Talk:NZ Skeptics

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

neutrality

I added the {{advert}} template to this page because the tone of the article strikes me as excessively promotional. The most problematic part is the second paragraph ("Skeptics question practices that take advantage of people at their most vulnerable ... sceptics consider it unethical not to challenge such claims"), which presupposes that the 'practitioners' who the skeptics are opposed to are in fact taking advantage of people. Other minor issues include vague and unhelpful language ("...and many others from all walks of life. Members have a variety of worldviews...") and the inclusion of members whose notability is not obvious ("Bob Brockie, a cartoonist, columnist and scientist is member").

It may have been better to use the {{POV}} template rather than {{advert}}, but I think there is room for improvement either way. G y re 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending parts of the article, and I think it now reads as less of an advert and more as an information piece on the NZ Skeptics. Although I am the current head of the NZ Skeptics, I consider that the changes I've made are not a conflict as they are restricted to the removal of the content that was an issue and some basic updates to references, the society's logo, etc. As a result of these changes, I've removed the advert template - I hope this isn't seen as premature. --Markhoney (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite

I'm going to attempt a rewrite, using Lanryd a lot to pull on past confrences and photos.Sgerbic (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all done. Once I started accessing the old journals I could not finish. I didn't totally finish reviewing all the old journal articles, they can be fleshed out more to find more speakers, dates and locations. The Bent Spoon awards need to be linked to the award "winner" I've already done all the Bravo Awards. Still lots to be done, but I'm putting a fork in it as far as I'm concerned.Sgerbic (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speakers, meetings

I don't think a list of speakers and meetings is encyclopedic content-- it's thesort of thingthey have a web site for. Over-detail is POV, even propagandistic. I'm thinking about how much to remove. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2107 tags removed

Intricate Detail and Advertisement tags placed in June 2017 have been removed. See my edits from August 2017 8==8 Boneso (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020 back-editing exercise

Kia ora koutou! I'm going to be taking a shot at back editing this page as part of my GSoW training. Please bear with me and feel free to send me any advice should you deem it necessary. jepercival (talk) (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

New zealand skeptics.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Discuss here if you have any disagreement. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I have de-prodded. Use AfD if you want to do this. Thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROD is for deletions that are expected to be controversial. There is basically no notability or unbiased sourcing in this page, but I will go ahead and AfD. I expect a WP:SNOW but alas. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence in your comment above is wronger than a really wrong thing. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bare urls

Kia ora folks, I think most of the bare urls are now full references - will check tomorrow - so that tag might be ready for removal soon? Also, I can add references to some stuff that is noted or quoted without them. What's the thinking?Realitylink (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]