Template talk:RationalSkepticismCollaboration

Skepticism Template‑class Low‑importance

	This template 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
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current Collaboration[edit]

Future Collaborations[edit]

Please nominate and vote for Collaboration Efforts here.

Chiroquackery needs to be opposed. Right now there is an editing war going on. -- Fyslee 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm not too interested getting the entire project involved in an edit war ~~just as we're starting up. Possibly later on.~~ at all. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Lamar Keene would be an interesting topic. A "reformed psychic" from previous century. Doesn't exist yet even in stub form, but is linked to by True-believer syndrome. Qarnos 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nothing like good old research and starting an article from scratch. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hitchhiker89^talk 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong supportLjstg 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (I am a reformed true believer.) Andries 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I started the article, based on what little information I could find. I've ordered his book. Bubba73 (talk), 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul may need some expansion. As usual, the bias is tending in favor of the subject of the article. The "Philosophical views" section only contains Plato's, Socrates' and Aristotle's views of the soul and use of the word. What about Hume, Hobbes, Russell, etc? We should expand it with philosophical criticisms. Robert Todd Carroll's article on it is a good place to start. http://skepdic.com/soul.html Maprov
- SupportLjstg 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Excellent and highly noteworthy topic to sink our teeth into, and one of the most prone to bias on Wikipedia. (Wikipedians who don't believe that they have a human soul are vastly less common than humans who don't believe in God, for example.) -Silence 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sathya Sai Baba, may be somebody could add some skeptic information from the Indian Skeptic by Basava Premanand. The current article is blocked from editing due to an edit war and is under mediation between me and two other users. Feel free to editUser:Andries/Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell incident The last time I looked at this article, it was a huge mess. This will be a big undertaking. Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Fireballs This is a small article, but very one-sided. There aren't many good references/sources for it. Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Klass The bulk of this article is criticism of Klass by extreme pro-UFO people. The criticism is very POV. Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paranormal simply links to Anomalous phenomenon. I think there should be a seperate article about paranormal. Compare and contrast to pseudoscience, etc. Four months ago I started on such an article (off-line) but didn't get it in good enough shape to make a new article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Instead of creating a new article, which could turn into a POV fork in time, why not just expand the existing article with more information about the paranormal? The only difference between "anomalous phenomenon" and "paranormal" is a terminological and connotational one, and thus determining what topics to cover in one or the other would violate WP:NOR and[ [WP:NPOV]]. For example, if we covered Bigfoot in "paranormal" and Ghosts in "anomalous phenomena", it would clearly demonstrate a bias, or at least an arbitrary and useless distinction. -Silence 20:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyslee" -- Fyslee 19:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Projection This article is fairly one-sided and could use some skeptic love. I added a few links for criticism but it really needs a lot more. Jredwards 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seance Before I got to it, the article was a blatent endorsement. Could use major changes.

Ghost Hunters and The Atlantic Paranormal Society could use balancing opinions. LuckyLouie 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine and Megavitamin therapy could use some help given the tight grip certain editors have over these articles. -- Cri du canard 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsing is a mess and has been tagged NPOV since forever. If anyone has the time, take a look and see if there is any possible fix to remove the tag. SuMadre 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SupportWikidudeman ^(talk) 11:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology This article is nothing more than a POV bias rant. It has no detailed criticism. It's sources are very unreliable and one sided. It's overall tone is very POV. It needs massive work.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite interested editors to have a look at Rorschach inkblot test. There is an ongoing edit war between apparently unreconcilable camps about whether to show a blot in the article. Also, if anyone has time and interest I'm working on Fashionable Nonsense, but I seem to have run out of steam. Freud, Psychoanalysis and Repressed memory could use a look over as well.MarkAnthonyBoyle 12:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy has had numerous statements suggest that unproven treatments are effective despite evidence to the contrary. They both contain large critiques of the scientific process used to evaluate their field and are very selective in the evidence that is included. Specifically, evidence that makes either of these related disciplines look bad is excluded.JamesStewart7 10:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Horowitz is an article about a quack and AIDS conspiracy theorist that currently reads like it was written by the man itself. It's in desperate need of a NPOV work-over. Please do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CronoDAS (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Attraction just had its criticism section deleted, and the criticism scattered throughout the article makes it seem like it only comes from scientists, and that the Law of Attraction is accepted by everyone else. I feel this article is important, since too many people embrace this pseudoscience as self-help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ships at a Distance (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Huggins is a new article with lots of problems. It is tagged because of multiple policy and style problems and needs a cleanup. I have provided a number of sources on its talk page which can be used. -- Fyslee / talk 15:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science and the Bible is the most biased article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation Seems to be dominated by a group of editors with a bias towards promoting this form of mediation as a cure all to all disease conditions. There is an attempt to support this with research in many obscure journals while the research itself is funded and conducted by members of the organization in question (Citations of alternative research with different less conclusive findings appears to be actively blocked or contested). The talk-pages (including those archived) suggest many long-time members may have affiliations with said organization. Needs close NPOV attention Tuckerj1976 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Muscle Stimulation is a quackery-related article that seems in need of attention; I was under the impression that belts that are advertised as increasing muscle tone by giving you electric shocks were found to be generally useless (and were therefore a kind of quackery); this page doesn't seem to discuss this. CronoDAS (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Collaborations[edit]

Proposed Future collaboration: Scientific skepticism[edit]

Its a bad, bad muddled article. Needs a lot of re-writing. --Havermayer 22:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity for Inter-project Collaboration[edit]

WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology have proposed a collaboration to improve Placebo, an article that is supported by this WikiProject. If this topic interests you, and you would like to help (in large ways or small) improve this article through collaborative editing, please go to the WPMED project's collaboration page and sign your name (~~~~) to show your support. The next collaboration will be chosen in about five days, and the article with the most votes from potential collaborators is chosen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]