Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism

Merge proposal Cognitive elite→The Bell Curve

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature

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)

Nomination of Taner Edis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taner Edis 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/Taner Edis 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.

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

Requested move at Talk:American political conspiracy theories#Requested move 19 November 2021

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)

Sharon Hill

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)

National Council Against Health Fraud

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)

3-way merge proposal being drafted at Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19

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

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)

Discussion notice regarding Sharon A. Hill's article

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)

Firestorm at WP:COIN about editor Susan Gerbic and GSoW

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)

Nomination of Center for Inquiry Investigations Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Inquiry Investigations Group 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/Center for Inquiry Investigations Group 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.

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

Ceremonial stone landscape

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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing

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)

Fallacy articles

I'm posting this here because some of the main fallacy articles are marked as high importance for this project. I'm also going to post on the Philosophy Project page for the same reason. (The Logic Project talk page seems pretty inactive, as do the individual article talk pages.) I did a quick check of the archives but couldn't find a mention of this issue. I'm a newbie so if there's a better place for this do let me know.

I've been skim-reading a few of the fallacy articles recently (Formal fallacy, List of fallacies, and some specific fallacy articles linked there). I've by no means looked at all the individual pages, as there are a lot, but I'm getting the impression quite a few need significant work.

• Some articles are flagged as needing additional citations or being unclear or confusing (wholeheartedly agree!), and some seem like they should be (e.g. this one seems like more things should have references).
• Some of the flags are years old: this has a whole-article flag from 2016, the Formal fallacy page has a citation flag from 2010, and this one has a whole-article flag from 2007.
• Several seem to assume a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader, be rather densely written, or use specialist terms, mathematical equations etc. without explaining them (e.g. I couldn't properly decipher the "simple example" image in the Prosecutor's fallacy article). While some topics may be inherently hard to simplify, or inherently require some specialist knowledge, I do get the feeling that many of these articles could at least start out with simpler language and examples.
• Potential inconsistency, e.g. in List of fallacies - it's just a list so there's no requirement for examples or much elaboration, but some items do have examples while others don't. I personally would find a small example for each item a really useful thing to have in an overview because some of the descriptions aren't beginner-friendly, but either way might it be better if it were consistent? Or at least have them for the descriptions that aren't in plain English!

I could probably comment on more stuff but I'll leave it there. I know many of these articles may not be of specific interest to this project, but as fallacies on the whole seem to be I thought I'd leave a "cover-all" comment here. And just for context, I have a degree in maths (although it's been a while), so I'm familiar with certain types of fallacies and general maths notation. But also am not confident enough to make any edits myself. RapturousRatling (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)