Talk:Center for Inquiry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Permission to use copyright has been given.

unsigned comment by User_talk:
Thanks, under which license? <drini > 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I have written for confirmation of permission. --Ngb ?!? 18:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Confirmation received; Amanda Chesworth at the Center writes, 'I don't know this user and we didn't give permission but we would like to now'. --Ngb ?!? 06:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


I added a little material to the article and added a lot of Wiki links and italics. Does it still need improvement? Bubba73 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! The Center for Inquiry is highly influential in Secular Humanism, the scientific community and in governmental views of science (and arguably what is perceived as "scientific"). This needs to be addressed. Additionally, the dogmatic and evangelical approach of the Center needs to be addressed. This has a large impact on the Secular Humanist movement and the scientific community. Clarifying its distinctive approach to humanism and empiricism would be useful. Vassyana 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
if it is "highly inflluential" in those areas you can add it. I disagree with what you say about "dogmatic and evangelical approach", and putting that in there would be POV. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Their own "unique mission" page clearly shows their evangelical stance. To try and pretend this is not the same rhetoric evangelical religious groups use is hypocracy. Their pages about their "cosmic world view" shows but an edge of their viciously anti-religious version of secular humanism. It would be contrary to NPOV to whitewash the organization and fail to discuss their dogmatically anti-religious stance or their clearly evangelical mission. Vassyana 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I suspect we would not be even having this discussion if they were explicitly a religious organization. Vassyana 07:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone have any suggestions on how to handle this while maintaining solid NPOV? I am wary of being overly critical of the Center in addressing these "religious" qualities. However, the self-aggrandizing material borrowed from the Center for the article has a great need to be cleaned up and balanced. Ideas?
Someone could rewrite it in their own words. Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a NPOV problem evident here passim in the article. To begin to edge toward some semblance of reasonable balance, it needs a critical section discussing the Center for Inquiry's lack of tolerance for pluralism and diversity (see, e.g., the phrase "to oppose and supplant" those who might beg to differ here: The organization is clearly more than pseudo-religiously evangelistic: its tone is obstinately one-sided, dogmatically militant, even cult-like in its anti-religious, self-defensive frenzy. It's sad to see this organization slip into the very inhumanity it wants to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see evidence of lack of "pluralism and diversity" other than your own research on CFI's web pages? If you can find some reliable sources that discuss this, you are welcome to add such material with appropriate citations to the sources. But it sounds to me like you personally disagree with the organization and want your thoughts expressed in the article. That's not always appropriate. This article is about an advocacy group that has a definite point of view about rationality and religion. That may be in opposition to other people's views but that doesn't make it an more "cult-like" or "obsessive" than any other group that is advocating a particular philosophy or policy. Krelnik (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


An "importance" tag has been put on the article. The criteria for importance is:

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

  • 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
  • 2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
  • 3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

I believe that this article meets both #1 and #2. Also, there are at least ten articles that link to it, not counting talk pages, redirects, and WikiProject pages. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then too there's the fact that Nobel laureates like Leon Lederman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, and Francis Crick, and many other important intellectual leaders (such as Carl Sagan, his widow Ann Druyan, Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Neill de Grasse Tyson, E.O. Wilson, and so on), have played leading roles in founding and/or supporting the work of the Center for Inquiry, its Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and other divisions. Many of the world's leading scholars and scientists write for its publications. And if that's not enough to explain CFI's importance, there's much more I could list. Askolnick 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, CSICOP itself has a very long list of articles which link to it. CPI is the parent organization of CSICOP. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we can take the "importance" tag off. Any opinions or discussion? Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the "importance" tag. If even for no other reason, the article is important because at least ten other articles link to it. If the article is removed as being unimportant, then there will be at least ten dead links. Perhaps someone could expand on the importance of the CFI in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Should be merged with Center_for_Inquiry_-_On_Campus as on campus is a minor affiliated org, does not have enough info or notability for own article. -THB 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems OK to merge the "On campus" artice into this one. Bubba73 (talk), 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I see no reason for the merger. Google search for the exact string, "center for inquiry on campus", brings up over 14,000 hits. It seems notable enough in its own right. The article needs time to expand and develop. --George100 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for committee on religion. Articles appear to be an attempt to inflate importance of organization. Committees and sub-comittees of even notable organizations do not normally meet standards of notability to have a separate article. -THB 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger of CSER and CFI. The Center for Inquiry article describes indpendent councils and committees. CSER has existed since 1983--twenty years before the Center where it is now accommodated. It is to the Center what JFK School is to Harvard. Merger is not needed. Article justified by hits as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Oppose merger of CSER and CFI. CSER was founded as an independent committee and serves a very specific, specialized purpose that distinguishes it from the Center in which it is now housed. Separate page is not an attempt to inflate importance, but merely to illustrate that distinction. --Gwynarina 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger of CFI and CSER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

And ditto again for Center for Inquiry Libraries. Interestingly enough, it has not had any genuine contributions since creation and only link to it is Center for Inquiry. -THB 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

New section for subdivisions[edit]

I've added the section, CFI Organizations and Programs, with subsections for each of the CFI organizations and links to the pages in question. I oppose the mergers but a directory is needed in any case.

Also this section should be combined with the CFI Divisions section. ---George100 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you oppose the merger, then you need to state so in the Merger section above. Bubba73 (talk), 14:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As chair of CSER, I find this whole discussion preposterous. CSER actually pre-dates the foudning of Cdenter for Inquiry and in in no weay co-terminous. Are you able to merge the JFK School of government with Harvard. Same principle. Please remove this tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The way it works is that if you oppose the merger, then you should state so in that section. If the consensus is against the merger, then it will be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. CSER is a distinguished research organization of some 100 scholars worldwide. No reason for the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Unclear how this discussion originated. The Center for Inquiry is a consortium. CSER, CSICOP and CSER are autonomous divisions with specialized functions. This flag should be removed because it reflects complete unfamiliarity with our organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Comment I don't see any consensus for merging. The only one in favor of merging is the one who proposed it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


This article has been thoroughly rewritten since January, and I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. I think the advert tag should be removed. -George100 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to it being removed. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. -THB


Merged Center for Inquiry - On Campus and Center for Inquiry Libraries but not Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. -THB 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any consensus on the merger for the On campus. --George100 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Center for Inquiry[edit]

(Moved from User:THB's talk page)

Why did you merge Center for Inquiry - On Campus into Center for Inquiry? There was no consensus for that on the talk page. --George100 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus on anything. There was opposition to merging CSER so it wasn't. Two for, 1 against merging -On Campus, no one commented on the Libraries at all. So I decided to be bold and merge the latter two into Center for Inquiry. If you noticed, most of the links went to a redirect page at the old name anyway. The two or three small paragraphs about the on campus group make more sense in context anyhow. My thinking is it never should have been a separate article at all, but that when there is enough information about it in the Center for Inquiry article, it should be separated. -THB 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one I see for the Campus merger was you. I said it was "OK", but I wasn't for it. I later noted that there was no consus, and no one was in favor of the mergers, except THB. Bubba73 (talk), 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Centerforinquiry.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Centerforinquiry.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Since 1983?[edit]

"Religion, ethics, and society The Center promotes, through its connection with Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, critical inquiry into the foundations and social effects of the world religions. Since 1983 it has focused on such issues as fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam, humanistic alternatives to religious ethics, and religious sources of political violence. It is also the home of its affiliated organization, the Council for Secular Humanism, publisher of Free Inquiry magazine, a bi-monthly journal of secular humanist thought and discussion."

This refers to a date before CFI was started. Also, there's no citation for this. What's up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofurson (talkcontribs) 17:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I think the whole page is quite confusing. This is one of many areas where I found it hard to figure out what is going on with CFI. I looked at Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion and it looks like it was founded under another organisation prior to establishment of the CFI and only later became part of the Center. But it's far from clear. If I can figure it out I will try to fix it. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
OK it's taken me an age but I've tried to make it clearer. I've taken out some of the internal structure stuff (which wasn't encyclopaedic or even interesting in my view); fixed broken citations, added some new ones where they were lacking; added critical and independent citations which was a big shortcoming, and also added some pictures from commons. It looks like I have somehow also broken all the pictures so now I have to fix that. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)