Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:36, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

BC, AD or BCE, CE

I've been asked to stop changing dates. What's Wikipedia policy? Is this Wizard within his rights? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wizard, quite properly, referred PC to WP:ERAS, which redirects to the current active guideline; the place to discuss this is at WT:MOSNUM, not a random WikiProject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Don't change BC/AD to BCE/CE. It's silly. Would you change "Thursday" to "Foursday" or "March" to "Reasonch"? If you aren't offended by those gods (Thor and Mars, by the by), don't be offended by this one. Or if you are offended, at the very least don't switch to a dating scheme that's even more parochial, biased, and pro-Christian than BC/AD: the notion that the beginning of Christianity marks the beginning of the "Common Era" for the entire world is the most offensive, Victorian, Christocentric notion I've ever heard in my life from academia. Seriously. It's the silliest possible issue to get into it with the religious on; there are plenty of actual issues of bias to deal with on this encyclopedia, as opposed to obscure etymological squabbles. :] Much love! -Silence (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's Fiveday today, my favorite day of the week for the whole month of Dictatorgust. So I just thought I'd mention that I haven't ever heard of CE/BCE as being Christocentric. Considering that a lot of the events that led to the first interaction between the mediterranean and asian civilizations happened about 2100-1900 years ago I can see a strong, non-ethnocentric reason for use of "Common Era". Notwithstanding that Silence is right. It is a silly argument to get into. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously the Common Era system is at least Christocentric in that it directly bases its 'Year Zero' on a particular (albeit out-of-date) theorized date for Jesus Christ's birth, even if you don't find it problematic to euphemistically call the Christian Era the "Common" one. But if your justification is that this was a time of significant European-Asian interaction, then my response is simply that the term now becomes Eurasiacentric. :) Why exclude, for example, the Americas, when we could date the 'Common Era' as beginning in 500, 1050, 1492, or 1606 (or 11,500 BC, for that matter)? Juuust sayin'. -Silence (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Any arbitrary year 0 will be problematic. I propose Wikipedia only measure dates based on proximity in years to the big bang! ;) Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review on Parapsychology

I have found evidence of original research and abuse of sources in this article, and have suggested it for featured article review here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1 Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Herschel

Have a look at this. More ancient astronaut fun.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong's concept of Karma

Reliable sources have indicated that Falun Gong's concept of karma is that it is a black substance in the body, and that health and spiritual benefits can be achieved if that black substance is converted to a white substance through meditation and right living. I was wondering if the editors here know of any sources which specifically address these claims of Falun Gong, and what they have to say about them. Please feel free to respond on the main Talk:Falun Gong page, preferably in the Talk:Falun Gong#Karma section. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I did than I would most certainly reference them. Sadly you are looking for a proof that the sky is not puce, if you know what I mean.Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand, believe me. I was specifically thinking that maybe the Skeptical Inquirer or some other similar source might have addressed the matter, as it seems to me, at least potentially, that such claims would fall within their fields of interest. If anyone would know about such sources, I thought the editors here would probably be the ones to ask. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen anything about the FLG in Skeptic Magazine, Skeptical Inquirer or Free Inquiry.Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics Merger Proposal

Proposed merging Exopolitics into Michael Salla, discuss here.Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Precognition

Multiple discussions have been ongoing in recent weeks about issues with the Precognition article, including whether it is a paranormal topic and how it is to be defined. There are only two editors involved, and we need additional contributions to work towards consensus. Thanks in advance for any contribution, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

2012

For anyone interested, there's a discussion currently in play over at talk:2012 millenarianism (recently renamed from 2012 doomsday prediction) about what should be the most appropriate name for this article, with its scope covering various 2012-related speculations/predictions/theorising/phenomena. Arguments for/against various current title proposals are at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Definition_of_Millenarianism and Talk:2012_millenarianism#Formal_discussion_on_page_name, and there's an open poll at Talk:2012_millenarianism#Title_of_article_--_the_.28single_transferable.29_vote.21. Contribs & thoughts welcomed.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dowsing

This article suggests that Dowsing could be a real phenomenon. The problem is that the author has references to back it up, one a 1990 book and the other a paper. Obviously we know that dowsing is garbage and that those sources must be bogus, but unfortunately that isn't how science works. How does this project usually deal with this type of problem? Should I scrub the pro-Dowsing studies and reference my physics textbook? :) .froth. (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd take it to WP:FTN. That noticeboard is full of rational folk who will only be too please to help out. Verbal chat 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hit the skeptical press and find sources that specifically refute dowsing. Don't delete pro-dowsing sources unless you can reasonably state they are not RS.Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks .froth. (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly the Dowsing article is not that bad compared to some of the real perennial battleground articles.Simonm223 (talk)

Colloidal silver needs more eyes

Any editors who have knowledge of the subject are encouraged to watch the article. There is currently an ANI thread regarding this topic, and one of the editors involved specifically says that having more editors involved would have be useful in keeping the article up to par. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"They often go unreported"?

A stated goal of this project is "To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported." Begs the question - how is that not WP:OR? If the goal is not the reporting of otherwise-unreported (therefore unverifiable) "facts", then what actually is it? Either this is an untenable goal, or, it needs to be re-worded. --71.198.34.87 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Two interpretations make sense to me: 1, unreported on wikipedia, 2, unreported in the popular press but well documented by academics or topical press. Verbal chat 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good observation. I offer the following as a possible replacement: "To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, where notably reported in reliable sources; but not given adequate coverage in Wikipedia." Wildbear (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rational skepticism or personal attacks against Simonm223 (talk · contribs)

I have no objection to rational skepticism but when skeptics rule things out without evidence or use the same distortion tactics that pseudo scientists use this is pseudo skepticism. When a member of the skeptic community does this they give some people the wrong impression. There seems to be at least one over eager member of this project who fits that criterion. User:Simonm223 has a history of deleting information without doing the research or following the proper discussion procedures. Doing this is counterproductive. When people see the inappropriate procedures some people including him use it makes all truly rational skeptics look bad. This could give the appearance of a pseudo skeptic purge which will only backfire. I suggest other rational skeptics take a look at his history and let him know if you think he is going to far at times. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you refactor that to remove the pseudoskeptic nonsense and so it doesn't come across as a personal attack? WP:AGF etc? Verbal chat 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Zacharystaylor (talk · contribs) is probably referring to my recent AfD of a Stanley Krippner, an academic with some involvement in fringey matters whose page includes not one WP:RS. He may also be smarting from the fact that I, and several other active participants in Wikipedia, successfully turned an article about a fringe theory regarding that over-blown incident at fatima into a redirect to the appropriate page. This user tends to dance dangerously close to WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR violations as he appears not to realize that calling somebody a "pseudo-skeptic" because they express an opinion on a talk page stating that nothing supernatural happened at fatima is not necessarily kosher. Go ahead, look at my edits, I play by the rules. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)