Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism

Active discussions
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

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 GlockeEdit

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)

The Goop LabEdit

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BillyGoatsGruff2020/sandbox . I hope I did this right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talkcontribs) 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? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Goop_Lab#Cast_List BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Climate Feedback and InsideClimate News on accuracy of claims by proponents of climate change denialEdit

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)

RfC: Race and intelligenceEdit

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 intelligenceEdit

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: [1]. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Race and intelligenceEdit

A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [2]. NightHeron (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: IA/OoI is a fringe theoryEdit

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)

Discussion at Bart D. EhrmanEdit

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)

Efficacy of prayerEdit

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)

Discussion about article "Race and intelligence"Edit

 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)

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidentsEdit

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)

Discussion about Template:UfoEdit

 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)

Article for Deletion discussion: Stephen T. ChangEdit

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)

And now, it's Street lights...Edit

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)

Deletion of Athena StarwomanEdit

I just submitted this page for deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Athena_Starwoman Sgerbic (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

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

Return to the project page "WikiProject Skepticism".