Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism

Black hole

Why is Black hole a WikiProject Skepticism article? Unless someone comes up with a good reason, I will remove this project from that article's Talk page. RobP (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur. No reason for that to be here. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's some new alt-med treatment? GOOP might be saying it will eliminate your wrinkles caused by time... :-) Sgerbic (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bingo: "Lux foraminis nigris" is a homeopathic dilution of light from black holes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Sorry for the delayed response. It is possible that it was monitored by the project because of regular fringe claims additions, which may not be in the article anymore. I don't object to tag removal if it doesn't currently need special monitoring. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Assistance request

So I've been over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative views starting the process of injecting skepticism and science into some of the articles they're collectively paying attention to and I came across comparative medicine, a little mess of a stub. I decided to expand it because it's a deep and broad topic and deserves more than what's there. I've got a very good start on getting that done and when I complete it I'll be sure to share it here.

So far I've covered History up to the Polio vaccine, ethics, translational issues (research being applicable in pre-clinical and clinical trials), the reproducibility crisis that is plaguing most branches of science at the moment, and I have found enough material to write a well sourced section on legal considerations.

The problem I'm having is that I can't find a good history to take my writing into the 21st century. Every book seems to get to polio and just move on. Is anyone able to locate a source (or several!) on the history of comparative medicine past the 1950's?

Cheers.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Awesome Mike. I would love to see that stub of a stub get a rewrite. I'll look over some things and see what I can find for your request. I'll let you know if I find something.Sgerbic (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is live for a bit now. No pushback on my efforts but also no additional expansion since the update. I will ASP circle back and take another dive at it. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rap Chart Mike: Sorry for the delayed response. If it wasn't already done, and you still need assistance, WT:MED may also be a good place to notify in this case. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I will at some point drop a note there. Been very busy here lately. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Writing my first new article from scratch

I was looking through Wanted Pages and I ran into Occult writers and antisemitism. It doesn't exist and has north of 5000 wikilinks to it, instant traffic and a topic that clearly has some interest as well as being relevant to this project. It's also one that a brief initial glance tells me there is enough out there to write something with some meat on it.

When I finish the initial draft I suspect Ill need some help tagging and categorizing the article properly and whatever else I don't know about for writing a brand new article. Cheers. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As an aside for those who wondered, like me: The 5000 wikilinks are because of the template WikiProject Jewish history, which contains a todo list, which contains the red link. As soon as somebody added the link to the todo list, every Talk page with that template linked to that nonexistant page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Useful info. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It turns out that this topic is a lot of work and I might not even be able to establish sufficient notability for a stand alone on it. Not a project I'm interested in abandoning just yet but it is a very slow to build body of reference for me. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Strawman theory

I wrote my first brand new article. I wandered into the topic through this project by taking a look at Freemen on the land (an article that I'll be doing some work on) and I noticed that it mentions the strawman idea but there was no article. Now Strawman theory has one.

I have it marked as needing attention on this project because it likely needs attention seeing as it's my first attempt at writing something that was not here before. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike that is a terrific article, I've shared it on my Facebook page and there has been a lot of discussion about it. Thank you!Sgerbic (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rap Chart Mike: thanks and congratulations! —PaleoNeonate – 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics"

Discussion of a proposed consolidated Weapons of power in Hindu epics article is at Talk:Kurukshetra War#New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics". --Bejnar (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation bias and "synchromysticism"?

Confirmation bias is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, so I decided to ask for feedback here: Rune370 added a link from Confirmation bias to the newly created article "Synchromysticism", and I removed the link due to unclear relevance. (I searched for "synchromysticism" on Google Scholar and turned up only a few articles on "invented religions".) Rune370 has been creating related pages such as Template:Chaos magic and Gnosis (chaos magic) and Servitor (chaos magic) (which seems to me to be of very questionable notability) and linking some of them to more mainstream psychology articles. Any feedback on this would be appreciated: For example, does Servitor (chaos magic) appear notable? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Biogeographist. You're right, I've substantially written up the chaos magic article itself, in an attempt to bring it up to the same standard as articles on other occult belief systems like Wicca or Thelema. Now I'm attempting to write up good quality articles on various topics relating to chaos magic, and link to them from other articles that may be relevant, as per wikipedia guidelines: "Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole", etc.

The examples you give, Servitors and Gnosis, are both integral parts of chaos magic, that have been mentioned in every chaos magic text for the past 40 years or so. To give you some examples of "servitors" being mentioned:

-- Peter J. Carroll (1978), Liber Null & Psychonaut, p. 171. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tI90Xz9uY74C

-- Phil Hine (1998), Prime Chaos, multiple pages. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KGWnSQAACAAJ

-- Alan Chapman (2008), Advanced Magick for Beginners, p.97. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1lT7R6QD16oC

-- Andrieh Vitimus (2009), Hands-On Chaos Magic, pp.298, 299, 320, 328. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k7_U6HOBYXsC

I don't think it's contentious that there should be articles on various topics within a subject. There are a multitude of pages relating to topics from Wicca, for example: Wiccan Rede, Rule of Three (Wicca), Wiccan morality. This is standard practice on Wikipedia, and in doing this for chaos magic I'm just trying to bring the article up to the same standard. However, I welcome the chance to engage in a discussion about it. Rune370 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, this may be a little off topic -- and sorry if this seems like I'm not assuming good faith -- but it feels a little like you're criticising me and my activity, rather than any one specific article I've written. Whether "gnosis", "servitors" and "synchromysticism" are notable are surely three separate questions? The state of the chaos magic article before I put in any work was atrocious, it had barely been touched in a decade and was full of spurious, badly written content. Regardless of what you think of the topic, I am just trying to cover it in a way suitable for an encyclopaedia. Rune370 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rune370: Thanks for the further information; I will be interested to see if anyone else here will comment. My statement about the other articles that you created was not criticism of your activity, just background information, because when a link to a brand-new article on a subject that I have never heard of—namely "synchromysticism"—suddenly appears in an article on a subject that I know, this kind of background information provides some context.

The question about notability only relates to Servitor (chaos magic). Notability requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources, and I am not sure that being mentioned in the books that you listed above constitutes significant coverage. One metric that I consult when evaluating books is how many libraries in WorldCat have the book in their holdings, and none of the books that you listed above is widely held by libraries; Liber Null & Psychonaut is the most widely held, at around 40 libraries, which is still a low number. That number alone does not tell us much except that those books are not widely considered by librarians to be key reference books; the more important question is whether these are the reliable sources required by notability guidelines, and whether the mention of "servitor" in them constitutes significant coverage.

"Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole", as MOS:LINK says, but that doesn't mean that everything needs to be linked to everything else. In the lead of Synchromysticism you described it (quoting a source) as "existing on the fringe of areas already considered fringe", and so I assume it should be on the fringe of Wikipedia as well, and not prominently linked on a mainstream article unless there is a very good rationale for such a link. Biogeographist (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: I take your point about the links, perhaps I was a bit overzealous, and they should be rolled back.

Regarding the notability of Servitor (chaos magic). I think it depends on whether we're discussing significant coverage within the field of chaos magic, or significant coverage generally within the sphere of published discourse. Chaos magic is, of course, a niche topic. But servitors are a widely discussed topic within chaos magic. In fact, I've tried to focus on creating articles on topics that have been present from the very beginning of the movement: gnosis, servitors, kia, etc. All of those were introduced by Austin Osman Spare in the early 1900s. All the other chaos magic texts are secondary sources that comment on and analyse, and sometimes further develop those concepts, as introduced by Spare.

So I could provide tons of texts that refer to those topics. However, if we're aiming for significant coverage within the world, then I don't think the article crosses that bar. But is that what we're aiming for? Surely there are loads of Wikipedia pages that aren't widely discussed outside of niche areas -- mathematical concepts, for example?

Regarding the reliability of those sources, they're not self-published or primary (in that they're not introducing the concepts). But they are written by practioners of chaos magic, for a limited readership. Does that make them unreliable? They're reliable when it comes to describing what chaos magic consists of, I think. Rune370 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that establishing notability for a general topic requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and for a fringe theory, a topic "is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" it's not obvious that Servitor (chaos magic) meets notability. Of course, that doesn't apply to content within an article - one could easily have a section on "Servitors" within an article on chaos magic, but establishing notability for a stand-alone article is another matter entirely. --tronvillain (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I should probably just take this over there.--tronvillain (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just for reference, I've responded to this at Talk:Servitor_(chaos_magic) Rune370 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Activity

I am glad to see that there was so much activity here when I as mostly gone in the last few months. I'll consider updating the bot archival rate if necessary. Although this page is no substitute for WP:FTN, it is likely the ideal place to discuss new articles and for noncontroversial editing collaboration, as was done above. I see new editors and new articles, keep up the good work! —PaleoNeonate – 20:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It is nice to see some chatter. Sgerbic (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I'm tooling through the cleanup listing looking for something to work on and couldn't help but notice that its pretty inaccurate in a lot of places. I have no idea how to update it or what the criteria for doing so is but I'm willing to learn and take on at least some of that work. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bot just reports anything tagged with Wikiproject Skepticism that has an issue tag (cleanup, citation needed, expert needed, etc.) on the article. --tronvillain (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting and slightly confusing. I must be missing the tags. When I get back to it I'll have to check the page better. I suspect they're in the header on the talk page for the article then?Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What's a page you were looking at? --tronvillain (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to include section and inline tags as well as page tags? --tronvillain (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

An Example is Ancient astronauts. It's got to be pulling inline tags as well. Should have thought of that. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh derp. I just scrolled down and saw the section tag. laziness on my part Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Love that "derp" will try to use it in a sentence today. Sgerbic (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Update on YouTube feature linking to English Wikipedia articles

Hi all, Wikimedia Foundation staff have been working with YouTube to learn more about the feature (called information panels) developed by their team which will link to Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica articles from videos about conspiracy theories on YouTube. This announcement was first made in March of this year, and the feature will be rolled out starting this week. (This was previously discussed onwiki here, here, and here, amongst other places). We wanted to let folks know about the rollout and share more information about articles that may be impacted by the new feature. We have been supplied with a list of the initial English Wikipedia articles that they are going to be linking to. Those articles are: Global warming, Dulce Base, Lilla Saltsjöbadsavtalet, 1980 Camarate air crash, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Kecksburg UFO incident, and MMR vaccine.

The Foundation staff who are in contact with YouTube about the feature spoke with a handful of admins leading up to the rollout. From those conversations, we do not anticipate this will create a substantial increase in vandalism on English Wikipedia, but we will be monitoring this with the YouTube team. If you have any questions, concerns, or notice an increase in negative behavior on those articles, please let me or GVarnum-WMF know.

You can find an overview of the announcement from YouTube in this section of their latest blog post. We will update you here if we have more new information. Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, watchlisted. Some of those articles could also likely be improved... —PaleoNeonate – 10:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

leave it to the Skeptics I guess to clean this mess up. Sgerbic (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand the MMR and the FEMA and also Global warming, but some of these other choices are kinda odd. Well I get it but they wouldn't be the strongest. So how do you propose we get these correctly rewritten? We can do it by group discussion with one person taking the lede? Or if one of us wants to completely rewrite the page and check back with others if needed. I favor one person doing a page because that way the page is written in one voice and usually much quicker. Thoughts? Sgerbic (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll start with looking at updating MMR vaccine and work through updating here as I go.

As it stands I think the vaccine article reads pretty well and it's got a robust and frequent edit history going right up to 1 July 2018 but it can't hurt for someone from this project to take a thorough look at each of these. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the MMR article as it is. I added one citation as a further justification for administration of the vaccines as a combo and a wikilink to Vaccination in See also just to round it out. In my opinion anyone reading the article that doesn't have an anti-vaccine agenda is going to see it as neutral, basic information about it. Because we all know that the majority of people searching for MMR vaccine on google and watching videos about on YouTube are perfectly sane and rational individuals... Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I would also like to point at the WP:FTN thread on the same subject where some collaboration is also taking place. —PaleoNeonate – 18:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear are we going to duplicate the work? Guess we should move over there. Great work Mike! Sgerbic (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I like that more than one project is directed at it. Tension between camps leads to better articles through us being respectfully critical of each other. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Carrion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

• Done Sgerbic (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with new article creation

Hi all, I’m a little new here but I’ve created my first article. There was a consensus a while ago when I first put it up for review that it didn’t meet notability. I’ve done a lot of work since then, on advice from some experienced editors. Could I please ask you to read my page as it is now and tell me if it meets the notability standard before I publish? If it doesn’t, then I’d be happy to take any suggestions to strengthen it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:330highflyer/sandbox2 Thanks, 330highflyer (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it looks terrifc! Sgerbic (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments re the lede:

• "...is a retired computer programmer turned skeptic...". Programmers aren't sceptical until they retire?
• "...he is often called upon to explain mysterious phenomena in the media." Maybe it could be "...he is often called upon by the media to explain mysterious phenomena."

Don't mind me. You are certainly on the right track, and honouring the statement on your page -- "Just here to help make Wikipedia as accurate and informative as possible." Go for it. Moriori (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Couple good refs in there to give it notability for sure, go for it. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Good edit suggestions. Also I should have mentioned the language and style should avoid sounding like a personal CV or list of achievements, so I made a few tweaks. Also it could be the doc "Overcast" he appeared in gives science equal weight with conspiracy theories, hard to tell from the synopsis [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the feedback and help. And your comments have given me the confidence to publish. Very happy with the page now. 330highflyer (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

David Paulides

The Bigfoot hunter and Missing 411 conspiracy author David Paulides has posted to his blog here that his bio on WP needs correction. There have been multiple IP editors attempting to remove criticism - likely as a result. An interesting conversation is happening on the Talk page! Mostly, so far, just regarding attempts to remove the label cryptozoologist. RobP (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fans of Paulides are once again attempting to dilute criticism in his article. Please chime in! RobP (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for deletion (discussion here)

Hey so an article in your project (Examination of Apollo Moon photographs) (and one I believe relevant to your interests) has been nominated for AfD by yours truly. Article has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc. So if you'd like to contribute to that discussion, go ahead and check out --->Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination). Thanks!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Need some help on Anthroposophy and its related articles, particularly Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture

Hi all, I don't know if this is the right place, but these articles definitely need some attention. I'm just posting here to try and solicit help on revamping the many Anthroposophy-related articles. For many years, these articles have had pervasive POV issues mostly due to hyper-involved single-purpose editors with COIs. The articles in question are Anthroposophy, Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture. Most of these articles read like promotional material and desperately need our help. To get more specific Anthroposophic medicine is actually pretty good, but the others in that list are pretty good examples of WP:BROCHURE.

I could give you the diffs and the many ArbCom rulings, ANI postings, etc. (and will if asked) but suffice it to say that there is a very small group of editors who are themselves professionally linked to Anthroposophy and Waldorf education who are gatekeeping the articles so that all edits are filtered through their lens. As a result, many of the criticisms and less-favorable aspects of the history of this new age religion are dimmed in favor of excessive detail about the adherents' beliefs and positive praises of the subject material.

I of course want these articles to detail the beliefs of anthroposophists, no question about that. But overly favorable language and WP:WEASEL words are pretty rampant throughout. Then the many racist and unscientific views of adherents (anti-vax, anti-microbial theory of disease, their founder Steiner didn't believe in evolution, believed in racial "types", reincarnation, believed Jewish people should fully assimilate and abandon all Jewish identifiers, etc.) are minimized and reduced in size, book-ended with positive praise, and so on. Combine that with the overly wrought language and hyper-sophistry of the article text, and you have what we see today. I will tell you that if you agree to help me, you may become exhausted in the process. But if the wiki itself is less promotional in the process, it will have been worth it!!

Please don't come into this process with fiercely pro- or anti-Steiner views. The guy was just a random 19th century philosopher who had some interesting and crazy ideas. The only reason I'm interested in these articles is because of how clearly they are an example of what can happen when a very diligent, very obsessive, very biased group of editors are 99% of the edits on a set of controversial articles.

I personally am starting with the root article Anthroposophy and then hope to expand to revamp the daughter articles in the series. I've tried in the past to help bring these articles to NPOV, but was unsuccessful like many before me due to attrition, wiki-breaks, and a general dissatisfaction dealing with the very involved COI-editors. So I'm hoping that asking for help from more uninvolved editors will do the trick. Any takers? Thanks. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If COI is an issue as you have suggested, WP:COIN may be able to help with the COI issues. Biogeographist (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to post on COIN if the ArbCom has already resolved that one editor has a COI? And then a COI notice exists on the talk page, but the editor in question just doesn't care and has continued to edit the article almost exclusively over the course of 10+ years? Is there really anything I can do about it other than ask nicely for the editor to recuse themselves?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendrick

Hello, this page is up for deletion and I think this group would be interested in it. Malcolm Kendrick has promoted conspiracy theories about cholesterol and statins. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

OMG what a mess - Reading that talk page is like waking up to the day after a rain and you go outside and there are worms and snails all over the sidewalk and you think, where were these worms and snails before the rain? And then you just have to step over them carefully cause you don't want to squish one and slip and then land on your butt on one of them and you have snail goo on your clothes the rest of the day. That is what this AfD looks like to me. I guess I'll have to wander over and make a vote after looking over that massive Malcolm Kendrick Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I found out how the snails and worms learned about the AfD. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/12/03/dr-malcolm-kendrick-deletion-from-wikipedia/?fbclid=IwAR1PXT480mxVx3LBV4bSe8h4Jj2GHD2yjuW_diqra-UbNK1F4_Y2u-s9Fqg Sgerbic (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is all over twitter as the low-carb diet fanbase and cholesterol conspiracy theorists [2], [3], [4] have gone mad with their misinformation that Wikipedia is trying to shut them down and that I am some evil vegan activist. I simply submitted his article for deletion because of lack of reliable sources. I rarely delete anything on Wikipedia, most of my edits add content to articles. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I find that when making a nomination for AfD less is more. Simple statement of "Topic fails on (insert fail point) because (insert reasons)". Cuts down on the riff raff coming out of the woodwork like this. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree Mike. This is such a mess of trolls. I tried to very simply state my case with my delete vote. We would waste hours trying to educate these people, they don't understand the rules at all. Sgerbic (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory that Wikipedia (or myself and other skeptics) are trying to delete articles for low-carb high-fat diet advocates or cholesterol deniers is false. We have pages on Nina Teicholz, Tim Noakes, Aseem Malhotra and Uffe Ravnskov with many reliable references. I even created a category for them. Malcolm Kendrick has a lack of reliable sources that mention his work. There is no conspiracy theory to remove him off Wikipedia. If there was reliable sources I would add them and expand his article, but little to none exist. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Closed with a delete. What a mess that was, but it is over. Sgerbic (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Paranormal TV series episode description cleanup

I find the episode descriptions in ghost/paranormal TV show articles often riddled with extreme promotional hype, WP:COPYVIO, WP:V and WP:PROFRINGE problems. Here's just one example. This type of cleanup is fairly simple, but it does take time. Volunteers are appreciated at articles such as List of Ghost Adventures: Aftershocks episodes, Ghost Brothers and The Othersiders. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL you're right! I'll do the Paranormal Lockdown Season 2 summaries, using the one you did as a model. Should get to it within 48h. Robincantin (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and Category:Paranormal reality television series is always a good place to find articles in need of help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Fat Head

Afd opened for Fat Head, an unscientific conspiracy theory documentary. Cannot find a single reliable source that mentions this documentary. Perhaps someone else can take a look? MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)