make things happen. Please get involved to give the project some fresh momentum - that can inspire other people to get going again too.

Oops - I forgot to sign my post, so it won't ping Karlpoppery. -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 07:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Karlpoppery: The main thing that happened is that the editor who was most active in organizing this project was indeffed a couple few years ago. The software support for the project is generally still working, so cleanup list kept up-to-date and some of us spend at least a little time trying to nibble away at the backlog. There are plenty of editors with a skeptical bent still active and occasionally a new one will sign into the project as a participant. Sometimes new articles are tagged into the project.

But it's not a very lively project, hence semi-active.

[I'll adjust the archive parameters and labels.] — jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

At least there's some activity! I'll certainly try to help when I get the time. Karlpoppery ( talk) 13:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll gladly finish my sub-project Skeptical organisations in Europe, but I need translators for that. Anyone here speak Lithuanian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Danish, Turkish, Czech etc.? Your help is appreciated. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I can translate from and to French. Right now I'm going through to backlog of unassessed articles,then I'll see if I can help with your project. Karlpoppery ( talk) 15:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

First time I've posted here so not sure if this is where I need to post to get attention or not. I've just added a talk page and added a comment about the Ron Miscavige page that I'm questioning if it is noteworthy enough to stand alone from the book's page. Ruthless: Scientology, My Son David Miscavige, and Me Please answer on the talk page for the individual. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Over the past few days, I've assessed about 1000 previously unassessed articles that were stock in the backlog of this project, so that we now have a functioning quality and importance scale system. I've also redone the list of Top importance articles, so that it nows include 38 articles on things like objections to evolution, vaccine controversies, anecdotal evidence and homeopathy. I encourage anyone willing to try to improve these articles. We also have about 200 High-importance articles that should be given some attention. They include subjects like water fluoridation and ghost hunting.

If anyone plans to work on one of those articles, don't hesitate to talk about it on the project's talk page, and to steal experts from other projects.

I've removed most articles from the " needing attention" list, as some of them were there for years without being worked on. Some linked to dead articles, others to articles that had already received plenty of attention and were now fine. The 23 articles that remain are terrible and all have issues that are properly tagged. Anyone can click on any of these articles and fix them. It would be feasible to clear this backlog, so that the needing attention section would become usable. I believe this section should only be used for terrible pseudoscientific articles that need urgent attention, and that they should be removed after a few days at most, when the issue is fixed.

In addition, some sections of the project that were outdated and unusable have been updated. We now have a new to-do list that is shorter and make sense, and a new list of articles needing improvement. Don't hesitate to add articles to the to-do list if you intend to work on them.

I've also removed the mood killing inactive banner. Karlpoppery ( talk) 01:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've put this as our next objective in the project's to-do list. Please comment if you agree, disagree or think of something better. Karlpoppery ( talk) 02:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Should the top two goals of this project really be about "creating new articles", as stated on the main page? This seems like a relic of an ancient time. Karlpoppery ( talk) 08:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly! There are plenty of articles on skeptical topics yet to be written, including hundreds that are worth translating from other Wikipedias. E.g.we've not yet finished writing about all notableskeptical organisations in Europe yet, and then we still have all other continents left to document. And list of relevant skeptical activitists is potentially limitless. I can give you a large list of articles to be created if you lack inspiration. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have a list of new articles that should be made, maybe you could put them on the requested article section. I've removed the old list because it had been edited only two times in five years, indicating that it wasn't used very much.

I didn't mean that creating new articles is not important, just that the top priority should now be to improve the 3000+ articles that this project includes, and the many pseudoscientific articles that haven't yet been included in the project! Karlpoppery ( talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, lists of missing articles usually tend to be counterproductive to a Wikiproject. Someone thinks of a whole lot of topics, writes them down and then expects someone else to take care of it. Especially when the list is long (and no one knows that it even exists), no one ever does anything about it. I've taken a look at the old list and there were about 5 topics that may interest me a little bit, but only if I'm really bored and desperate. :p It was ok to remove it. I added just a few logical fallacies that I think are worth documenting; Gary N. Curtis has already given some information about them on his website fallacyfiles.org, so we've got somewhere to start. I also included a link to my skeptical organisations in Europe project (still looking for translators!).

You could be right that improvement rather than creation is becoming increasingly important. I myself prefer to have basic information on all relevant topics first, before diving deep into what they are all about. I want the foundations to be there before we can start building up our house of knowledge. This is especially the case for skepticism in Europe, because they are often involved in science education and criticising or investigating parascientic and pseudoscientific claims that catch the public's attention. I want to be able to link to their pages when writing about any topic, so that readers who think 'Who are they to criticise X?!' can actually find out what kind of associations are behind this skeptical critique. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 02:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree! I want this project to do active work, whatever it is. Karlpoppery ( talk) 05:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to improve the look of the project, and to update it a little. Please click around and tell me if I messed up anything! Karlpoppery ( talk) 00:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Check it out here. It's a list of 50 articles that are regularly subject to problematic pseudoscientific edits. The whole list can be added to the user's watchlist in a few seconds. This is meant as a way to make cooperation between skeptical wikipedians more efficient.

The list can be found from the main page (monitoring section) and from the project resource section. Karlpoppery ( talk) 22:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Various were already on my watchlist, but I also added Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism/Skeptic_watchlists to my convenient user page links. —░] PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ? ERROR░ 10:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For a slightly differing reason, here are two more pages to add to your watchlist while you are doing this. These are both are updated by bots regularly:

1. Article Alerts - this lists articles that are part of this project that have something "happening" to them administratively, like they've been tagged for deletion, there's an RFC active on the talk page, etc.
2. New Pages - the AlexNewArtBot searches newly created pages for keywords and "scores" them to see if they might be skeptic-related. (That page lists the ones with good scores, you can also see the raw unscored search here, but be warned there are lots of false positives, like articles about episodes of the show "Supernatural"). But occasionally it finds something that we should "adopt" as part of the project.

-- Krelnik ( talk) 11:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.
I wonder if I could also suggest individual medical related articles for the watchlist? These would be:

• Multiple chemical sensitivity
• Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
• Morgellons

If these are accepted, perhaps a subsection like controversial syndromes may be wanted... Thanks, —░] PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ? ERROR░ 12:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Done! Karlpoppery ( talk) 14:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Anusara School of Hatha Yoga has been added to the to-do list. —  Paleo Neonate — 03:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Added " Aura (paranormal) - Complete rewrite" on the to do list. I'll spend a few day on this, obviously any help would be welcome! KarlPoppery ( talk) 21:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I started cleaning it up (moving from the lead what was not lead material down, removing trivia and non-notable or misplaced stuff, as well as removing what was off-topic like religious iconography halo), and added one source (Rampa, since popular), more work will be needed. —  Paleo Neonate — 05:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Great! I found some interesting sources, will start rewriting tomorrow. KarlPoppery ( talk) 05:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea if this kind of topic is appropriate here. But I've expressed there ( Talk:Abraham#Baha.27i) something which others have also noticed, some have complained about this in the past as well. A mostly non-notable group (except on Wikipedia) has overwhelming coverage here, often in undue weight. Some Wikiprojects like the Jehovah's Witnesses one, (despite being a more notable group) don't allow this type of promotion when they encounter it.
In the above example, the Abraham article, covers major religions currents like Christianity, Judaism, Islam... suddenly, the very special variety of Islam that is Baha'i is presented like if it was one of those great religions. If the JWs were mentioned there it'd be under Christianity at most (and it's not mentioned at all), even if they too consider themselves a very special religion separate from the rest of Christianity. Even in templates, Baha'i is usually overrepresented as a major religion.
Some of the Bhai'i promotion, if not most of it, seems to be added by SPAs (like in the above case) which often have been recently created, suggesting that there may be a special effort to give that group prominence on Wikipedia.
It may also require a group effort to locate and ensure proper weight of those mentions (or remove them) everywhere, which is why I finally decided to post about this issue here. If this is not the right place to discuss this, I would be glad to know where it would be more appropriate. Thanks, —  Paleo Neonate — 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

After checking their own articles they also have obvious issues, but I doubt it's our problem... one thing I noticed is that there are some popular sources presented like scholarly papers from members. It's unclear to me if some of those are reliable sources or not. One Robert Stockman article that I read for instance seemed to be an apologetic rant against descriptions of the Baha'i Faith religion as syncretism. An interesting article, Pioneering (Bahá'í) seems like a proselytism/missionary POV fork. In any case, the main problem is mostly the promotion outside of their main articles (their "teaching" on Wikipedia, according to the last article).

The addition to the aforementioned Abraham article was removed by another editor already. Since noone yet told me that this was completely out of scope of this project, here are other examples:

• Cannabis and religion (about it being forbidden, then, I wonder why it's there at all, although the same occurs with LDS, although that is a more notable group; article might need general cleanup perhaps...)
• Moses (there is Mormonism, under Chritianity, Baha'i Faith represented as a major religion)
• Prophet (maybe warranted there, considering all the others, if in due weight and properly placed, this reminds me of my List of fulfilled prophecies successful AfD actually)...
• Jesus
• Aaron (short section, but probably belongs in a main Baha'i article if anywhere, still not in due weight to appear like a major religion)
• List of predictions#Religious prophecy

Others don't come to my mind immediately, but I often encountered a Baha'i Faith section on articles wondering why it's there other than promotion by exposition; we probably all have... —  Paleo Neonate — 18:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure... According to this, they are indeed only 50% less numerous than Jews, and they're the fourth biggest Abrahamic religion. It seems that they're arguably not just a branch of Islam, since they believe that Muhammad is not the most important prophet. However they should probably be downgraded to the "Other" section in articles that have such a section, and everything that is written about them should be checked for NPOV and WP:SPA contributors. That does seem like entering an endless edit war, though... Maybe this should be brought up to wp:wikiproject religion? KarlPoppery ( talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

After a quick search, most sources I can find classify Baha'i as a different religion (but not Jehovah's Witnesses). It will make your case hard to make. KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be right, I'll have to take more time evaluating sources and checking them. WikiProject Religion would indeed be more on-topic; there's also a Baha'i one too, but before going there I was glad to obtain some input. Thanks, —  Paleo Neonate — 18:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the Popular pages bot has been resurrected, so I signed this project up to get a report from it. It runs reports on the 2nd of each month so we should get our first report on June 2nd. Unless I screwed it up, the report should appear at this page. -- Krelnik ( talk) 18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Update! The bot has populated the report for us. Lots of interesting stuff to look at. Looks like Bill Nye was our top-read article in April, by quite a margin. Understandable since his NETFLIX series got lots of press. -- Krelnik ( talk) 11:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Geist Group: skeptics or charlatans? (note: also see talk page). Thanks, —  Paleo Neonate — 06:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

AfDed, it shouldn't have survived for seven years. KarlPoppery ( talk) 06:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure it was this bad, but that's a good initiative. Did you know of them? Thanks, —  Paleo Neonate — 06:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think many people know of them, I can't find sources and their website no longer works. KarlPoppery ( talk) 06:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I only found this so far, which doesn't seem much (via a "what links here" to an IP address' talk page who received a warning for link spamming). —  Paleo Neonate — 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm CSD is a good idea, I put a speedy delete vote in the AfD, that can sometimes be equivalent it seems and haste closure immediately, will see... also, in case CSD gets contested we have the AfD. —  Paleo Neonate — 07:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate anyone's comments at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Reopening Sweden EHS matter -- papageno ( talk) 04:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Yates is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Yates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Paleo Neonate - 08:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion may be of interest to folks who hang out around here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I already thanked you but at FTN, here is where I intended to post the message — Paleo Neonate – 20:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! XOR'easter ( talk) 21:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Made a new WikiProject at WP:CHIRO if anyone else in this project is interested. Feel free to join! Just went active today. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Semmendinger: Thank you for the notice. It was already "detected" then minimally discussed at WT:MED#New_WikiProject, in case you would like to participate in the conversation. But don't let it discourage you, I sometimes feel lonely, having the impression to run this semi-active WikiSkepticism project myself (despite its large participants list). Happy editing, — Paleo Neonate – 23:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I'll swing on by. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Illusion, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

I've noticed that the article " Barnum effect" has been in queue for quite some time, awaiting to be reviewed through the GA process. The Barnum effect is a very interesting topic, and one that is key to understand nearly all brands of pseudoscience. If any of our members are experienced in the Good Articles review process, it would be a valuable use of your time to help user:Meatsgains by reviewing this article! KarlPoppery ( talk) 20:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Article assessment and GA documentation are still on my TOREAD list unfortunately. It's something I'm willing to learn but I still consider that I lack the skills at current time. I would also be glad to closely follow the work of someone who can do it for my edification. Meanwhile, if noone qualified answers here in a reasonable time, I could participate to check logs of possibly related articles which have achieved GA status and attempt to "recruit" a reviewer... Among my current questions-list are:

• Can class vary from project to project? If so, which is the one shown or considered the default when an article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects?
• Who does official assessment (apparently Wikiprojects)?
• What prevents class= from being faked/forged? Where is it officially listed, possibly bot-applied?
• Criteria for an article to be of GA status (I have various unread links for this).

—  Paleo Neonate — 04:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Good article" status is not given by a Wikiproject, it's a more official thing and there's a procedure to follow. You can read all about it on Wikipedia:Good_articles. Technically anyone can be a reviewer, but it's better to have experience with the process. The whole thing is supposed to take about seven days of work. KarlPoppery ( talk) 06:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

To answer your other questions, the class=ABC system is not official in any way. It's one of those Wikipedia thing that anyone can change. KarlPoppery ( talk) 06:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Karlpoppery: Thanks for the shoutout and bringing the GA nomination to the attention of editors within this wikiproject. Let me know if there is anything I can do on my end to help move this along and get reviewed! Meatsgains ( talk) 01:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Karlpoppery: Thank you for the explanations. I now see that the history seems more important than the class assessment field itself, via the talk page templates' "Article milestones". —  Paleo Neonate — 22:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Congrats to Meatsgains and Power~enwiki. — Paleo Neonate – 05:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Meatsgains ( talk) 17:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy (2nd nomination). James ( ^talk/ _contribs) 05:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to nominate the above article for deletion as a poorly written article that apparently duplicates Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience, but as an unregistered user I need someone to do this for me. 165.91.12.190 ( talk) 04:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What did I just read? Boy that page is ... something... Sorry don't have time to give it more attention. Will check back later to see if it has a AFD notice. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to downgrade the Dietary supplement article from B-class to C-class because in my opinion so much of it was incomplete, incoherent, off-topic, under-referenced, etc. I have since been editing the article. Anyone else wants to get involved - great. I have no intention of "owning" this article. At some point the collective changes may warrant upgrading to B-class. I do not intend to make that decision, as I am too close to the topic. David notMD ( talk) 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Great job David notMD. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD. I'll work to make a habit of linking to that article, and add it to my personal list to tweak. Poorlyglot ( talk) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to give feedback about my article, go to the peer review page and feel free to do so. -- LovelyGirl7 talk 22:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated the Philipp Budeikin page for deletion. He is credited with creating the Blue Whale (game). The discussion has been resisted so I thought I might mention it here to drum up some interest, and hopefully get a consensus one way or another. The discussion is here 8==8 Boneso ( talk) 09:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote this article about a ghost-hunter turned skeptical activist, and it was almost immediately put up for deletion after I published it. Feel free to weigh-in on the matter:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenny Biddle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RobP ( talk) 01:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that no consensus was reached, and it has now been relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus."

There is also a discussion going on regarding the content of the article (photo inclusion, etc) here: [1] RobP ( talk) 05:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: Last month the article was deleted due to "lack of notability". I of course, disagreed, but to no avail. I saved a copy off-line so if Biddle gets more coverage I will update it and resubmit. RobP ( talk) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. I have written an article on Bob Nygaard which you may be interested in. He is a private investigator I heard about on Skepticality who specializes in the investigation of psychic fraud. Please take a look at it in my sandbox and offer any constructive criticism you may have. If there are minor errors (punctuation, typos...) feel free to fix them right in the sandbox, but for bigger stuff, let me know here please. (I wish I had a photo, but there is nothing in Commons!) Thanks! RobP ( talk) 20:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You can always try to contact him. Sgerbic ( talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I did and he uploaded a great photo! Luckily he was easy to contact, being a PI for hire and all. Just lucky he wasn't under cover, incognito and off the grid. LOL. RobP ( talk) 06:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been aware of this page for some time. I've kept an eye on it but not really had the energy to do major work on it. The problem is simple; she's a woo merchant but the entire page is carefully constructed to give an appearance of respectability (multiple invocations of "research", etc). I'm sorry to drop the problem in your lap but hope someone has the time to give it a going-over and chase up some cites to say this stuff is woo. Pinkbeast ( talk) 17:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello there Pinkbeast. This is really interesting, I'm sure someone will check into it, thanks for bringing it to our attention, that's what WikiProject Skepticism is all about. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And also, there is Family Constellations, which shows up in the Purce article as her specialty. RobP ( talk) 18:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to improve the article Fallacy, and as the first step I have restructured it (shuffled sections and paragraphs around). I would like to ask for some feedback on its talk page to see if I am going the right way. Thanks :) Petr Matas 15:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Petr Matas, I've looked at the edit history, and see your changes, they seem subtle and reordered, but I don't see anything that stands out as a problem (I didn't read it in detail) you are the best judge of the quality of your changes. I'm sure if you messed up, someone will be happy to tell you. ;-) Sgerbic ( talk) 20:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for your project for a while, and have sent some lists to PaleoNeonate who helped invite those recommended editors. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly for WikiProject Skepticism on your behalf to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 ( talk) 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

BoBo if you mean Project Skepticism, then you don't have to ask, the project is open to anyone that wants to join. There isn't a "your project" here as far as I know. The more the merrier. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Sgerbic: Sorry about the wording. Yes, it should be WikiProject Skepticism:) I will then help send a small amount of invitations to selective editors with care. Bobo.03 ( talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Bobo.03: Many thanks for helping with this, I'm sorry that I could not be very responsive lately on Wikipedia. — Paleo Neonate – 09:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Got into an argument at work with someone over Kinesio tape at work today. He looked up the article on WP, and it was pretty neutral which he took to mean it likely works. To hell with that. Got home and went nuclear on it. Added SBM and Skeptoid (and other critiques) to the article - and then mentioned that it is pseudoscience right in the lead. Also removed all the Further Reading material as it was original research type stuff from proponents. Tagged the article as Alt-Med too. Don't know if this all will stick. May need support on this one! RobP ( talk) 01:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - much better article now! Sgerbic ( talk) 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Checking to see if people have seen this news. Not sure when it is going to launch.

I am looking into if it is possible to get a list of articles they plan to link to and a list of articles by number of pageviews coming from Youtube.

Wondering what others measures people think could help prevent any issues from occurring due to this? As most of these topics will be semi protected already I do not imagine many problems. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, first time I'm seeing this. My worry is that the people viewing these sorts of videos in the first place are the same people who wholeheartedly are in agreement with the content. Therefore if they see an "inflammatory" ad to an editable Wikipedia page spouting otherwise, it's going to be an easy target for vandalism. I don't like the fact that YouTube is doing this (I know that's neither here nor there), but I hope you can secure a list of pages that will be linked so at the very least we can add them to our watchlists. I don't see it becoming a big issue if we have advanced knowledge and semi-protected pages. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Semmendinger that was my first concern aswell. But than if the wider world see Wikipedia as a critical source of information for million this may bring in a lot of good faith editors who just want others to have accurate information. And we have lots of policies to help support those who come with good references and rebuff those without. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

generally agree w/ Doc James-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think this is quite as irresponsible of YouTube as the interviewees and author makes it out to be: An individual who regularly posted links to Wikipedia on the social media posts of others pushing conspiracy theories would not be seen as abrogating any sort of responsibility, even if they were being paid to debunk such theories. That's not to say I think this is some sort of panacea, however.

In fact, it raises two problems: First -as has been mentioned already- what about the lunatic fringe that will be drawn here as a result of that? Make no mistake, this is not a possibility, but an inevitability of this. The vast majority of consumers of this are either "True Believers" already, or far more open to belief in the conspiracy theories than to skepticism of them.

Second: How does YouTube know that a WP article will even be accurate at the time an individual is watching the video, or even over a long period of time? As already pointed out by the SPLC, we have at least one major article that gives equal credence to a fringe viewpoint, over at Race and intelligence. And that's exactly the sort of article this project will end up linking to. Right now, it makes the consensus view of experts seem like it has serious competition from the fringe view of racialists, but that's never been my understanding of the subject, and while it's never been a particular interest of mine, I've read quite a bit about it and all of my reading material would easily qualify as an RS. Most of it would qualify under WP:MEDRS, in fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Looks like we have more work to do, get more people trained and active. More people here at Project Skepticism would help also. I agree, we already have trolls aplenty, just need to keep on it. I doubt that much will change anytime soon. We need to stay on the ball though. Sgerbic ( talk) 22:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad that you guys saw this. I wasn't sure where to post it, so I did post about it on AN (thanks for sharing here Doc James). Also, this thread was just linked on Twitter by a Verge reporter not long ago -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I also cross-posted it to WP:FTN, so between the three boards, everyone with an interest should be aware of it by this time tomorrow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

Very nice, thank you both. MPants, you bring up a good point that the information being linked might not be 100% accurate (although for fringe and conspiracy topics I don't think we can deal in absolute accuracy anyway). My only solace is that usually the 1% of pages which have unnoticed vandalism are infrequently visited pages. Something that's a hot enough topic to be linked to from YouTube should have at least a couple people keeping an eye on it. And like Doc James said, though the vandalism is inevitable, we'll also see a possible influx of users who want to contribute to the encyclopedia in a positive manner. These users might help offset the actions of the non productive contributors. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 23:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody who knows the appropriate contacts at YouTube might request that the interns or staff members who are assigned to post WP links to YouTube videos be given control of a dedicated WP account that allows them to list/log the entries here, or at FTN, more or less in real time. That would certainly help editors keep an eye on some of the more obscure articles that might be targeted for fringe rebuttals or vandalization. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with you LuckyLouie, I doubt that that will happen . Depending on the account name (unless worked out with the WMF or whatnot), it could also fall under Usernames implying shared use section of the Username policy if it where to happen. -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 04:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I just nominated this article for deletion. Check it out and weigh in if you are interested. RobP ( talk) 19:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem which is of relevance to this WikiProject. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC at the Sean Hannity article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This article I contributed to has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to give your opinion here: [2] RobP ( talk) 12:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Just listened to the new Skeptoid analysis of Environmental Working Groupand its annual Dirty Dozen food list. Both the main article and the Pesticides in the United States (containing the list) need Skeptical attention. As a minimum, the current criticism in the EWG article should be summarized in the lead. RobP ( talk) 12:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this myself after hearing the cast. I'm gonna take a peek at it today, will update here after I edit. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 12:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Added a bit of criticism to lede and posted again to let everyone know I will be placing a criticism section in the article soonishly. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone has noticed activity on the page and is currently going through and removing criticism. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 15:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What? Let me take a look. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I added a brief summation of criticism in the lead as well as consolidated in article criticism (and added a little) into its own section to increase clarity. As I noted on the talk page there, I feel like even though it had criticism it was disparate and unclear being buried in the article. I guess I'll see if anyone reverts. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The title says it all. Ill be in the material gathering process for a bit and then will get started on writing the thing. It'll be done in this particular sandbox.

If you have any thoughts, want to help, or anything really catch me here or the talk page for the construction space.

Cheers Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 19:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll have to wait to find out what thermalism is. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is related to balneology and this might end up as a rewrite/addition/redirect to that page instead of a new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap Chart Mike ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. Everything that I can discern about this as far as legitimate use refers basically to balneology and spas, both of which are well covered. There are some historical aspects to the woo-woo out there but doesn't appear that I'll be able to drum up more than a stub (yet). So, for the moment I'm gonna keep the research and move on. If anyone here is interested in what I've gathered please PING me and I'll get you the google doc link. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate any support at the Talk page for Robert O. Becker, the section Request for consideration of article rewrite. -- papageno ( talk) 03:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I will not have a chance to compare the individual merits of the two articles until tomorrow. It's preset impossible to do on a cell phone for me. However I can confidently say that as long as there are no objections a wholesale rewrite and replacement is just fine, see the ANI at the bottom of my talk page. The difference though is ive been picking pretty inactive stuff to rewrite. Im doing this mostly to build a working method and ezperience at editing, im a decent researcher but still getting the hang of wikipedia itself. This page looks like more people are paying attention to it. I'll comment on the talk page likely sometime Sunday, I'd like to give both pages a fair eye. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 10:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The article on zener cards needs skeptical attention and basically an entire rewrite. I've informed the talk page there and Im sandboxing the project presently. Help is, as always, welcome from all parties. Cheers. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 14:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to see what I can find. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Work is live. Found what I could to insert more skeptical content, update references, etc... Given the age of the topic there isn't that much new content on this, still I think it's an improvement as it stands now. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear everyone, I am a newbie on Wikipedia. I recently used an English site of German skeptic Holm Gero Hümmler to translate it to German. Both of the pages don't have enough references outside of the "skeptical bubble" yet. While I do have some links that I want to incorporate in both for references, sources and his publications and to improve the pages generally (especially the German page), I could absolutely use some help, as I'm quite inexperienced. So you can access both of the pages with the link above. If you are interested, I can always post the links and articles I do have here or on one of the Talk pages (German or English Talk page of him). Thanks in advance! Lluvia-aweiku ( talk) 19:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have sent you a message, please send me some of the links and I'll get to them if no one else helps. But I might be a bit slow as I have a lot of gardening today. So if someone else can get to them quicker, do it. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that articles like John Edward and Tyler Henry have this template, which seems reasonable enough. The articles are, however, not in the template, no people are. Should we give people like this a section in the template, perhaps also people like Houdini and Randi, or leave things as they are? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Great question. I don't think we need to add it to Randi and Houdini, that would just become overwhelming. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, they're not really paranormal in that sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And another thing. The template/sidebar is near invisible collapsed. How about a middleground like the Bible-sidebar in The Bible and humor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

For some reason Living dinosaur wasn't already tagged with WikiProject Skepticism (surprising given how long it's been struggling with cryptozoology content), so this didn't show up in the notifications. See: Talk:Living dinosaur if you wish to comment. -- tronvillain ( talk) 12:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Way over my head. This is why "portals" and/or Wikiprojects fail. Not all of us are engineers, just say simply what is the issue. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I was looking through Wanted Pages and I ran into Occult writers and antisemitism. It doesn't exist and has north of 5000 wikilinks to it, instant traffic and a topic that clearly has some interest as well as being relevant to this project. It's also one that a brief initial glance tells me there is enough out there to write something with some meat on it.

When I finish the initial draft I suspect Ill need some help tagging and categorizing the article properly and whatever else I don't know about for writing a brand new article. Cheers. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 15:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As an aside for those who wondered, like me: The 5000 wikilinks are because of the template WikiProject Jewish history, which contains a todo list, which contains the red link. As soon as somebody added the link to the todo list, every Talk page with that template linked to that nonexistant page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Useful info. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It turns out that this topic is a lot of work and I might not even be able to establish sufficient notability for a stand alone on it. Not a project I'm interested in abandoning just yet but it is a very slow to build body of reference for me. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 16:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of a proposed consolidated Weapons of power in Hindu epics article is at Talk:Kurukshetra War#New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics". -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote my first brand new article. I wandered into the topic through this project by taking a look at Freemen on the land (an article that I'll be doing some work on) and I noticed that it mentions the strawman idea but there was no article. Now Strawman theory has one.

I have it marked as needing attention on this project because it likely needs attention seeing as it's my first attempt at writing something that was not here before. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 19:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike that is a terrific article, I've shared it on my Facebook page and there has been a lot of discussion about it. Thank you! Sgerbic ( talk) 04:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Rap Chart Mike: thanks and congratulations! — Paleo Neonate – 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there was so much activity here when I as mostly gone in the last few months. I'll consider updating the bot archival rate if necessary. Although this page is no substitute for WP:FTN, it is likely the ideal place to discuss new articles and for noncontroversial editing collaboration, as was done above. I see new editors and new articles, keep up the good work! — Paleo Neonate – 20:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It is nice to see some chatter. Sgerbic ( talk) 22:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So I've been over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views starting the process of injecting skepticism and science into some of the articles they're collectively paying attention to and I came across comparative medicine, a little mess of a stub. I decided to expand it because it's a deep and broad topic and deserves more than what's there. I've got a very good start on getting that done and when I complete it I'll be sure to share it here.

So far I've covered History up to the Polio vaccine, ethics, translational issues (research being applicable in pre-clinical and clinical trials), the reproducibility crisis that is plaguing most branches of science at the moment, and I have found enough material to write a well sourced section on legal considerations.

The problem I'm having is that I can't find a good history to take my writing into the 21st century. Every book seems to get to polio and just move on. Is anyone able to locate a source (or several!) on the history of comparative medicine past the 1950's?

Cheers. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Awesome Mike. I would love to see that stub of a stub get a rewrite. I'll look over some things and see what I can find for your request. I'll let you know if I find something. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is live for a bit now. No pushback on my efforts but also no additional expansion since the update. I will ASP circle back and take another dive at it. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Rap Chart Mike: Sorry for the delayed response. If it wasn't already done, and you still need assistance, WT:MED may also be a good place to notify in this case. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 20:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I will at some point drop a note there. Been very busy here lately. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 13:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, so I decided to ask for feedback here: Rune370 added a link from Confirmation bias to the newly created article " Synchromysticism", and I removed the link due to unclear relevance. (I searched for "synchromysticism" on Google Scholar and turned up only a few articles on "invented religions".) Rune370 has been creating related pages such as Template:Chaos magic and Gnosis (chaos magic) and Servitor (chaos magic) (which seems to me to be of very questionable notability) and linking some of them to more mainstream psychology articles. Any feedback on this would be appreciated: For example, does Servitor (chaos magic) appear notable? Thanks, Biogeographist ( talk) 13:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Biogeographist. You're right, I've substantially written up the chaos magic article itself, in an attempt to bring it up to the same standard as articles on other occult belief systems like Wicca or Thelema. Now I'm attempting to write up good quality articles on various topics relating to chaos magic, and link to them from other articles that may be relevant, as per wikipedia guidelines: "Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole", etc.

The examples you give, Servitors and Gnosis, are both integral parts of chaos magic, that have been mentioned in every chaos magic text for the past 40 years or so. To give you some examples of "servitors" being mentioned:

-- Peter J. Carroll (1978), Liber Null & Psychonaut, p. 171. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tI90Xz9uY74C

-- Phil Hine (1998), Prime Chaos, multiple pages. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGWnSQAACAAJ

-- Alan Chapman (2008), Advanced Magick for Beginners, p.97. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1lT7R6QD16oC

-- Andrieh Vitimus (2009), Hands-On Chaos Magic, pp.298, 299, 320, 328. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k7_U6HOBYXsC

I don't think it's contentious that there should be articles on various topics within a subject. There are a multitude of pages relating to topics from Wicca, for example: Wiccan Rede, Rule of Three (Wicca), Wiccan morality. This is standard practice on Wikipedia, and in doing this for chaos magic I'm just trying to bring the article up to the same standard. However, I welcome the chance to engage in a discussion about it. Rune370 ( talk) 20:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, this may be a little off topic -- and sorry if this seems like I'm not assuming good faith -- but it feels a little like you're criticising me and my activity, rather than any one specific article I've written. Whether "gnosis", "servitors" and "synchromysticism" are notable are surely three separate questions? The state of the chaos magic article before I put in any work was atrocious, it had barely been touched in a decade and was full of spurious, badly written content. Regardless of what you think of the topic, I am just trying to cover it in a way suitable for an encyclopaedia. Rune370 ( talk) 20:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Rune370: Thanks for the further information; I will be interested to see if anyone else here will comment. My statement about the other articles that you created was not criticism of your activity, just background information, because when a link to a brand-new article on a subject that I have never heard of—namely "synchromysticism"—suddenly appears in an article on a subject that I know, this kind of background information provides some context.

The question about notability only relates to Servitor (chaos magic). Notability requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources, and I am not sure that being mentioned in the books that you listed above constitutes significant coverage. One metric that I consult when evaluating books is how many libraries in WorldCat have the book in their holdings, and none of the books that you listed above is widely held by libraries; Liber Null & Psychonaut is the most widely held, at around 40 libraries, which is still a low number. That number alone does not tell us much except that those books are not widely considered by librarians to be key reference books; the more important question is whether these are the reliable sources required by notability guidelines, and whether the mention of "servitor" in them constitutes significant coverage.

"Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole", as MOS:LINK says, but that doesn't mean that everything needs to be linked to everything else. In the lead of Synchromysticism you described it (quoting a source) as "existing on the fringe of areas already considered fringe", and so I assume it should be on the fringe of Wikipedia as well, and not prominently linked on a mainstream article unless there is a very good rationale for such a link. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@ Biogeographist: I take your point about the links, perhaps I was a bit overzealous, and they should be rolled back.

Regarding the notability of Servitor (chaos magic). I think it depends on whether we're discussing significant coverage within the field of chaos magic, or significant coverage generally within the sphere of published discourse. Chaos magic is, of course, a niche topic. But servitors are a widely discussed topic within chaos magic. In fact, I've tried to focus on creating articles on topics that have been present from the very beginning of the movement: gnosis, servitors, kia, etc. All of those were introduced by Austin Osman Spare in the early 1900s. All the other chaos magic texts are secondary sources that comment on and analyse, and sometimes further develop those concepts, as introduced by Spare.

So I could provide tons of texts that refer to those topics. However, if we're aiming for significant coverage within the world, then I don't think the article crosses that bar. But is that what we're aiming for? Surely there are loads of Wikipedia pages that aren't widely discussed outside of niche areas -- mathematical concepts, for example?

Regarding the reliability of those sources, they're not self-published or primary (in that they're not introducing the concepts). But they are written by practioners of chaos magic, for a limited readership. Does that make them unreliable? They're reliable when it comes to describing what chaos magic consists of, I think. Rune370 ( talk) 22:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that establishing notability for a general topic requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and for a fringe theory, a topic "is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" it's not obvious that Servitor (chaos magic) meets notability. Of course, that doesn't apply to content within an article - one could easily have a section on "Servitors" within an article on chaos magic, but establishing notability for a stand-alone article is another matter entirely. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I should probably just take this over there.-- tronvillain ( talk) 14:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just for reference, I've responded to this at Talk:Servitor_(chaos_magic) Rune370 ( talk) 23:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm tooling through the cleanup listing looking for something to work on and couldn't help but notice that its pretty inaccurate in a lot of places. I have no idea how to update it or what the criteria for doing so is but I'm willing to learn and take on at least some of that work. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 16:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bot just reports anything tagged with Wikiproject Skepticism that has an issue tag (cleanup, citation needed, expert needed, etc.) on the article. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting and slightly confusing. I must be missing the tags. When I get back to it I'll have to check the page better. I suspect they're in the header on the talk page for the article then? Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What's a page you were looking at? -- tronvillain ( talk) 18:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to include section and inline tags as well as page tags? -- tronvillain ( talk) 18:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

An Example is Ancient astronauts. It's got to be pulling inline tags as well. Should have thought of that. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh derp. I just scrolled down and saw the section tag. laziness on my part Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Love that "derp" will try to use it in a sentence today. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, Wikimedia Foundation staff have been working with YouTube to learn more about the feature (called information panels) developed by their team which will link to Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica articles from videos about conspiracy theories on YouTube. This announcement was first made in March of this year, and the feature will be rolled out starting this week. (This was previously discussed onwiki here, here, and here, amongst other places). We wanted to let folks know about the rollout and share more information about articles that may be impacted by the new feature. We have been supplied with a list of the initial English Wikipedia articles that they are going to be linking to. Those articles are: Global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, 1980 Camarate air crash, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Kecksburg UFO incident, and MMR vaccine.

The Foundation staff who are in contact with YouTube about the feature spoke with a handful of admins leading up to the rollout. From those conversations, we do not anticipate this will create a substantial increase in vandalism on English Wikipedia, but we will be monitoring this with the YouTube team. If you have any questions, concerns, or notice an increase in negative behavior on those articles, please let me or GVarnum-WMF know.

You can find an overview of the announcement from YouTube in this section of their latest blog post. We will update you here if we have more new information. Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, watchlisted. Some of those articles could also likely be improved... — Paleo Neonate – 10:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

leave it to the Skeptics I guess to clean this mess up. Sgerbic ( talk) 10:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand the MMR and the FEMA and also Global warming, but some of these other choices are kinda odd. Well I get it but they wouldn't be the strongest. So how do you propose we get these correctly rewritten? We can do it by group discussion with one person taking the lede? Or if one of us wants to completely rewrite the page and check back with others if needed. I favor one person doing a page because that way the page is written in one voice and usually much quicker. Thoughts? Sgerbic ( talk) 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll start with looking at updating MMR vaccine and work through updating here as I go.

As it stands I think the vaccine article reads pretty well and it's got a robust and frequent edit history going right up to 1 July 2018 but it can't hurt for someone from this project to take a thorough look at each of these. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 16:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the MMR article as it is. I added one citation as a further justification for administration of the vaccines as a combo and a wikilink to Vaccination in See also just to round it out. In my opinion anyone reading the article that doesn't have an anti-vaccine agenda is going to see it as neutral, basic information about it. Because we all know that the majority of people searching for MMR vaccine on google and watching videos about on YouTube are perfectly sane and rational individuals... Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I would also like to point at the WP:FTN thread on the same subject where some collaboration is also taking place. — Paleo Neonate – 18:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear are we going to duplicate the work? Guess we should move over there. Great work Mike! Sgerbic ( talk) 20:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I like that more than one project is directed at it. Tension between camps leads to better articles through us being respectfully critical of each other. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 12:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Done Sgerbic ( talk) 04:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is Black hole a WikiProject Skepticism article? Unless someone comes up with a good reason, I will remove this project from that article's Talk page. RobP ( talk) 19:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. No reason for that to be here. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's some new alt-med treatment? GOOP might be saying it will eliminate your wrinkles caused by time... :-) Sgerbic ( talk) 05:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bingo: "Lux foraminis nigris" is a homeopathic dilution of light from black holes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Rp2006: Sorry for the delayed response. It is possible that it was monitored by the project because of regular fringe claims additions, which may not be in the article anymore. I don't object to tag removal if it doesn't currently need special monitoring. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I’m a little new here but I’ve created my first article. There was a consensus a while ago when I first put it up for review that it didn’t meet notability. I’ve done a lot of work since then, on advice from some experienced editors. Could I please ask you to read my page as it is now and tell me if it meets the notability standard before I publish? If it doesn’t, then I’d be happy to take any suggestions to strengthen it. /info/en/?search=User:330highflyer/sandbox2 Thanks, 330highflyer ( talk) 05:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks terrifc! Sgerbic ( talk) 17:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments re the lede:

• "...is a retired computer programmer turned skeptic...". Programmers aren't sceptical until they retire?
• "...he is often called upon to explain mysterious phenomena in the media." Maybe it could be "...he is often called upon by the media to explain mysterious phenomena."

Don't mind me. You are certainly on the right track, and honouring the statement on your page -- "Just here to help make Wikipedia as accurate and informative as possible." Go for it. Moriori ( talk) 20:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Couple good refs in there to give it notability for sure, go for it. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 12:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Good edit suggestions. Also I should have mentioned the language and style should avoid sounding like a personal CV or list of achievements, so I made a few tweaks. Also it could be the doc "Overcast" he appeared in gives science equal weight with conspiracy theories, hard to tell from the synopsis [3]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the feedback and help. And your comments have given me the confidence to publish. Very happy with the page now. 330highflyer ( talk) 20:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey so an article in your project ( Examination of Apollo Moon photographs) (and one I believe relevant to your interests) has been nominated for AfD by yours truly. Article has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc. So if you'd like to contribute to that discussion, go ahead and check out ---> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination). Thanks!-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bigfoot hunter and Missing 411 conspiracy author David Paulides has posted to his blog here that his bio on WP needs correction. There have been multiple IP editors attempting to remove criticism - likely as a result. An interesting conversation is happening on the Talk page! Mostly, so far, just regarding attempts to remove the label cryptozoologist. RobP ( talk) 00:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fans of Paulides are once again attempting to dilute criticism in his article. Please chime in! RobP ( talk) 12:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I don't know if this is the right place, but these articles definitely need some attention. I'm just posting here to try and solicit help on revamping the many Anthroposophy-related articles. For many years, these articles have had pervasive POV issues mostly due to hyper-involved single-purpose editors with COIs. The articles in question are Anthroposophy, Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture. Most of these articles read like promotional material and desperately need our help. To get more specific Anthroposophic medicine is actually pretty good, but the others in that list are pretty good examples of WP:BROCHURE.

I could give you the diffs and the many ArbCom rulings, ANI postings, etc. (and will if asked) but suffice it to say that there is a very small group of editors who are themselves professionally linked to Anthroposophy and Waldorf education who are gatekeeping the articles so that all edits are filtered through their lens. As a result, many of the criticisms and less-favorable aspects of the history of this new age religion are dimmed in favor of excessive detail about the adherents' beliefs and positive praises of the subject material.

I of course want these articles to detail the beliefs of anthroposophists, no question about that. But overly favorable language and WP:WEASEL words are pretty rampant throughout. Then the many racist and unscientific views of adherents (anti-vax, anti-microbial theory of disease, their founder Steiner didn't believe in evolution, believed in racial "types", reincarnation, believed Jewish people should fully assimilate and abandon all Jewish identifiers, etc.) are minimized and reduced in size, book-ended with positive praise, and so on. Combine that with the overly wrought language and hyper-sophistry of the article text, and you have what we see today. I will tell you that if you agree to help me, you may become exhausted in the process. But if the wiki itself is less promotional in the process, it will have been worth it!!

Please don't come into this process with fiercely pro- or anti-Steiner views. The guy was just a random 19th century philosopher who had some interesting and crazy ideas. The only reason I'm interested in these articles is because of how clearly they are an example of what can happen when a very diligent, very obsessive, very biased group of editors are 99% of the edits on a set of controversial articles.

I personally am starting with the root article Anthroposophy and then hope to expand to revamp the daughter articles in the series. I've tried in the past to help bring these articles to NPOV, but was unsuccessful like many before me due to attrition, wiki-breaks, and a general dissatisfaction dealing with the very involved COI-editors. So I'm hoping that asking for help from more uninvolved editors will do the trick. Any takers? Thanks. -- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 17:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If COI is an issue as you have suggested, WP:COIN may be able to help with the COI issues. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to post on COIN if the ArbCom has already resolved that one editor has a COI? And then a COI notice exists on the talk page, but the editor in question just doesn't care and has continued to edit the article almost exclusively over the course of 10+ years? Is there really anything I can do about it other than ask nicely for the editor to recuse themselves?-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 18:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I find the episode descriptions in ghost/paranormal TV show articles often riddled with extreme promotional hype, WP:COPYVIO, WP:V and WP:PROFRINGE problems. Here's just one example. This type of cleanup is fairly simple, but it does take time. Volunteers are appreciated at articles such as List of Ghost Adventures: Aftershocks episodes, Ghost Brothers and The Othersiders. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL you're right! I'll do the Paranormal Lockdown Season 2 summaries, using the one you did as a model. Should get to it within 48h. Robincantin ( talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and Category:Paranormal reality television series is always a good place to find articles in need of help. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this page is up for deletion and I think this group would be interested in it. Malcolm Kendrick has promoted conspiracy theories about cholesterol and statins. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 03:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

OMG what a mess - Reading that talk page is like waking up to the day after a rain and you go outside and there are worms and snails all over the sidewalk and you think, where were these worms and snails before the rain? And then you just have to step over them carefully cause you don't want to squish one and slip and then land on your butt on one of them and you have snail goo on your clothes the rest of the day. That is what this AfD looks like to me. I guess I'll have to wander over and make a vote after looking over that massive Malcolm Kendrick Wikipedia page. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I found out how the snails and worms learned about the AfD. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/03/dr-malcolm-kendrick-deletion-from-wikipedia/?fbclid=IwAR1PXT480mxVx3LBV4bSe8h4Jj2GHD2yjuW_diqra-UbNK1F4_Y2u-s9Fqg Sgerbic ( talk) 17:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is all over twitter as the low-carb diet fanbase and cholesterol conspiracy theorists [4], [5], [6] have gone mad with their misinformation that Wikipedia is trying to shut them down and that I am some evil vegan activist. I simply submitted his article for deletion because of lack of reliable sources. I rarely delete anything on Wikipedia, most of my edits add content to articles. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 18:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I find that when making a nomination for AfD less is more. Simple statement of "Topic fails on (insert fail point) because (insert reasons)". Cuts down on the riff raff coming out of the woodwork like this. Rap Chart Mike ( talk) 18:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree Mike. This is such a mess of trolls. I tried to very simply state my case with my delete vote. We would waste hours trying to educate these people, they don't understand the rules at all. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory that Wikipedia (or myself and other skeptics) are trying to delete articles for low-carb high-fat diet advocates or cholesterol deniers is false. We have pages on Nina Teicholz, Tim Noakes, Aseem Malhotra and Uffe Ravnskov with many reliable references. I even created a category for them. Malcolm Kendrick has a lack of reliable sources that mention his work. There is no conspiracy theory to remove him off Wikipedia. If there was reliable sources I would add them and expand his article, but little to none exist. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 09:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Closed with a delete. What a mess that was, but it is over. Sgerbic ( talk) 04:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Afd opened for Fat Head, an unscientific conspiracy theory documentary. Cannot find a single reliable source that mentions this documentary. Perhaps someone else can take a look? MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 21:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am letting you know of an rfc to merge List of cryptids. Which ever way the wind blows you are welcome to join in. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What categories should the Gaia,_Inc. article have added? The website's listed topics are here and include a range of pseudoscience and alt.medicine, so I'd recon similar categories to Natural_News and maybe Goop_(company)? Any options welcomed. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) ^talk 02:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Topics. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) ^talk 04:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Members of WikiProject Skepticism might like to know that there is a discussion / vote going on at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Time to move about renaming that article. The basis is that there is no longer a legitimate controversy. So they are considering changing it to one of the following:

• MMR vaccine controversy (status quo)
• MMR-autism myth
• MMR-autism hoax
• MMR-autism fraud
• MMR-autism conspiracy theory

If you would like to contribute, please join in.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the heads up. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 14:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Short version: I noticed that Category:Magicians and its subcats contain several people who are not illusionists but people who think (or claim) they can do real magic. They should have a separate category, but I do not know what name it should have.

The long version is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal, but I guess people here would be interested too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a dispute on the Havana Syndrome (See here) regarding the qualifications of Robert Bartholomew to state his expert opinion that the "sonic attacks" on Americans in Cuba and China are actually psychogenic in nature. Please take a look and comment if interested! RobP ( talk) 03:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to the members of this project can be found at Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without credible evidence". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This from the NY Times. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. It's been non-stop today. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor input is requested at Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you. Leviv  ich 20:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Lindenberger - ya'all might be interested in this discussion. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Having an edit war over criticism an editor (Alexbrn) insists on removing based on MEDRS, claiming this applies to alt-med as well as med if it involves pain management. ("Reports of pain reduction fall under WP:MEDRS.") Opinions? RobP ( talk) 20:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to WP:Biomedical information. And we generally do not base *any* articles on primary sources. If altmed were exempt from MEDRS the floodgates would be open to a tidal wave of woo. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The article already is woo. It should not take MEDRS applicability to dispute that which is already without standing, ELSE the floodgates would be open to a tidal wave of woo. Seriously, please note, from the “Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience” proclamation:

• The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors… when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience":
• Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
• Neutral point of view as applied to science: “Wikipedia: Neutral point of view”, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

See: Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience and also Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans RobP ( talk) 21:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice copy pasta - now try to understand how this works. Arbcom has no power to rule on content. However it is entirely consistent with their view to remove crappy primary research from Gua Sha, which claimed it has beneficial effects. We are building an encyclopedia that reflects accepted knowledge on this topic. Your insertions actually gave prominence to unreliable sources claiming that Gua Sha is an effective treatment. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Copy pasta? As I said in my original revert, I saw that the criticism in the Effectivelness section was severely trimmed, as well as the lead being redone. As as I said in my edit summary, it was too many edits to figure our what to manually change, so I took the path of doing a full revert, where the individual problem parts (which actually gave prominence to unreliable sources) could then be trimmed. ("Sorry I missed all this, but most of the recent changes have removed valid criticism and otherwise harmed the integrity of this article. Impossible to individually revert bad edits, so at this point I am doing a major revert. Lets start from here if new changes need to be made.") I think we are on the same side here, but you were too quick on the revert! RobP ( talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Your intention may be good, but this is not the way to do it. Weakening sourcing requirement because they suit your "case" can only end badly. We already have decent sources per WP:MEDRS and WP:PARITY that spell out clearly that Gua Sha is nonsense, and the article is unequivocal. In my view, your surfacing of unreliable sources making claims of effectiveness actually weakened this skeptical take. You should also look at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR as you are exhibiting classic symptoms. Over-zealous "skeptical" editing that plays fast and loose with the WP:PAGs is seriously unhelpful to the Project. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The new article hydrogen water, a product apparently marketed with pseudoscience, could probably use review from someone from this WikiProject. Thank you. Peacock ( talk) 14:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

These pages need a lot of attention. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to upgrade them to "high" on the wikiproject-skepticism on my own. But they need that. In general, essential oils should also be a covered topic for us. You'd think it'd be covered by "herbalism" but I've encountered the argument that it is not under our purview DolyaIskrina ( talk) 19:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC).

I transcluded some articles discussing natural explanations for miracles to Modern criticism of the Catholic Church. There is currently a discussion of the merits of that and other efforts at Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church, if any of you are interested in evaluating them.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 03:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) ^talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Checking it out. Sounds good but I'm cautious as these things get started and then peter out. Over structured at the beginning with no real guidance or leadership after all the charts, to-do lists and logo are designed. I'm a little apprehensive that the discussion is already starting to get technical, should we include engineering, should it only be the natural sciences and on and on. Discuss it to death and it will die. Just let it happen and work on anything that is "science related" don't overthink it. GSoW will continue to focus on STEM and more. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett. —  Newslinger  talk 21:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Coast to Coast AM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's the one outlet that has arguably done the most in the past century to promulgate pseudoscience. I have added a much-needed, independently sourced Criticism section. Since creation in 2005, the article has largely been curated by fans and believers. Hence, the previous "Criticism" section contained petty squabbling between hosts about ratings, but little to zero about pseudoscience. I hope a few people will put this article on their watchlist. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we should add these under pseudo-history:

• Protocols of the Elders of Zion
• Shakespeare authorship
• Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory

They qualify for conspiracy theories and hoaxes. — Partytemple ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This page has come across my computer. What do you think? Seems like it needs some special attention. State atheism Sgerbic ( talk) 21:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I just completed a total citation cleanup on the article: verifying claims to sources should now be a simple affair. Cheers. TP  ✎  ✓ 16:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this article is a presentation 'as fact' of the atheist atrocities fallacy (aka pinning all the world's ills on 'atheism'). Article neglects to mention origin, purpose and use of the 'State atheism' concept-designation, and since next to no mainstream reliable sources use the term to describe the events the article recounts, the article seems to be mostly WP:SYNTH. Especially egregious are the 'Mexico' and 'East Germany' sections. Cheers. TP  ✎  ✓ 08:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic and Blueboar: you had previously warned ThePromenader at WP:NORN not to continue to WP:FORUMSHOP to convince people of his denial of state atheism, but a year later, his continues to post on forums like this one to gather sympathy from others [7]. Could you both address this tendentious behavior? Perhaps a topic ban on religion and atheism articles would be in order? desmay ( talk) 02:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That's (again) one hell of a misrepresentation of an episode dating from almost a year ago, and we're talking about a single, low-traffic low-importance article (so... total topic-ban?) here? But a contributor feeling 'threatened' enough by this trifling attention that they feel a 'need' to a) follow the 'threat's contributions then b) manipulatingly plead for (select) admin 'help' whereever they speak of the ('their'?) article speaks pretty well for itself. TP  ✎  ✓ 06:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think may be some fringe issues with this article. I have cross-posted to WP:FT/N to see if we can broaden consensus. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - not much has happened in that direction, but someone there seems quite intent on that article not getting any attention. TP  ✎  ✓ 14:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've touched this, and perhaps it's been long enough that an objective going-over could be timely. Cheers. TP  ✎  ✓ 10:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Up for deletion Tito Mukhopadhyay - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tito_Mukhopadhyay Sgerbic ( talk) 21:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuing with the discussion of people using Facilitated Communication - we have many Wikipedia pages that are in AfD including this one for Larry Bissonnette. Can Bissonnette's art stand alone without his words, enough that he is worthy of a Wikipedia page? Anything that is claimed he has said about his work, was not his voice but that of his facilitator. So how can we know what he feels about any of this attention. How does anyone know what his true intent is for his artwork if his artist statements are facilitated? /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Larry_Bissonnette Sgerbic ( talk) 22:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The article on Ball lightning needs a more balanced viewpoint. I started a discussion on the talk page but so far there is no reponse. PopSci ( talk) 16:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is now underway. Thanks. PopSci ( talk) 16:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t. [8] [9] [10] [11]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

hum, ...could benefit, imo, from some unbiased tlc, per WP policies and guidelines. Tks, 86.172.7.182 ( talk) 20:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've now tagged the page as {{alternative medicine sidebar|fringe}} and categorized it under [[Category:Pseudoscience]] (etc), but I'm not sure whether there are other such listings that need to be added in somehow. 86.172.7.182 ( talk) 21:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a proposal to add Natural News to the spam blacklist on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Natural News. —  Newslinger  talk 22:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Interested users may wish to join a requested move discussion at Talk:The Great Replacement that concerns this project. Thank you. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

update: there is a new move discussion regarding whether to move Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory Nblund ^talk 19:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources ( WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. —  Newslinger  talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

• Die Glocke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article had accumulated a lot of cruft from fringe authors such as Henry Stevens, Jim Marrs and Gerold Schelm. The topic is a classic WP:FRINGE theory (secret Nazi antigravity technology, occultism, flying saucers, etc.) and requires WP:FRIND independent sources in order to maintain an objective article. So I've cleaned out the fringe sourcing and expanded the WP:RS sourcing: Before. After.. Unfortunately, this article is a popular drive-by target for fantasy and fringe advocates, so I hope a few folks here will put it on their watchlist. Also, if anyone has access to CSI articles that may have been published on the topic, please let me know. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the use of Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News to describe the accuracy of claims made by proponents of climate change denial. If you are interested, please participate at WP:BLPN § Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. —  Newslinger  talk 10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There's an RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence#RfC about lede to Race and intelligence about NPOV in the first paragraph of the article. More editor input is needed. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 02:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Talk:Race and intelligence

Editors who watchlist the article Scientific racism might be interested in looking at the related article Race and intelligence, which has been an area of contentious debate and edit-warring. (It is currently locked down for 3 days.) While Scientific racism is, I think, a good example of how Wikipedia handles fringe, the article Race and intelligence has a very different tone and content, as is clear from the first paragraph of the lede. See also Race and intelligence#The Jensenism debates. I'm putting this notice on all the WikiProjects that list Scientific racism as of high importance, in the hope that more editors will participate in discussions at Talk:Race and intelligence and help make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The problems at Race and intelligence were discussed off-wiki here: [12]. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 13:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Race and intelligence

A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [13]. NightHeron ( talk) 12:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There's an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory about the fringe status of Indigenous Aryans. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at the above article that may be relevant to the subject of this project. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I re-wrote the opening sentences of the Efficacy of prayer article. The aim was to make it more direct and accessible. I don't have a strong sense of what kinds of stylistic revisions are smiled upon, so if anyone wants to check it out and give me some thumbs up or down, please do. There's more work to be done on the article if anyone else wants to jump in. BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 19:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You are invited to review this article and to join the discussion at Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks! -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 13:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added evidence-based criticism to the article about this Netflix show. I expect push-back from Goop's loyal fans. Please monitor the situation! RobP ( talk) 15:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Following up on the discussion RobP and I started on the The Goop Lab talk page, I tried another format for the criticism section. It still needs work, but Rob - and anyone else - please let me know what you think. Here's a link to the draft in my sandbox /info/en/?search=User:BillyGoatsGruff2020/sandbox . I hope I did this right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. You did a lot of work there. I will try to read it over in detail on Friday! RobP ( talk) 01:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Really excited to finally do something on Wikipedia after years of reading :-) BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Was it no good? BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk) 08:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry... I have not had time to go over it in as much detail as I want to (to check if every important citation in the original was also used in your version for one thing), but I did do a read-through of the proposed text. My feeling is that your revision cuts the show a bit too much slack by overly highlighting the infrequent positive comments in the media vs the overwhelming negative analysis. This is especially true of the long paragraph starting "Other critics concluded that science and medicine are not the correct standards..." I must admit that I may not be the best judge of this revision, as I added most all of the original material you are attempting to change... and I thought it was fine as is.  :-) I am hoping others weigh in on this issue as well. RobP ( talk) 17:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a debate in the talk section of this entry, about the cast list. I'm bringing it up here in the Skeptics WP because it concerns accessibility of information and accountability. A cast list was posted. It included everyone in the series (or it seemed to be heading toward that), and it was accurate. Then an editor deleted everyone on the list except for people with Wikipedia pages. The other editor replied "Of what value is a list of nobodys?" Regardless of that editor's personal feelings, those are the members of the cast, and it's not up to him to make up policy for Wikipedia. People do not need to have entries of their own in order to be mentioned in entries, and there are many cast lists on Wikipedia which include people who do not have Wikipedia entries. As the saying goes, Wikipedia isn't paper. I don't see any reason or rationale in the other editor's objection. And I don't see the need to make less accessible the names and job titles of the people who chose to participate in the series. The editor who objected to the cast list suggested that we let a consensus develop among editors. Two of us (other than the people who made the list) are in favor; s/he is the only one who objects. RobP and anyone else here, perhaps you would weigh in? /info/en/?search=Talk:The_Goop_Lab#Cast_List BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk) 07:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Saw that. RobP ( talk) 00:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Ufo, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 01:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I came across this bio article and thought it just isn't close to being a worthy WP subject. I have put it up for deletion. Please comment here if interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen T. Chang. RobP ( talk) 02:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I've voted. Amazing that these pages exist. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I just submitted this page for deletion - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Athena_Starwoman Sgerbic ( talk) 16:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

This article on the war-time German theory that the moon, earth and galaxy are all made of ice has been a disaster, and tagged as a disaster, for over a decade. I would appreciate help sourcing it, removing the worst bits and adding the necessary bits. Much thanks. 86.106.90.99 ( talk) 04:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 04:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thought I'd heard it all. See Street light interference phenomenon. What's the criterion for adding something to Category:Pseudoscience? Or, if they're not claiming a scientific basis, FRINGE? Mathglot ( talk) 01:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The article itself reports that some believers claim street light interference phenomenon is caused by psychokinesis. Psychokinesis is a pseudoscience according to WP:RS, so Category:Pseudoscience is appropriate. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not the only street light conspiracy theory. Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist) promotes a theory that the new generation of computer-contolled LED street lights are part of a distributed "Kill Grid". At various times he has claimed that the control systems are directed energy weapons, and that the unfiltered LED lighting has the potential to cause injury including blindness and death. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 09:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors may wish to help with this work in progress. Shemirani appears to be an up and coming conspiracy theory promoter, best known for her anti-vaccine views and promotion of conspiracy theories linking 5G with COVID-19. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 09:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This is regarding the discussion here and the post here. Essentially, it's not a content dispute, but rather a dispute over the relevance of the opinions of the hypnotist mentioned in the last paragraph (Alex Tsander) and the reliability of the sources provided. I reverted the edits of the other editor after they deleted the last paragraph because I feel this is an opportunity to clean-up this part of the article rather than to remove it altogether. As an editor, my inclination is towards WP:PRESERVING something that has been in an article as-is for a number of years and fixing it if needed, rather than deleting it entirely without much discussion. I feel that what is being said in the paragraph is still relevant, and that better sources can be found that say essentially the same thing. Also, while there is some discussion on Talk:Stage hypnosis that the article may be skewed towards skepticism, I feel deleting this content altogether will skew things in the other direction. Not being anything close to an expert on hypnosis or the skepticism of it, I don't feel I'm the best person to find better sources and rewrite this paragraph. I thought some editors that are a part of this WikiProject might be able to weigh-in, even if it's just to say that I'm wrong and that this part of the article is not worth salvaging. Bmf 051 ( talk) 14:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The section I have been blocked from deleting contains only the materials supposedly sourced to Alex Tsander, so I'm unsure of what can be preserved here, if we get rid of a self-published, non notable author's opinions (which can't be verified). It should also be noted that someone has inserted Tsander into multiple sections of the article, not just the section linked here - a huge amount of material relative to the size of the page, and certainly relative to his notability. Kreskin, referenced in the linked section, is a more relevant and noteworthy source for skeptics, and the paragraph on Kreskin already summarises the skeptical position. 87.228.210.13 ( talk) 12:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear: no one is "blocking" you from anything. There is no deadline. If something has existed in an article for several years, there is no harm in taking the time to consider if it can be fixed before removing it. Saying I'm trying to "block" is to say that I'm resisting changing the current version no matter what. I've made it abundantly clear that I only oppose changing it without discussion. If no one has objected to the content's removal, or has proposed how to improve the section, then I have no problem with the content being removed. At this point (almost 3 days after posting this), I'm satisfied that there isn't a consensus towards keeping it or trying to fix it. Bmf 051 ( talk) 22:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Orgone § RfC about in/excluding sources on pseudoscience I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please help by joining the discussion at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje. -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 16:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku ( talk) 05:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pastoral care § Definition says: " Spirituality in the context of pastoral care refers to the human spirit, and is genetic, measurable and heritable", and cites as a source the book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes. I am no expert on pastoral care, so I can't be bothered to spend time editing the content of this article, but since God gene is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, I thought I would mention this here in case any project member is interested in considering whether Pastoral care § Definition, and the quoted sentence in particular, could be improved. Biogeographist ( talk) 13:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Russian Academy of Natural Sciences#Dispute over legitimacy. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Nostradamus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Recently(re) created, may need attention. Possibly ( talk) 23:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The article José Silva (parapsychologist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article with a slanted POV that has clearly not shown signs of improvement in years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I am notifying this since this falls under this WikiProject. Thank you. Dege31 ( talk) 23:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Dege31

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of McGill University's Office for Science and Society in the context of an article about JP Sears. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § JP Sears. —  Newslinger  talk 08:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The article The Dybbuk box has been proposed for deletion. If you are interested in lending an opinion, please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dybbuk box.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp2006 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You might want to look at the article Psi wheel and add it to the project. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Circle of Reason (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Within the scope of this project I think, although unfortunately promotional and subject to COI editing. — Paleo Neonate – 06:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Rational Skepticism articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray ( talk) 05:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to go there. It was closed as a WP:SNOW keep. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I am posting this here to make members of this group aware of a situation, and get involved if they decide it is worthy.

Years ago I reconstructed the page that is now titled Havana Syndrome. One of the things I did was add skeptical analysis of the predominant POV of the media and US gov't: that US citizens were under attack (first in Cuba, then in China, and now even in the US) by unspecified high-tech weaponry. Mass psychogenic illness experts, OTOH, looked at the data and all concluded the evidence points to nothing real whatsoever.

Over time the mainstream POV has been strengthened in the article, and the skeptical POC diminished, by editors who feel skeptics should have nothing to say on topics beyond Bigfoot and UFOs. (One actually said that on Talk.) One editor insists that Science-Based Medicine is not a WP:RS (despite it being specifically listed as such by WP) and removed valid criticism published there. (I just reinstated this item.)

Recently, I also noticed that all mention of skeptical analysis had been totally deleted from the lead. I just added something back, but it may be deleted again as the majority of editors active on this page seem to be of the mindset that the skeptical POV on this subject is Fringe and needs to be suppressed. RobP ( talk) 02:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The skeptical POV summary has been deleted from the lead, saying the theory that the attacks are psychogenic is just “guesswork” - and published in blogs. (Meaning Science-based medicine and Skeptical Inquirer.) Thoughts? Asking for input on an acceptable entry in the lead on the article's talk page here. RobP ( talk) 23:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a new article on Henry Gobus which I think might warrant attention from the skeptical community, starting with its lede that says he is "... the only person who besides Charles Darwin has provided a complete and extensive process of evolution through his book...". The body of the article is largely taken up with blow-by-blow descriptions of disputes he had with subject experts. I can't see any evidence that his theory has undergone peer review, and there is a notable lack of references to any reliable sources. -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This has since been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Gobus.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 23:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

How sad - he has such a nice photo and we share the same birthday. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those "how is there not a Wikipedia article on this already???" topics for me, because over the last few years as I've perused conspiracy-related content on social media, I very commonly see believers urge each other "go read up on The Finders." So in the past when I heard about it I just did some cursory googling, it seemed to be a Satanic Panic incident in the 1980s that didn't amount to too much, but the fact that people are still talking about it 30+ years later, and that it's been covered in a few RS's, lead me to conclude there should be a Wikipedia article on the topic.

Long story short, in 1987 two guys got arrested in Florida with six scruffy kids in their van, got accused of child abuse, turned out they were part of some weird absurdist commune, issue got resolved with no criminal charges, but some concerned citizen somehow got Congress and the DOJ involved, word got out that somehow the CIA had commented on the issue to DC Police, and so for decades now a portion of people are convinced these folks were a child-abusing cult protected by the government

In any case, I think it's a topic of relevance to anyone interested in Pizzagate and related issues, as part of the longer backstory, so I invite your participation to improve the brief article I've begun. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There is info on the Thomas John Flanagan (TJ) page about a 2021 Spirit communication event for children which encountered harsh criticism once it was announced -- as being harmful to children. TJ did not cancel but went ahead, charging $400 for each of 8 children. The event was infiltrated by skeptics as reported on here. (Two of the kids were 'undercover agents', and were not discovered by TJ.) Do we think it's a good idea to add this info to that section, and maybe the lead? Or is the existing material sufficient? RobP ( talk) 05:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Panspermia#Case_studies says -

On May 11, 2001, two researchers from the University of Naples found viable extraterrestrial bacteria inside a meteorite. Geologist Bruno D'Argenio and molecular biologist Giuseppe Geraci found the bacteria wedged inside the crystal structure of minerals, but were resurrected when a sample of the rock was placed in a culture medium.[137][138][139]

If we really had unequivocal evidence of extraterrestrial life, that would be the greatest news story of all time.

This claim (and possibly other statements in Panspermia) could use some skeptical attention.

Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8693:453D:A8A9:DE64:AD09 ( talk) 15:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Using just the present sources, I added a bit of reception information to contextualize this claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The following page has been nominated for deletion (again).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (2nd nomination)-- Akrasia25 ( talk) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm puzzled: why is this not listed under "Artlicles for deletion" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts? I was under the impression that list was automated, based on pages that are tagged as being part of the WikiProject. But perhaps I am wrong (again).-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 23:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It might take time for the relevant bots to do their thing. Like with RfCs. But anyway it's been closed as speedy keep.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 23:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Climate change denial be moved to a different name. Please join the discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#Requested move 8 July 2021. Thank you. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This Wikiproject may be interested in the noticeboard discussion about the statement "Neither qi nor meridians exist." in the Shiatsu article: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Do_qi_nor_meridians_exist?. MarshallKe ( talk) 00:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Requested move 1 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 05:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Anti-vaccination activists who died of COVID-19 has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- ke4roh ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

For your own enlightenment and perhaps reflection: a critical essay by Brian Martin that directly references this WikiProject, and some of the topics under its purview. Martin, Brian (12 April 2021). "Policing orthodoxy on Wikipedia: Skeptics in action?". Journal of Science Communication. 20 (02): A09. doi: 10.22323/2.20020209.{{ cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link) Abstract: Wikipedia has been accused of being biased against challengers to scientific orthodoxy due to efforts by editors having affinities with the Skeptics movement. Examination of Wikipedia, including entries on fluoridation, the origin of AIDS and vaccination, reveals several characteristics typical of a Skeptics sensibility, including the definition of scepticism, lists of deviant ideas, derogatory labelling of heterodox viewpoints, and categories established without reference to reliable sources. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Major Arcana#Requested move 20 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 01:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone,
A recent deletion discussion on English Wikipedia has set an important precedent about the criteria that maps need to comply to in order to be used on English Wikipedia, and in which cases they may be removed from English Wikipedia per WP:OR, WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTH. I've written a new essay, c:Commons:Evidence-based mapping, to help users to make accurate maps on Commons that will be acceptable for usage on (English) Wikipedia, to deal with existing inaccurate and unsourced maps on Commons, and to improve cooperation between users. I think some of you may be interested in reading this, because currently anyone can make a map based on no reliable sources whatsoever (and it cannot be easily deleted on Commons, unless it's an obvious hoax), and then used on any language version of Wikipedia, where they can easily mislead readers. Obviously we don't want maps without evidence to be misleading readers. If any of you think the essay can be improved further – especially where it pertains to the rules about reliable sources on English Wikipedia – feel free to make suggestions or corrections on the text here or its talk page. I hope this essay can be really helpful, and if many people agree, perhaps it can eventually be elevated to a guideline. Happy to receive your feedback! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You rock Nederlandse! Sgerbic ( talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. See discussion here.

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Thanks.—  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 23:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

Requesting you to visit Draft:Irrational beliefs and Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies and help expand the same if the topics interest you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 06:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. In your project, Sean M. Carroll is rated C-class but the article has been expended vastly in the last 6 months. What about re-evaluating its class? -- 81.213.215.83 ( talk) 20:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of absence needs work, esp. Proving a negative. I flagged the section, including adding CNs, and added it to this project. I also made a section on its Talk to discuss this. I found it because I got into an argument on Zoom about proving a negative (re god) due to absence of evidence - and the person points me at this WP article as proof you CAN prove such a negative... (So if you cannot prove god doesn't exist, he does). RobP ( talk) 01:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I have this arguments, they are just a giant circle. How bad is the article Evidence of absence, can we just say that there is no evidence that the page is bad so therefore the page must be in good shape? Sgerbic ( talk) 06:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That person is just mistaken in their interpretation of the article. See also Russell's Teapot and Hitchens's Razor. Another editor once disingenuously made the argument that because of a lack of evidence, we can state in Wikivoice that supernatural things "do not exist". This is also a mistaken interpretation of these concepts, as both positive claims and negative claims are both claims, and as such, both require evidence to be logical. MarshallKe ( talk) 12:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Logic fail there, but anyway Wikipedia follows sources and if they say things don't exist (like qi), Wikipedia neutrally follows. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to bring back the qi discussion because everyone talked until blue in the face. We didn't agree on what the sources said, and we didn't agree on which of us is failing at logic, and the consensus was to change your "does not exist" text to something less bad. MarshallKe ( talk) 13:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the point was we did agree (that "neither qi nor meridians exist as observable phenomena"), and I made a nice improvement to the text accordingly. Things (like The Death Star) can "exist" as fiction. So for qi. Consensus is a great force. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Come off your high horse, Alex. You lost that discussion and the only reason the wording didn't go further against your favor is because you won through sheer frustration of everyone involved. MarshallKe ( talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Danth's Law strikes again. If in doubt, return to WP:FT/N for a reality check, although personally I wouldn't recommend it when the consensus text is good. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WINNING. We're all in this together. There does not need to be winners and losers. jps ( talk) 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Postmodernism, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

I have opened an RfC on the Havana Syndrome talk page. Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 4#RfC: Is "Science Vs" a Reliable Source and does it support the addition of my proposed text? DolyaIskrina ( talk) 03:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An article related to this project, Michael Shermer, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Shermer. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok Skeptical folks... as years pass and and no indisputable evidence is uncovered proving the Havana Syndrome is the result of proposed but undiscovered sci-fi weapons, the likelihood that it is all due to mass psychogenic illness, the hypothesis put forward by the expert Robert Bartholomew, seems to be growing. YET, the Wikipedia page IMHO does not reflect this. And editors have kept this hypothesis totally out of the lead. What are we to do? RobP ( talk) 01:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In connection with this, the topic is being discussed on Administrators noticeboard! RobP ( talk) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And now it has sparked discussions in several other locations, including: here, and here. RobP ( talk) 06:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories seem to be hot now, so it's nice to see a show that treats them with the "respect" they deserve. I'm talking about the new Netflix animated series: Inside Job. It pokes fun at every fringe claim and conspiracy theory out there. This review takes a unique look at the show from a skeptical movement perspective. If anyone thinks it makes sense to add it to the Reception section, have at it. RobP ( talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Discussion ongoing...
Talk:Somatic experiencing § Proposed merge: Peter A. Levine → Somatic experiencing –– Formal ^talk 04:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability#RfC:_Adding_a_challenging,_counterintuitive_but_instructive_and_well_sourced_example_in_the_lead. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 18:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American political conspiracy theories#Requested move 19 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 14:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alchemical literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 20:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion that may interest members of this project is occurring at Talk:The Bell Curve § Merger proposal. –– FormalDude ^talk 10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 23:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A repeatedly disruptive editor has what seem to me to be off-base ideas regarding what belongs in a WP article and what does not. And also what articles should be deleted. They keep targeting articles pertaining to skeptics for some reason, attempting (failed) deletions (see Taner Edis section above) as well as attempting making questionable cuts. The latest scuffle is on the Sharon A. Hill page. If interested, take a look at the edit history and Talk to see what this is about. Am I wrong? Rp2006 ( talk) 22:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course not! - Roxy the dog. wooF 22:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no prior knowledge nor opinion of Sharon Hill, but in my view the article currently reads like a showcase written by devoted fans, boosted by copious use of primary/affiliated sources to present Hill's POV nearly exclusively (although it was previously much more unbalanced). The section "Study of paranormal investigative groups" is largely based on a presentation Hill gave. While self-published sources can be used with caution and within reason, both WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF discourage basing large portions on them. There are some valid issues raised on the Talk page. This article is representative (though by no means the most egregious example) of an issue affecting many biographies of notable modern-day skeptics (e.g. Kylie Sturgess, Michael Shermer ( BLP/N) and Steven Novella), and is in marked contrast to the treatment of subjects often on the receiving end of skepticism: would the community be so keen to compile podcast appearances, articles, and lectures by alternative medicine promoters or COVID-19 conspiracy theorists and structure the article around them, replete with lengthy quotes by the subject? This WikiProject could benefit from some honest self-reflection among its regulars, recognizing the potential for blind spots, bubbles, and biases, and reining in the impulse to show the world how cool their favorite skeptic or podcast is. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is a discussion worth having. It's a fine line sometimes what is considered too much or too little for content. I try to err on the side of adding more, then it can be cut down. And you are absolutely incorrect "in marked contrast to the treatment of subjects often on the receiving end of skepticism". One editors "fluff" is another editor's "interesting bit", once notably has been proven, then I see no reason to add a bit more "color" to an article. We want the reader to be engaged and read the page from top to bottom, it's a skill to make the page flow in this way. What I do not agree with is an editor chopping at the page with an axe, it's insulting, dismissive and patronizing. Treat other editors as you want to be treated, with discussion and a scalpel. Animalparty I know you would never do anything of the sort, we often edit together and I've not seen you act this way. I think a good measure is to think of BLP pages as not on one side or another, but as BLPs. If you (or any editor) feels that a page has too lengthy of quotes, or seems to be trying to make the person more "cool" then discuss and make good faith edits to the page. And this should be done on case-by-case, not sweeping generalizations. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

With regards to content removal, I agree it's often better to be a wrench than an axe when problems arise, but sometimes an editorial axe (or scythe) is needed to trim the overgrowth and restore a NPOV to overly detailed articles that implicitly take the side of the subject by over-presenting their own point of view. And while every article is different, and exceptions to generalities exist, I would imagine that if Robert W. Malone's article was structured like Kylie Sturgess', or Mankind Quarterly structured like Skeptic (U.S. magazine), the axes of WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. would fall swiftly. --Animalparty! ( talk) 18:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I find that it is probably not a good practice to compare one page to another. Each is unique and should be dealt with case by case. If you and I started bringing up pages "what about this one ... " we would be at it for days on end and continue into the new year. And the real work here on Wikipedia would never get done. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, comparisons aside, I maintain that the individual articles Sharon A. Hill, Kylie Sturgess, Steven Novella, Chris French, Ben Goldacre, Skeptic (U.S. magazine), and others draw too much from affiliated/primary sources and, inadvertently or otherwise, appear structured to showcase rather than summarize the subject, reasonably rising concerns of WP:NPOV violations. If someone wanted to do real work they could start with these. I'm not going to make a detailed list here, but a general call to arms could stave off future problems. I'm certainly not saying that all skeptic-related articles are bad or biased, nor implying COI editing or individual malfeasance, but imploring WP Skepticism members to more actively and impartially scrutinize articles under the project's purview, and strive to enforce policies and guidelines equally regardless of the subject's reputation. WP:PROMOTION is prohibited regardless of the fame or infamy of the subject, and an article that resembles a fan piece or official biography does its subject a disservice. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I have no interest in revisiting those pages, I have a much longer list of things to do, but if I see someone wandering around looking for something to do I'll see if I can send them that way. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The article National Council Against Health Fraud reads almost completely like a de facto official website, showcasing what the organization has done or written, and hardly featuring anything that reliable secondary sources have written about the group. I think it could use a large amount of paring back to be less promotional, and while I haven't yet done a deep dive, the question of notability is undemonstrated. It appeared as a list entry on several directories of websites: that alone is not significant coverage. What do other people think? --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've heard of this organization before. I see it is tied to Quackwatch somehow - Stephen Barrett's group. These organizations can be pretty tricky as they often morph and change names over time. And it seems to be a "was" organization so nothing new will be found. Formed in 1983, before the Internet, so that will make finding sources even harder. I see that the name changed in 1998 to 2000 which makes it even more complicated. There might be better or more sourcing out there but it will probably be a battle to find it. Possibly the page could use some trimming but as it is defunked it seems like a lot of work to deal with when it's receiving 5 views a day (last 90 days according to pageviews analysis). There is some criticism on the page from the chiropractors so it isn't completely promotional (I suppose you could argue that that would be an endorsement) I'm not feeling very strongly either way, I guess at the moment I would lean to trim and then leave it alone. I'll wait to see what others think. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

A merge proposal is in the process of being drafted that may interest watchers of this talk page. For details please see Draft talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § About this article –– FormalDude ^talk 08:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sharon A. Hill has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Sharon A. Hill regarding possible removal of content. The thread is Discussion_on_her_opinion_piece_on_Paranormal_State. Thank you. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No notification here about this? See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006 and something at RSN about Skeptical Inquirer. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to RSN regarding Skeptical Inquirer. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Now an ArbCom case. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This project may be interested in Ceremonial stone landscape, a controversial concept in Native American archeology. Thriley ( talk) 04:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure it needs work, but how controversial is it? And I've suggested the creation of a new article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Shouldn't there be an article for the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)?. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The work of Timothy Ives states that claiming these as indigenous religious or cultural structures is a form of Pseudoarchaeology. It is worth looking at the ceremonial stone landscape editing history. There appears to be an unsourced rebuttal that was removed years ago. I am deeply interested in Native American history and am troubled about what I have read about the discovery and promotion of these structures. I’m not sure if there is a member of this project that covers this kind of thing, but it could make for an interesting article. Thriley ( talk) 09:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd no idea. The concept of religious landscapes itself is I think uncontroversial. It's unfortunate we don't have an article on it. The area around Stonehenge is an example. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting you say that. It looks like the article at one point covered religious landscapes globally. Maybe this article should shift back to that? I do think these North American structures deserve a mention somewhere with some detail on their interpretive history and the differing opinions about them. Thriley ( talk) 09:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've posted to Wikiproject archaeology about this article and the need for a religious landscape article. Oh how I wish I had the time, it would be fun. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Even a little time on Wikipedia moves mountains. Thanks for your assistance! Thriley ( talk) 10:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't have time to write such an article and so far the only response has been to suggest I do. But hopefully someone will. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would love to see this completed, the photos would be so interesting I bet. We all have to find projects that we feel a passion for, I've picked up two in the last couple weeks, spent hours and found nothing to add so I went back to my garden. Agree with Thirley - fussing away in bits is a help. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Should be of interest. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh it is a joy! ;-) Sgerbic ( talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Fallacy_articles that may interest members of this WikiProject. RapturousRatling ( talk) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Green children of Woolpit for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 22:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:FTN#Eyes needed on some pseuodhistorian articles. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion over whether whether Wikipedia should describe psychics or mediums as "claimed", "self-purported", etc. Obviously, I do not think Wikipedia should be promoting fringe claims of individuals, but I am concerned that (a) the policy is being applied inconsistently here, and (b) co-ordinated editing, as related to the ongoing arb case regarding certain members of this WikiProject, may be influencing decisions here. However, I would greatly appreciate any other takes on the situation. Thank you. — AFreshStart ( talk) 14:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Of possible interest to members of this project; see this story in today's Guardian. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Psychic Mafia is a powerful book and a must-read for anyone interested in the topic of psychic mediums. also Flim-Flam! Sgerbic ( talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

In the recent ArbCom discussions it was made clear by several committee members that pseudoarcheology is covered by the fringe and pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sharon A. Hill has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The article Protoscience has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is just a wordy dictionary definition, it contains no significant encyclopedic material. It has been this way for at least sixteen years, see the talk page discussion on Delete the article. Per our policy on WP:NOTADICTIONARY, it has no business here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I recently created a draft for anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss. There is currently controversy regarding her views about the return of Native American remains and the way her own institution treated her. I would appreciate some help from this project as it is a sensitive subject. Thriley ( talk) 00:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This article about the situation was published in Inside Higher Ed a few days ago: [14] Thriley ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 08:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There is an editorial disagreement on the dowsing pseudoscience article over whether fake bomb detectors are relevant. Some more eyes/views at Talk:Dowsing#Explosive Detectors would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

So this is it - I see we have a bunch of new people who have joined and expect more. I posted a couple days ago that I thought a themed subproject might be the way to get people checking in here often, and get us to know each other better and each other's talents. I tried and tried to find a group of pages that were skepticism related that needed work, but all I could find was science related pages. I want something we can dig our teeth into and spend a few months just digging into. I don't want to create a to-do list for someone else - that wouldn't motivate me. On Afrikaans Wikipedia every year they run an event to rewrite stubs, anything I think on any topic that was labeled a stub (they call them seeds which I think is a much better name because we want them to grow) so that's what I'm proposing a party to grow seeds (okay I'm not great with the naming stuff) Let me see if I can figure out how to make a subproject. No rules, but I propose we should shoot for June 1st, 2022. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here you go Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP) Until June 1st, 2022. Sgerbic ( talk) 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Blood stasis stub (BS) with the aim of re-writing it. I first cleaned up the dirty little stub and went to the chinese-language obituary and (Google) translated it to confirm its veracity. (It makes for interesting reading). I've found several journal articles written in support of BS, some of which I am planning to include. These were all written by scientists or clinicians involved with TCM and / or TCM institutions. I've also found some good counter-arguments at Science-Based Medicine with links to PubMed articles. Does anybody have any other ideas? Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Cleaned up the Dirty little stub" LOL - Where's the photos Wyatt? Sgerbic ( talk) 17:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Careful Wyatt you know that this will just lead to you writing the page for qi stagnation and heart qi. If so I defiantly want to see some photos, or drawings or something. I'm glad the word "important" has been removed, those peacock words do sneak in, and they need to be washed out. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Um... I did not remove it, only move it into a POV attribution: TCM practicioners believe it is an important underlying pathology -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Much better Hob. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Jimminy crickets Wyatt! You have just finished this rewrite and I'm still fussing on my first one. Go ahead and make me look bad already. Actually go ahead and make me look bad. I have a busy day today and don't think I'll finish Fred, I'm at the point where I have a lot of reading to do. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wyatt is your next rewrite going to start with a C? Sgerbic ( talk) 22:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard of this man before - but it's mine. He married the daughter of a wealthy rancher in Salinas. That's my town! I'll try my hand at this radionic guy Fred J. Hart (businessman). I guess I'll be learning all about radionics and Albert Abrams. If anyone have comments to add, please comment here - will get full use of my Newspapers.com subscription (BTW Wikimedia library offers it free). Sgerbic ( talk) 22:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding my sandbox (please don't edit without asking - but you are welcome to view) User:Sgerbic/sandbox Sgerbic ( talk) 23:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't stand dealing with WMC - so hoping someone will have an answer for me about this. Working on this page I discovered that Hart ran for congress in 1944. This advertisement appeared and I would like to have it uploaded to WMC for use on his Wikipedia page. It's over 75 years old and is low rez. What are the rules for this, and if I can do it, how do I do it? [15] Sgerbic ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

So finding out a lot using Newspapers.com - just trying to put it all in order. I'm currently wondering about how to use (or should I use) a description of him. I've come across a few that were written by reporters that wrote about him, one is on a book that quotes the reporter. They talk about his energy and size like "smart, peppy and gregarious go-getter" another says "a very large, strong, impressive-looking man" and another "impression of being an English prizefighter with lots of energy and reserve force" and so on. All these descriptions of Hart can be attributed, and I think that it helps the reader picture the man and understand why he seemed to be involved in so much and seemed to always be in charge. And because I don't have a photo, and am unlikely to find one, having this on the Wikipedia page would be helpful. But I'm not sure where to add it? It wouldn't be under career or early history (which I can't seem to find) maybe under personal life? Thoughts on this would be appreciated. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That ad might be public domain due to the absence of copyright notice specific to the ad. Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice advertisement might be most appropriate. (Any content you can find that was first published prior to 1927 in the US is public domain by default). Other images of Hart include here and one from 1925 (although there needs to be credible evidence of publishing, not just creation, to use common PD rationale). Other outlines of his life and family can be found here and here (the former published by the National Health Federation), that can aid in seeking reliable sources and due weight. There seem to be a lot of mentions in the California Digital Newspaper Collection, which might supplement sources not covered by Newspaper.com. Lastly, Find a Grave and Ancestry.com are generally unreliable sources, or primary sources at best. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't stand dealing with WMC I'd like to avoid it too now but cannot tell which WMC this is about. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's just too complicated - Weapons of Mass Confusion seems a better name - I would rather have a root canal than deal with the licensing issues with WikiMedia Commons. I'm not kidding - I feel faint just thinking about it. And I've uploaded hundreds of photos and videos, but they were all from my camera. Sigh. Thank you Animalparty! I was reading the first one from the NHF probably at the same time you were writing this post. The others are all new to me. I have my sandbox above for anyone to see me work. I hadn't heard of the California Digital Newspaper Collection before, that is really cool, maybe they will have the San Jose archives that are missing from Newspapers.com? I also have a subscription to Archive.com. And I have found a lot of clippings, I tend to fall into rabbit holes and am making sure I have something to support all the basic claims. I am using FindAGrave to support him being born in Tacoma and his middle name is James. I eventually found the Tacoma reference but it is on the NHF site. I also have an Ancestry link to show the date of his second marriage to Dorothy. So they are used, but it's not such a big deal what they are supporting.

I am at the part where I need to start on his joining the Abrams world of radionics. I've not heard of this before so it's going to really slow me down. What perplexed me was that he got involved in it because his wife had breast cancer. So then I thought when was this, and did she survive? Then I realized she died in 1962, and then another wife appeared in 1963, so which wife was it? Finally I read about him getting involved in Abrams work in the 1950s when his wife got cancer. And Hart created the foundation in 1955. NHF writes that his wife died because he could not get Abrams treatment, but the timing of that does not make sense as she was alive about 10 years after her diagnosis of cancer, and that is a good long time for someone in the 1950s, she had had surgery but I don't think anything else. It's going to take me longer than I thought to sort it out. So if anyone ... hint hint hint wanted to upload some images for me to WikiMediaCommons, I would be most grateful (and I'll report for a root canal).

BTW what are your thoughts on weaving in some kind of physical description as I mentioned above? Sgerbic ( talk) 08:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

OMG I just thought to look on WMC and see if there was anything, and there is! It's not as cool as the ones that AnimalParty! found, but at least there is something. [16] and one of Herrold - I'll put it in until I can get one of Hart. Sgerbic ( talk) 09:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I sure wish that this content was available for use on WikiMedia Commons. A lot of good it's doing stuck in a carton that you have to go and look at in person and can't photograph. The papers on the reserach they were doing with low level radio frequency energy to cancerous mice and measured the size of the mice tumors is also included here. It says the information is restricted till 2019. I think I have read about this. [17] Sure wish the photos were uploaded at least. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I should be done by now but it is so confusing. The years are all over the place. From what I can gather, Hart's wife Eva got breast cancer and had surgery and then was dying of it and Hart wanted to treat his wife with some medical device and the AMA shut him down. After Eva's death he opened up the National Health Foundation. This is all from the NHF website. But then it also says that Fred got interested in Abrams work in 1916 to cure her cancer. They only married in 1914 and had a daughter then. But she for sure didn't die till 1962 (I have her obit) so ???? I just emailed the NHF and asked them if the years on their website were correct. I'm hoping they will correct the website and not just email me back. I didn't tell them why I wanted to know, just that the way they worded the website it appears that everything even Eva's death happened in 1955. He was ordered by the AMA to stop treating Eva and others in 1955 (according to the NHF website) but according to his daughter's "papers", the daughter learned to use the machines and inherited the machines from her dad. So if Fred was shut down by the AMA in 1955, and still had the machines, and even his daughter knew how to use the machines, then why did he stop treating Eva privately at home? If he did and she lived till 1962 but was marked as "dying" in 1955, then that seems like something the foundation would be bragging about. At least now in 2022 they would mention this as everyone is now dead who could be in trouble. The website does say that he was busted in 1962 for using the machines. (I'll copy this over to the Hart talk page - but wanted to get your thoughts on this) Like what do I do if they email me the correct information but their website stays at 1916? Should I just only mention that on the talk page and leave the years out of it? But without the years it is even more confusing and does not fully tell the story of Fred Hart. I mean he was a successful businessman in real estate and was great with radio stations, why devote his life to radionics? Sgerbic ( talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting a lot closer to finishing this now - anyone want to pretty please upload those images to WMC that were linked above by AnimalParty? I would but I'm scared to. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Well the story gets more confusing - because apparently according to the EMF website the wife Eva found out she had a cancerous tumor and no mention of it being removed, but maybe it was. She persisted with "symptoms" and then went to the Abrams clinic. She had a test done with one of their machines (a test that the FDA later said was worthless) and she was treated with the Oscillociast and "spinal adjustments and diet" and recovered. This would have been in the late 1930s. So two different stories I guess. I assume that she got cancer again in the 1960's and they wanted to treat her with this radionics instead of regular medical practices from that era, it was refused (but he still had the machines at hand) and the FDA made him stop using them in 1962 the same year Eva died. Hopefully this will all straighten out with new information I will find. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

All done! Put a fork in it and left my thoughts on the talk page. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Skeptics: The article Frank Scully as currently written looks like a textbook example of how skeptics (or anybody) should NOT make a Wikipedia article. It devotes virtually the entire article to describing and "debunking" an aspect that was mentioned in a few columns and a book by someone most known for humor writing and screenplays. It appears that almost no effort has ever been made to examine the totality of sources and appropriate weight to grant any aspect, rather the lamentable trend of hyper focusing on the salacious and easily debunkable has been followed. Scully's relatively lengthy New York Times obituary gives all of three sentences to his (poorly received) writing on flying saucers. His brief obituary in Time magazine describes him as "Frank Scully, 72, author and columnist, who lost a leg to osteomyelitis and a lung to tuberculosis but made the most of his 30 years in and out of hospitals by writing Fun in Bed, Bedside Manna and Just What the Doctor Ordered, three bestsellers of the '30s that combined puzzles, good-humored jokes and vignettes for bedsore patients." No UFO mumbo jumbo. There are no BLP issues since the subject has been dead since the 60s, but keep this in mind when experiencing the urge to debunk a UFO proponent: the content found in skeptical/UFO-related literature may be a small, myopic fraction of the coverage in reliable sources. --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The history of the article shows a number of editors contributing. What evidence do you have that they are skeptics? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What a sad page. Since 2013 no one has taken the time to fix this? I just removed the empty area. Someone should do a rewrite of this sorry page. I'm working on Fred J. Hart at the moment. Sgerbic ( talk) 04:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record - Never heard of this guy before, but what a cool name. He sounds like someone who should have a TV Cop show! Sgerbic ( talk) 04:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I understand, reading this again - I thought that --Animalparty! was calling dibs on this rewrite, now that I read it again, I'm not sure that is true? Sgerbic ( talk) 00:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, they were saying this article is an example of undue weight added by “skeptics” and warning against urges to “debunk”. However, here’s the original stub: [18], and here’s the first expansion of the flying saucer content by Dr Fil: [19], who it seems is definitely not a “skeptic”: [20]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I read Someone should do a rewrite? Well, I'm about to condense the article a bit, with some sourced boilerplate info added (not much is available, unfortunately) but retaining some of the flying saucer material. I will also remove the FBI memo stuff, as it might be of interest/relevance to some other pages but in this article seems a bridge too far. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Look forward to what you do with it JoJo - thank you for taking this on. Sgerbic ( talk) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand - why would AnimalParty! warn us? The page was created in 2006 way before I started editing. I don't "debunk" here on Wikipedia, I only use the sources available to write the page as it leads to being written. Once the changes are made, then it is open for change and/or discussion. I expect that is how all participants in this project would do so also. I don't look for weight, it exists or it does not. Just don't understand why an editor would feel the need to bring a badly written page to our attention if they weren't going to get started on it? Sgerbic ( talk) 18:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think LuckyLouie provided an explanation above, and I further suggest that we (insert Elsa here) let it go. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks JoJo now I have that song stuck in my head. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This thread was not directed at any one person but to the whole community as a reminder; and whether the article was made by UFO fans or foes, it exhibited the danger of myopic focus on a relatively small aspect of a biography. Over-reliance on books about UFOs (whether skeptical or credulous) can skew the emphasis. The article is better now, thanks. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

While finishing up the Fred Hart page I stumbled on the Ruth Drown Wikipedia page. It's also someone found guilty of using one of these radio devices, except this one had even less moving parts, two wires, one went to the human. I like working on American's because I like to use Newspapers.com to find citations. I think this will be a lot quicker than Fred was, probably not as quick as Wyatt, but I'll give it a go. No photos could be found on WMC. So probably none. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am DONE with Ruth - super interesting - would love to find the court transcripts to read. I'm going to be away from my desktop for a bunch of days doing a good deed for my sister so I will not be rewriting another page for a bit. But I'll start thinking about it. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Caution: I was feeling frustrated when I wrote this so it might not be phrased as sweetly as I might normally. But I think the points are valid, so I left it as is. No offence intended.

I joined this WikiProject some time ago, but I still don't really understand how it is supposed to work. Who creates the list to do, for instance? Or does every member just add to it whatever they personally think is important? Or what is the purpose of the big list of articles on the main page - is that intended to be an exhaustive list of everything in scope of the WikiProject, and what are we supposed to do with those articles? The page of Resources is just as opaque - what does something like "Tagged articles changes database report" mean and what am I supposed to do with it, for example?

Frankly, some of these things look like an individual developed something for their own use, and just parked it here so they don't lose it. If they are meant for general use, then how can we find out what they are, when to use them, and what to do with them?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 07:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but the fact is that very few wikiprojects function as might be hoped. There are at least three kinds: (1) Moribund, where effectively nothing happens and requests for assistance are not answered. (2) Monitoring, where at least some requests will attract attention. Participants won't necessarily reply on the project talk page to a request, but they might look at a reported issue and take whatever action they can. (3) Team effort, where almost every request gets a response, and where a to-do list is actively pursued. The third kind is very rare. For something like skepticism, participants generally find enough to do by simply following their watchlists and noticeboards. Nothing is exhaustive at Wikipedia and the list has just been updated by people who feel motivated to do it. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. As a member of several WikiProjects (though not this one), I have not found this one particularly unusual; as explained above, they vary widely. Any editor can join any WikiProject and support it as they see fit. There is never anybody "in charge", though there are often several long-term members who all think much alike and thus form a core consensus. Usually, as here, the best place to find answers is to do what you just did and post your questions on its talk page. And often, the only answer is; "Help yourself and make whatever improvements you see fit; we are a small volunteer group with lives elsewhere and have little time to spare; all help gratefully received." Sorry I can't help with the specific project issues you raise. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 10:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been on WikiProject: Skepticism for years and years and I believe only a handful of editors have been attempting to keep it running. WikiProject Paranormal I believe was just marked dormant. I've posted from time to time and I pay attention to the watchlist that comes though. Found many interesting pages that I had never heard of before from that watchlist. I really really don't like when someone creates a to-list for me, so I'm not likely to create one for someone else. Ranking is also just silly and a time waste, especially if no one is picking though the work. Looks like WikiProject Skepticism has been existing for years just keeping pages cleaned up and vandalism free, or AfDing things.

Seems like maybe what it needs is to get serious work done, content created, maybe in a focused way? A goal that is limited in scope and allows people to meet each other and collaborate. In the years past I have done this with GSoW. It was a blast and we were able to knock things out because when you are focused on a specific topic, then one area of research leads to another well. In the past GSoW would pick 6 months as it's set date for the topic for no reason but that it was a good amount of time. We did all things focused on the NDT Cosmos series (in all languages) and planned our project to end when the series was released in 2013. It branched off into a group of GSoW editors writing pages concerning astronomy. Just looking now and I see we are tagged at 74 pages, that have been viewed over 2 million times. Another project we focused on for six months was books from writers in the skeptical community or books about skepticism, paranormal. This was also a blast, we created a "template" of sorts of what a really good Wikipedia page would look like if it was about a book. This was more difficult than thought because books weren't reviewed in RS as much as we needed, so hard to pass notability standards. But in the end we wrote 54 pages that have been viewed 1.3 million times. (I like numbers - you have to have some way to measure things). Then the last one I think was all things vaccinated related. This was way back in the "before times", not remembering how many we wrote back then, I think it was 2015. But since Covid-19 we again refocused on efforts to get all Wikipedia pages concerning all the various areas of vaccines (people, organizations, things) knowing that once vaccines were created for Covid-19, the world would be scrambling to know more about them. I didn't anticipate that we would have such fabulous and effective (and free) vaccines so quickly. Nor did I expect the amount of misinformation. But we are now at 106 created, with 5.1 million views.

So with all this rambling - I think what WikiProject:Skepticism needs to kick-start it in the behind, is to get those who have signed on to get behind a theme, something limited in scope and maybe something more in the fun area. I'm thinking Lake Monsters, Cryptozoology, plant woo, Ghosts, or maybe something even more creative and fun ... childhood woo, something that really scared you. Everyone can pick their own topic like Harry Potter Boggarts. [21] my childhood scare has already been rewritten, Spontaneous human combustion. But I'm sure I could find other pages that link to SHC that would be related enough to qualify in this fun exercise.

We could create a sub-topic much as this one created by User:Nederlandse Leeuw years ago. Skeptical organisations in Europe [22].

What do you think? Is there any appetite for this here on WikiProject: Skepticism? Sub-Project Boggart? Sub-Project Ghostly Ghouls? Sub-Project Plant-Based Woo? Sgerbic ( talk) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a harder time thinking of pages that would fall into this category. So much has already been done on topics that scared me as a child. And of course as I'm exploring around Wikipedia, I keep falling into rabbit holes and it's taking me some time. :-) Sgerbic ( talk) 03:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Johnuniq:, Steelpillow, Sgerbic - thanks for your responses! I don't really know what I expected from a WikiProject. It seems obvious that people have put quite a lot of effort into putting together aspects of this, which is part of why I find it so frustrating that I can't tell why they are there or how they should be used. Perhaps that is a good starting point: drafting some instructions so people can understand what they are looking at, why it is there, and what to do with it... subject to review, of course.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean Gronk Oz. To me the front page of the project is very intimidating because it contains too much detail. Much of that detail is also available on the right-hand navigation links. What if we draft the instructions as you suggest and use that to point readers to the various features on the other pages? Even that activity may help us narrow down how/if those features are valuable? Allecher ( talk) 22:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Allecher: - thanks for that. Too much detail does not have to be a problem, if the reader understand what they are looking at, why it is there, what they are supposed to do with it. I am looking around some other sources to see how they do it, and also some of the limitations (for example, the New Articles page is entirely generated by the bot, and there is no facility to add our own text there). So yes, I think the basic instructions should be one of the first things the new person sees - even if it's collapsible so it doesn't get in the way for more advanced users.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 23:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Great ideas! I think the newer user that might be wanting to join a project would be very intimidated to find all this instruction. Those that are more advanced, know how to find things without all the lists. As they say "Less is more". Sgerbic ( talk) 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll work up some simplification to the main project page, replacing some of the long sections with the links that already exist on the righthand menu. That may also point out that some links on the right are not needed or could be improved. Allecher ( talk) 00:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I've made a first attempt of simplifying the page. I invite others to help make it more streamlined and remove unnecessary overhead. What do you think? Allecher ( talk) 00:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Already my stress goes down just looking at the page Allecher. The wall of text and links are gone. Much better - but I think some flowers over in the corner and a new color scheme would improve it more. Maybe a couch with a bookshelf and a kitten? Sgerbic ( talk) 01:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Allecher - do you think you could please archive more of the talk conversations? Sgerbic ( talk) 05:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Also could you please put the link to the sub-projects on the list? Sgerbic ( talk) 05:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello all. Frustrated at clicking on articles in the Stubs category and finding the article is 10 paragraphs long, I went through all the stubs starting with A, re-assessing two-thirds of them. In the off chance that someone would like to check my work, I reassessed these as B-class: Bernard Acworth, Julia Belluz (ok doesn't start with A but did it anyway), Autologous blood therapy. C-class: 7 Wonders Museum, Affranchi (although I have no idea why it’s of interest to the project), Apostacon, Apport (paranormal), Arthur Findlay College. Start-class: After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond (redirected to authors's article). Also removed a bunch of old assessment notices from redirect pages and other admin thingies.

And I said I wouldn't do assessments... if it's ok, I'd like to keep going. Feedback welcome.

Robincantin ( talk) 23:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Robin - I know your frustration - it took awhile for me to find Fred, which led me to Ruth and then I found a bunch more in that same radionics category. I think I found a bunch of ideas in the "see also" on Frank Hart's page, plus the machines I think need work. I'm glad someone is cleaning up the list, not that I think lists are such a great idea, but when you are looking for an idea they might be handy. Somedays the stubs are everywhere or nothing looks interesting. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Robincantin: @ Sgerbic: I also found that and I was about to comment on it. I also found a few pages where the talk page refers to a main page that no longer exists because the main page has been merged with another page. Should we then change the ratings on that talk page to match the merged page? Ideas? Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 14:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@ Wyatt Tyrone Smith: @ Sgerbic: I've done A through D so far, should be done in a week or two. I think there's no point in keeping an assessment notice on a page that has been merged or is now a redirect. If the page it's now referring to already has its own assessment information, I just delete the whole block from the original page and review the one on the new destination page. It the new page doesn't have assessment info, I usually (if appropriate) cut and paste the old block on the talk page of the new or merged article - and re-assess. I think it makes sense (does it?). I carry over notices from other wikiprojects but don't change their assessment. They may have different criteria, I don't know, although they probably just haven't looked at it in years. Robincantin ( talk) 15:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Make it so, Mr Sulu. Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a lot of these pages haven't been looked at in years. Assessments only work if there is a gang of people looking to keep everything fresh and tidy. Sgerbic ( talk) 16:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So what's the deal with this page https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Skepticism.html? I'm looking it over (using "stub" as a search term and finding pages that I just rewrote. They are NOT stubs and I removed the word "stub" from the talk page, so how do we change what is on this form? Sgerbic ( talk) 02:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hummmm - maybe I'm wrong, it's happened before ... today .... in the last hour, but now I'm looking at the Fred Hart page that I know is no longer a stub is listed under "Resolved articles" so I suspect maybe this URL is pulling from WP? It does say it was updated March 8th. That would be VERY cool if we could whittle away at this page. Sgerbic ( talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anybody advise what the proper etiquette is here ... if I expand a Stub article, I have always avoided changing the classification myself (that would be like marking your own homework; I can't be objective). But if I just leave it, years could go by and nobody notices that it needs to be reclassified, and in the meantime it clutters up WikiProject lists, etc. Is there some way to flag an article as needing re-assessment?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 05:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they are relying on psychic messages or remote viewing? Sgerbic ( talk) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Anytime I have expanded a stub from one or two lines to a few paragraphs, added several references, and did other MOS improvements like "See also" and ELs, I have simply removed the stub category with an edit summary such as "no longer a stub". Ditto for removing various maintenance templates that no longer apply, especially if they are old. Just remove the templates and use edit summaries like "now reasonably referenced", "weight problems addressed", etc. or appropriate. If somebody really objects, they will you can request they take it up on the Talk page where you can ask them for specifics regarding the issues they feel need fixing. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked at the Help Desk, and the redoubtable admin Cullen328 said "I have no hesitation in upgrading any article from stub to start if I have expanded it significantly or anyone else has done so." If he says so, that's good enough for me.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 01:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

just do it with confidence and a smile Gronk! Sgerbic ( talk) 02:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, change it when you're done please. Just don't get carried away and change it to a Good article ;) Robincantin ( talk) 11:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done some work on the Estrogen dominance stub but there really isn't much there. Does anybody know of a reputable source that discusses it or the symptoms attributed to it? Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 18:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I have just found my next stub rewrite. It checks all my favorite boxes, American, biography, old and very interesting. "Painting the mouse" I've not heard of that before - nor this person, but hopefully I can spend some time getting to know him. William Summerlin, nice to meet you. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Summerlin's entry here includes references you might find helpful. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks JoJo - now I'm looking for the word to title the category under the "case" and "early life and career" I've seen a word used but I just can't think of it right now. For the moment I'm using "afterwards". Ideas? Sgerbic ( talk) 19:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have seen "Aftermath" used a lot as a header. Personally I think it's a little dramatic, but YMMV. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "Aftergeometry." JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose there is time to think about it and also it is easily changed if someone comes up with a better word. Sgerbic ( talk) 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sgerbic ( talk, How about "Investigation"? Robincantin ( talk) 11:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I've come up with after nearly being finished. "Early life and career" which has no early life that I can find, I don't even know where he was from. So I might just change this to "Career". The next section is "Investigation and repercussions" and I really would like to call it the "Sh!t hits the fan" and then the last section is called "Aftermath" which might be changed, but I think it is the best for now. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This is weird - I'm looking at this article [23] and it has four linked citation numbers at the beginning, I opened them up in another tab and they all were the same citation, the same one I was currently looking at. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Click on any of the citations and a list appears on the right hand side.

Citation 1 is: Hixson, J. (1976) The Patchwork Mouse. Joseph Hixson Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York. pp. 4–5

Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

ahhhh - so clever you are Sgerbic ( talk) 00:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

And this is DONE! Done I tell you! Anyway, so interesting - way more than I had thought when I stumbled across it. I'm going to leave my thoughts on the talk page and move on to something else. Thanks for your help all. Sgerbic ( talk) 00:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've not heard of this person before - and I don't think he was ever a CSI Fellow - but he was on the Skepticism stub list. It looks like it might be interesting, so I'll give it a go. BTW I went though the stub category list and boy were there a lot that were rewritten some time ago but the stub tag wasn't removed. So now it is an even 200 items on the list that are awaiting a rewrite. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC) All done! I left my notes on the talk page. Looking for my next one now. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at Michael W. Friedlander and the page has some potential to be rewritten, so I'm claiming it as my next project. Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as stubs go that is in real good shape. Some of the ones I was looking at my yesterday were only a couple sentences long. :-) Sgerbic ( talk) 18:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Its looking a bit better now. Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 15:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Well done Wyatt! Sgerbic ( talk) 18:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed all editors that had joined this project that have not edited English Wikipedia in over a year. We lost 77 people which is sad because looking at their interest I would have loved to have them here. I picked a year just because it seemed like it would be easy to figure out. I reviewed other Wikipedia projects to see how they manage their inactive members so we are in line with them. Of course if someone decides to start editing Wikipedia again and they notice that they have been marked "inactive" in this project, they can just move their name back to active. This appears to be the first time anyone has attempted to clean up the participants before. Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants So we went from 228 to 151, and there were many that haven't edited Wikipedia in 11 months, so we will probably loose more in the next few months.

My question is how do we let these remaining 151 know that we are attempting to Rejuvenate this project? If they have this page on their watchlist then that would be the obvious way (if they look at their watchlist that is). You would think that if they signed onto the project with the express goal of being on a team that focuses in this area and wants to be active they would be excited to come back and help out. There is a lot of work to be done. I know it is still early days, but I would hope to see their shiny happy faces here on talk sooner rather than later. Can we put out a notice somewhere? What is the protocol to tag people? Can we tag 150 people and let them know we are waiting for them? Your thoughts please. Sgerbic ( talk) 07:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is beyond my pay grade - but Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Newsletter has a newsletter that looks dormant (sad) and editors can opt out of the delivery if they want. This is what their last one looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Newsletter/January 2012 WAY MORE time was put into that than I would ever want to do. But maybe we could put out a summary of sorts? Sgerbic ( talk) 07:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh about that Newsletter idea --- I call "not it" Sgerbic ( talk) 08:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest researching other Project pages and their talk pages to see how they handled the issue of inactive members. Might be some good ideas. 5Q5| ^✉ 11:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I could look at a few more and see if there are other ideas. I had only looked at 4-5 when I decided to copy what they had done. Possibly there is something really different? @ PaleoNeonate wasn't it you years ago that left a message on my talk page asking me (and others) to come edit on this project? If so what was it you said and what kind of response did you get? Sgerbic ( talk) 18:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's possible, I remember trying to make the project more active at some point and to reorganize a bit the pages, encouraged by an effort from KarlPoppery just before. But there also was someone working on an experiment to automatically welcome editors for WikiProjects. I was one of the participants representing this one. It was a bit tricky as new editors could be invited when this project doesn't necessarily suit everyone, if I remember. If you want I'll look and try to come up with more details sometime next week, link what I'm talking about, etc. Around that time I also wrote a few suggestions of regular tasks to do on the project's main page (like patrol/tag new article/general alerts, etc). I still consider myself part of WP:SKEPTIC but no longer regularly read this page or patrol new articles with potentially interesting keywords (links to these should still be on the main page I think). I could dedicate more time to WP back then. — Paleo Neonate – 05:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well when you mentioned it to me way back then, I started to get more interested. I did put it on my watchlist and have been following the suggestions that come though that way. Lots of interesting pages I've never heard of before. So it helped me. I have participated in many discussions and AfD's because of this project. But what it was lacking was more discussions and less assignments and ranking things. We join a team mainly because we want the interaction, otherwise we would just edit these pages on our own and never mention them to anyone. So the social aspect is important, at least to me, if it bothers others then they probably will just skip this part.

I'm excited to get to know others here, and already I've learned many things that I would not have. I'm not so keen on a welcoming auto thing, if we want to do that personally that seems to make sense, we aren't a big group and it is getting smaller all the time. When I first started with the member list it was 250 people. Once I took off everyone who hasn't edited Wikipedia in six months we dropped to 150. And after I posted on all 149 (didn't post on my page) my last night, we have seen @ TedDougal'n'Jack, @ Nuretok, @ Formaldude, @ Doczilla and @ Bduke update themselves on the active list (actually I think Formaldude is brand new, how did you find us Formaldude? Welcome BTW) We lost three and one of them said they just don't have time but wished us luck with the project.

So maybe we can keep this alive and get some serious work done which is the goal of the project after all. Even if people don't rewrite stubs on the subproject, I hope they at least participate in the discussions. Getting feedback and questions answered or as has already been done, make suggestions that others have not heard of before. I'm surprised at all the tech we have to use like what @ Novem Linguae suggested. I was really surprised at the CA newspaper site that @ AnimalParty! mentioned, I had never heard of that before. Anyway, we are getting started. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Your talk page blast appeared on a couple pages in my watchlist, I think it was Shibbolethink‎'s I read specifically. I was happy to join as I'm pretty interested in some of the topics covered here. –– FormalDude talk 06:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow I hadn't thought that someone would see the post on someone else's talk page. I really hadn't though that people watch other talk pages, but again I'm learning something new. Well please jump right in we sure can use some help. Sgerbic ( talk) 06:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a pretty avid talk page stalker. –– FormalDude talk 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow - Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology/Members "This is a manually compiled list. If you have constructively participated in this project, feel free to add yourself. You may also wish to list your specific interests or areas in which you would like to participate. Participants with no edits to pages within scope within the last year or who are inactive for 6 months may be removed from the list of active members." If we did this - our project would be down to about a dozen editors. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)19:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This group wants all the members in alphabetical order - oh boy that would be fun. Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Members - it uses a chart which is very neat looking - but it has a bunch of "unsorted" people at the bottom and it says it throws people off the listed if they have not edited on the project for three months. And it is all done manually. That's some work. How do you tell if someone has edited something in the project or not? I was removing people who have not edited Wikipedia in total after a year. Maybe I should make that 6 months? Sgerbic ( talk) 19:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan wants them listed in the order they joined. No idea if our group is in any kind of order or not. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Gee - I keep finding inactive projects - This one Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic moves inactive members to a group after a year of non-participation. But the last time they updated that list was 2017 - so I guess they should be on that inactive list. ;-) Pretty much no editing happening there. Too bad because that might be a group I would like to join, I've written many pages for magicians that also happen to be skeptics (a lot of overlap) Sgerbic ( talk) 19:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay the last one I'm looking at is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains (damn there is a project for everything) and you guessed it, dormant. So they have a chart and list the talk/contribs for each member of the group. That seems to be the only thing they have done in months is to set that up. With this said - I guess we decide to do whatever we want. I think maybe I will start thinning the herd ever further and remove people from the group who have not edited Wikipedia in general in 6 months. Then if that is a more manageable number, send each one a message on their talk page asking them to please come back and help with the project and that we are trying to revitalize the group. I'll try to get to this in the next couple days, but am happy to allow someone else to take it on. Same with the message to send people, ideas are enouraged. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a bot-maintained list of active editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Skepticism. gnu 57 20:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow - I had no idea, thanks. Some of these editors aren't members of the project. Since there seems to be a bot for nearly everything, is there one that can spot those on the Wikiproject membership and if they have been editing pages that are tagged with the WikiProject tag? Sgerbic ( talk) 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'm all done - I think we are at 124 people now. I have added them all to a chart and alphabetized them. I did this manually so it is VERY possible I messed up the alphabet part. Please someone check my work. Also I know many of you are much more talented than I am with fancy charts and such. If you would like to mess with the chart, add color or something, please do so. Next I'm going to contact these people and ask them to come back to the project. Sgerbic ( talk) 05:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. It is good that you are trying to get the Project up and running again. I will try to help when I can, but I am 83 and my memory is not what it was. Good job I resigned as an admin!! -- Bduke ( talk) 07:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

For possible increased efficiency in the future, there's a way to mass message folks on Wikipedia. You can make a request at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders. Hope this helps :) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

After I had sent out about a dozen of these notices I thought that there must have been a better way of doing it. But I wanted it done before I went to bed, and just did it, brain numbing but it's done and I hope to never do that again. :-) But thank you for telling everyone, we learn so much from each other, everyone seems to have a bit of skill or knowledge that no one else has. That's why we need to be a team. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Bduke - glad to have you with us. Sgerbic ( talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 § RFC: How should we include allegations of undercounting?. —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC) —  Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 13:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite Shubbole - have no idea how to include allegations of undercounting and my opinion would be worthless there. I'm trying to stay away from long discussion threads like that, I'm just a simple editor after all. But maybe others here might want to give it a go? Sgerbic ( talk) 03:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)