Talk:Australian Skeptics

Untitled

I am skeptical about the information in this article. How can the jornaul of an organisation that has existed for only 24 years have been published for 25 years?

the same way that someone can press the 5 key instead of the four key. (that is, it may just have been a typo)--202.161.1.167 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The latest volume of "The Skeptic" is Volume 26. I'll sort this out tomorrow and get the history right. --Bduke 12:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the foundation dates for both the Society and the Journal and sourced them. --Bduke 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Claims

Does the list of disputed claims really add anything to the page? The Australian Skeptics are sceptical of all paranormal and amazing claims. The list could easily be 10 or 100 times longer. Putting a list of topics is rather whimsical. Readers of the page could easily get bogged down on the list and never see any details that appear after the list. I'd suggest we remove the list from Wikipedia and just make a link to the list on the Australian Skeptics website. I'd make the change immediately but I'd like to get feedback on the idea. Zuytdorp Survivor 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me! That way the AS are responsible for keeping the list up to date. Gillyweed 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting from the article. It's ugly and uninformative (under TLDR). --ZayZayEM 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What is TLDR? Gillyweed 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read and it is NOT a policy or a guideline. It is just an essay, so it not a reason for removing this list. However, I do think the list was not inclusive and I am happy it is gone. --Bduke 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know it was an essay. TLDR is a general term that applies to any form of information media intended for an audience. The list is unencyclopedic indiscriminate, incomplete information that contributes nothing substantial to the article. It would be like if Greenpeace had a list for every environmental activity they involve themselves in. They do a sensible thing and list the verifiable priorities ([1])--ZayZayEM 02:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge of No Answers in Genesis

It has been proposed by User:ZayZayEM that No Answers in Genesis be merged here. Please give your views below. --Bduke (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge. This organisation is linked to the Australian Skeptics and it is unlikley that the artcile will ever become more than a stub, so it should be become a section in Australian Skeptics. --Bduke (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge. I agree, even the Answers in Genesis entry is for the organisation, not the website. Rbreen (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support, it seems to be a branch of this organisation rather than an organisation of its own. Terraxos (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done the merge as there seems to be no objection. I have also altered some redirects to the page merged. --Bduke (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no clue as to the chosen spelling, when they know how to spell it. http://www.skeptics.com.au/about/skeptics/overview.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.221.27 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

The opening statement of this article expresses a POV by saying that AS investigate various claims by "scientific methodologies", but no substantiation or elaboration of this is provided in the text. It should say "claims to investigate various claims by scientific methodologies", which would be neutral and impartial.

Sardaka (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the word 'claims' is disingenuous. The organization does actually investigate. Whether the quality of the investigation is acceptable might be questionable, but not actually the fact. Gillyweed (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Maye, Vickie (4 August 2002). "Talkback from beyond". The Sun-Herald. contains the following, "[...] Australian Skeptics, a group that investigates theparanormal [sic] from a scientific viewpoint." - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Heinrich, Karen (13 February 2002). "Was it in the stars?". The Age. has, "[...] the Australian Skeptics, a group that investigates the paranormal and pseudo-science from a scientific viewpoint [...]" - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Organisation of the Australian Skeptics.

The lead states "The Australian Skeptics is a non-profit organisation based in Australia". This is not strictly true. A better description would be "The Australian Skeptics is a loose affiliation of several non-profit organisation based in Australia". This link here describes it as "Australian Skeptics is a loose confederation of groups across Australia". There are quite independent non-profit organisations in each State and some in areas far from the State capital. For example, there is "Border Skeptics" as well as "Victorian Skeptics" and "Hunter Skeptics" as well as the NSW Branch, which somewhat misleadingly is legally called "Australian Skeptics Inc". "Australian Skeptics Inc" publishes the magazine and appoints the Executive Officer, but it is still the NSW Branch with members only in NSW. This link here states "To join Australian Skeptics, subscribe to our quarterly magazine the Skeptic or contact one of the many active Skeptics groups and activities around the country". The first part is again misleading, since subscribing is just that - you get the magazine sent to you. You do not actually belong to any organisation with a structure. Of course the loose confederation of groups does do many things together, such as having an annual convention that is organised in turn by some of the more active groups. Could someone who is neutral look into this and make some changes. I have a conflict of interest as I resigned from one of the groups after trying to persuade the groups around the country to set up a better structure and make subscribing to the magazine actual mean that you did join a structured association. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree with your point. There are many criticisms that can be made of the Australian Skeptics. I do hope there's more criticisms that get incorporated into the article. JohnAugust (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Seeing as "Australian Skeptics Inc" is a state-based organisation and there are other active Australian organisations should this be divided into "Australian Skeptics" and "Skepticism In Australia" with a link to the latter from the former? Lukekfreeman (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Australian Skeptics should deal primarily with Australian Skeptics Inc., the organisation. Other similar organisations could be mentioned briefly in a paragraph towards the end of Australian Skeptics. If those other organisations qualify for their own article, those articles should be written. Similarly, if sufficient sourced material can be found for an article about scepticism in Australia, such an article should be written. However, I don't see any existing article titled "Scepticism in (name of country)" (or even "Skepticism in (name of country)".) Dolphin (t) 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The issues raised in this paragraph and the one above have still not been addressed. Australian Skeptics is not a national organisation. The membership of the various organisations is quite small and very different from the number who subscribe to the magazine, which does not actually make you a member of anything. For example, I subscribe, and I live in Victoria, but I am not a paid-up member of the Victorian Skeptics, or indeed any other organisation with "Skeptic" in the title. As I said before, someone neutral needs to look at the sources and get the article to match them. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As with all things WP what do the RS' say? The published claims of the organisation's journal and website carry some weight. What about the media in Australia? Then without digging around and piecing together (WP:OR) aren't there official forms needed for non profits? Websites that evaluate and describe various non profits in Australia? Hasn't the group taken actions that would require some documentation like testimony before legislature, court actions, complaints with official agencies, offering a prize (secured prize money, official judges). While I do not contend Bduke's assertions are not accurate on WP we follow the reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is of course that there are very few sources that discuss the various skeptics organisations in Australia. For example, the article states "No Answers in Genesis[17 - ref to their web site] is a website affiliated with the Australian Skeptics organisation", but, as far as I can see, it does not state on the web site any link to any skeptics organisation. I think it is run (or was - the last info seems to be 2009) quite independently by a person who happens to belong to Australian Skeptics Inc in NSW. There are too many assertions that are not supported by any reliable source and I happen to know that they are not correct. The Journal lists many skeptics organisations in Australia, but it does not mention any link between them. Legally there is none, although the NSW Group who use the name "Australian Skeptics Inc" likes to pretend that they are top dog in this game. There just are no sources that discuss this. There may be information, for example, on the Australian Skeptics (Vic) Inc. at Consumer Affairs Victoria who are responsible for incorporating associations in Victoria, but I doubt it will be very helpful. However, as I said in 2009 I have a conflict of interest. I have been involved with two skeptic organisations over many years and disagree with them on many matters relating to how they are organised or not organised. Someone else needs to work on this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Bduke, thanks your input here. Good of you to recuse yourself due to COI but that doesn't mean you shouldn't contribute to the discussion on the talk page. A lack of RS is definitely a problem for a WP article. I am not in Australia so my access to sources on the subject is limited I am adding some sources that might prove useful. I agree with you that unsourced material and associations need to be edited. Hasn't the groups journal published and article on it's history at some point? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In the front matter of Hogan, Paul, ed. (1991). Creationism: Scientists Respond. Australian Skeptics (Victorian Branch) Inc. ISBN 0646041002. (available at archive wayback machine) is, "Australian Skeptics is a non-profit organisation whose aim is to scientifically investigate paranormal claims and pseudo-science." That seems to pretty much cover the facts asserted in the lede. Is there any RS that provides comment, analysis or interpretation of the organisation, structure, affilliation (or lack therof)? Granted this source is 22 years old and self published there may be more recent, more independent or more accurate sources. I just came across it in updating the references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The No Answers in Genesis website's home page states, "This site is affiliated with Australian Skeptics Inc.". - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that in this context, "Australian Skeptics is a non-profit organisation" means "Australian Skeptics (Victorian Branch) Inc. is a non-profit organisation". Peter Hogan was only speaking for his group that published that leaflet at that time. In the same way "Borderline Skeptics Inc. is a non-profit organisation", Skeptics SA is a non-profit organisation", along with (from the latest "The Skeptic") another 8 organisations that seem to be incorporated and another 8 that are not incorporated. There is nothing legal that links then together, but they support each other and take it in turns to run an annual conference. There is a strong consensus to not have a more formal national organisation. The "Australian Skeptics Inc.' is really a New South Wales organisation, but it employs an Executive Officer/Editor and publishes "The Skeptic", largely because it was lucky and received a large bequest, which it uses to support Skepticism across Australia, but keeps tight control of the funds. Unfortunately there is no good source that says this. I'm going to shut up now. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Bduke, I continue to appreciate your input and surmise your assessment is completely accurate. The difficulty for WP is the lack of RS. I think your assertion that the statement in the pamphlet applies only to it's publisher is valid. If you come across some discussion of this in the press please post it here and I will incorporate it in the article. I think the identification of Australian Skeptics as a loose confederation from their own website is probably an appropriate substitution for the lede or at least somewhere the article should make clear that Australian Skeptics is an umbrella term for a loosely affiliated group of independent non profit organisations including Australian Skeptics Inc. Don't registered non profits have to have some sort of constitution? Shouldn't that be available? I wonder what the formative documents for the other skeptic non profits state.

I think enough of a question is raised to consider a change to the lede and some additional content. Is this article going to become an article about Australian Skeptics Inc. a local non profit organisation with some affiliation with other organisations or about Australian Skeptics a loose national confederation of multiple independent non profit organisations? Comments sought. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

First, I agree that there seems sufficient support to describe the Australian Skeptics as a loose confederation. Second, I think this article should be about this loose confederation and not just about Australian Skeptics Inc. Second, the term "non-profits" is not the correct term here, We are taking about incorporated associations. They can make a profit but it must be feed back to promote their purposes and if they fold the money must go to another association with similar purposes. Incorporated associations do not have to have a constitution, at least in Victoria. I know a lot about this as I was in charge of incorporating Wikimedia Australia Inc. You have to incorporate in one State, not all, and not federally, when you have a membership across Australia. I am still Secretary of another incorporated association in Victoria. However, if you do not have a constitution, you have to follow what are called the model rules, which are part of the Act of Parliament. The Act in Victoria was significantly modified in 2012. I think Australian Skeptics (Vic) Inc (and that is a recent name change from the one mentioned in the leaflet by Peter Hogan above) does have a constitution, but I am not sure you can get to see it from the Consumer Affairs Victoria web site. Third, I think it highly unlikely that there will ever be a discussion of the structure of the various skeptic associations in Australia in the press. It might happen if some one creates a fuss and I do know that someone in NSW recently gave a talk that was highly critical of the Australian Skeptics Inc., but I have not heard about it getting a mention in the press. Forth, the other 8 skeptic associations I mentioned above are mostly like "Melbourne Skeptics in the Pub" which I used to attend until it moved to a different Pub, which is less convenient for me. They have no real structure, no constitution and no official purpose. It is just a group that meets in a Pub once a month. It may have a facebook page or email list. These groups have no formal link with the incorporated associations, although members of the latter often attend the former and try to keep in touch, and they are mentioned in the back cover of "The Skeptic". Apologies that this is a bit long, but it might help you and others to understand the situation better. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this article should be about the loose confederation, not a single entity. I think the lede should reflect that. This confederation is not, nor are all of it's constituents non profit organisations. Some (many, most?) are incorporated associations: Does that meet the definition of non profit organisation? In other words is an incorporated association a form of non profit as the funds go to the purpose not the profit of the owners/members/organisers? I think perhaps so. Also most of the branches (frequently used self descriptor) identify themselves as non profit organisations. Regardless the confederation is not a non profit and some constituents are not (possibly having no formal organisation at all).

If the article is to be about this loose confederation it should list the groups affiliated. If someone with a copy of the journal could provide such a list with reference I would include it in the article. There are ten groups listed on the skeptics.com.au website I would like to have the list from the published journal also. Proposed change to lede:

The Australian Skeptics is a loose confederation of scientific skeptic groups in Australia which investigate the paranormal and pseudoscience with a scientific viewpoint.

Comments/suggestions sought. Input on listing constituent groups and what level of detail about each also sought. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The current "The Skeptic" (Vol 33, No 4, December 2013) lists as "Skeptical Groups in Australia":-

• Australian Skeptics Inc
• Hunter Skeptics - also in NSW.
• Australian Skeptics (Vic) Inc
• Borderline Skeptics - address in Vic but it covers a border area with NSW
• Queensland Skeptics Association Inc.
• Gold Coastb Skeptics - also in Queensland
• Canberra Skeptics
• Skeptics SA
• WA Skeptics
• Australian Skeptics in Tasmania
• Darwin Skeptics - in Northern Territory

Then as "Local Skeptical Groups:-

• Victoria

• Gippsland Skeptics
• Great Ocean Road Skeptics
• Melbourne Eastern Hills Skeptics in the Pub
• Melbourne Skeptics in the Pub
• Mordi Skeptics in the Pub
• Peninsula Skeptics (aka "The Celestial Teapot" in case you come across links to that)

• Tasmania

• Launceston Skeptics

• Queensland

• Brisbane Skeptics

There may of course be others. The proliferation in Victoria in only in the last 2 or 3 years, and I am not sure what prompted it. The meetings of Australian Skeptics (Vic) Inc are bursting at the seams in their current excellent venue and that may have encouraged others. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

'atheist'

I am going to remove the word 'atheist' from the first sentence of the lede. Not only does it appear to be unsourced, but given the complete lack of further discussion of this, is arguably not even relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. While most Australian Skeptics are atheist, I know that several are not. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

'inextricably linked'

I am going to remove the statement that Australian Skeptics are "inextricably linked with the Friends Of Science In Medicine and the Young Australian Skeptics". I asked for a citation for this, and have been presented with nothing but a couple of links presumably intended to indicate that Loretta Marron is apparently connected in some way with all three organisations. This clearly doesn't support the assertion - in fact, given the explicit nature of the claim, I can't see how anything other than a reliable source which stated outright that the three groups were "inextricably linked" could support it. And furthermore, without explaining how they were linked, it seems to me to be a rather pointless assertion to be making. Are these 'links' formal? Do they hold joint functions? Or are they just 'linked' in that they have similar(ish) goals, and consequently have supporters in common? And if they do, why is it significant, and why should Wikipedia be asserting this in the lede? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree particularly about including this in the lede. However I do think the link should be mentioned lower down, but not as "inextricably linked". Loretta Marron is an active member of the Skeptics, speaks at most of tier annual conferences and was made "Skeptic of the year" in 2011. Friends Of Science In Medicine was "Skeptic of the year" in 2012. See - http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/merit-awards/ The Young Australian Skeptics have also received strong support from the various Skeptic organisations in Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the interconnection between the groups discussed in reliable sources? That should really be our guide regarding what we have to say on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not for the Young Australian Skeptics, but the two "Skeptic of the year" awards were certainly discussed in the press, although I forget what they said in detail. See my contributions further up. The problem with this article is that much that is written is not supported by reliable sources and so-called "reliable" sources are sometimes wrong. But also note my COI. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah - I'd missed the COI post, thanks. Rereading the 'Reorganisation' thread, I have to agree that there is a fundamental problem with this article, in that it isn't really clear what exactly the subject matter is - is it 'Australian skeptics organisations', or is it the organisation calling itself 'Australian Skeptics'? All rather confusing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed the confusing problem. The 'Australian Skeptics' is NSW based, but it is the one that has the money that pays for an executive director who is also the editor of the "Australian Skeptic" magazine, publishes the magazine and I think pays for the awards we were talking about. Any other national structure is very informal. The various groups, for example, agree among themselves to take turns in running an annual conference. The article should cover skepticism in Australia and it is doubtful that any one group is notable and covering the lot gives more information for readers. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

...Which takes us back to the problem you've already noted - that there don't seem to be reliable sources covering the topic in the detail required. Sadly, I suspect that neither journalists nor (non-partisan) academics are generally much interested in-depth analysis of skepticism - people who believe that the moon is fake and is projected onto the sky-dome by lizard-men are inherently more interesting than people who don't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

major updates

Hello all - I've been working on a re-write of this page. The original was pretty confusing, so I've tried to clear up some of that and fill in the gaps where information was missing. There are still a lot of holes in it so we need to add to it over time and keep it up to date. Most of the information I've got up there so far has come from the ASI group and the the Skeptic Magazine, so it might seem a little NSW-centric to begin with, but this is mostly because they publish regularly and their content comes up on google searches, so it's the information that I was able to find. We should try to get more representation from the rest of the groups, as well as lots more images and details of the regional groups and the various podcasts.

Eventually we can split this page up. Have one that represents the ASI and it's branch groups, and a separate page that represents the broader community and all the non-incorporated groups. We can also split off the podcasts section into it's own page, and expand it to include many more skeptical podcasts, not necessarily produced by people who consider themselves skeptics, but a collection of podcasts that are skeptical in content and approach.

So far on my list of things we need to work on into the future there are...

• add in some more referencing where it is needed
• add in more podcast and regional group images
• add details about why each winner of the "skeptic of the year" award was chosen
• add in more details about the winners of the "Eureka / Critical Thinking Prize"

As I said, it's a work in progress, but I feel like this is a good start and it's a lot better than what was there beforeMichelleFranklin (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Shorten article?

Now that the Launceston Skeptics have their own Wikipedia page, I'm wondering if we should delete much of the content about the Launceston group? The information that is listed here would be found on the separate WP page. This would help make the Australian Skeptics page smaller. I'm afraid that if we make the Launceston area small, it will make the group look less important and people might not notice the hyperlink. Maybe once other groups get WP pages written about them, we will be able to remove most of the content and that will allow the entire chart to reduce in size? So maybe hold off until then, but keep this in mind as the ultimate goal to make the page smaller?Sgerbic (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Australian Skeptics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120618112034/http://www.catholicweekly.com.au:80/02/dec/8/16.html to http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/02/dec/8/16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927143149/http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/tank.htm to http://www.skeptics.com.au/tank/tank.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140820040341/http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/ to http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140820040341/http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/ to http://skepticallychallenged.org/394/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australian Skeptics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20001007033130/http://www.egroups.com:80/list/qskeptics to http://www.egroups.com/list/qskeptics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

2017 award winners

I will be adding 2017 award information to this page. Drobertpowell (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bent Spoon Award

I have redirected Bent Spoon Award here, as being duplicative but worse than the the section here. Alternative would be WP:SPINOUT of the section here to that article, but given the presence of so many other lists here, slight preference for remaining consolidated here for consistency. Link/section here not updated yet to allow slightly easier reversal ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms

I would have thought a section including "Criticisms" of the Australian Skeptics would make the article more comprehensive. A suggestion. JohnAugust (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. But the article can only include such info from WP:RS.

OK, I've checked out WP:RS. In that light, I'd like to recommend my article https://johnaugust.com.au/article/why-i-am-not-australian-skeptic for linking. Considering the points in WP:RS and in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE ...

   The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

I am trying to be objective in working through the issues, and the claim is not exceptional. I am not asserting particular claims about the way the world is, but rather how an administrative process resulted in outcomes worth criticising, a mild claim in the scheme of things. It is a personal narrative about things I have experienced, and I would suggest it is credible as such.

   It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

My focus is on the Australian Skeptics, with other content only as bears on how the Australian Skeptics have conducted themselves.

   It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

In terms of developing a criticisms of the Australian Skeptics, the claims directly bear on that. Also, it develops on points raised elsewhere in this general discussion by BDuke.

  There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

Well, I'm here to defend it, I assert I wrote it carefully, being mindful of legal issues. I'm happy to sign a Statutory Declaration ( relevant in Australian Law) and post it and post signed copies to those who would like one, within reason, in support.

   The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

The Wikipedia article is mostly about the activities of the Skeptics, and the primary sources are of the majority, that. It is only serving to add neutrality to the article, providing a reference to criticism about the Australian Skeptics. I'm not planning to edit the article to link it in myself, but list the article here in the hope that it others here will find it worth linking. JohnAugust (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the edit myself in a month's time, unless I can see good reason not to. I'll try to make it NPOV, something like "Criticisms: There have been claims that the NSW Skeptics have over-reached in claiming the name 'Australian' skeptics, and it has been claimed that supporters have no democratic standing, the group being akin to an 'invite only' gentlemen's club, amongst other criticisms about how they conduct themselves generally [reference]". JohnAugust (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)