Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism

Re-rate Sean M. Carroll

Hello. In your project, Sean M. Carroll is rated C-class but the article has been expended vastly in the last 6 months. What about re-evaluating its class? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of absence

Evidence of absence needs work, esp. Proving a negative. I flagged the section, including adding CNs, and added it to this project. I also made a section on its Talk to discuss this. I found it because I got into an argument on Zoom about proving a negative (re god) due to absence of evidence - and the person points me at this WP article as proof you CAN prove such a negative... (So if you cannot prove god doesn't exist, he does). RobP (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I have this arguments, they are just a giant circle. How bad is the article Evidence of absence, can we just say that there is no evidence that the page is bad so therefore the page must be in good shape? Sgerbic (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That person is just mistaken in their interpretation of the article. See also Russell's Teapot and Hitchens's Razor. Another editor once disingenuously made the argument that because of a lack of evidence, we can state in Wikivoice that supernatural things "do not exist". This is also a mistaken interpretation of these concepts, as both positive claims and negative claims are both claims, and as such, both require evidence to be logical. MarshallKe (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Logic fail there, but anyway Wikipedia follows sources and if they say things don't exist (like qi), Wikipedia neutrally follows. Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to bring back the qi discussion because everyone talked until blue in the face. We didn't agree on what the sources said, and we didn't agree on which of us is failing at logic, and the consensus was to change your "does not exist" text to something less bad. MarshallKe (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the point was we did agree (that "neither qi nor meridians exist as observable phenomena"), and I made a nice improvement to the text accordingly. Things (like The Death Star) can "exist" as fiction. So for qi. Consensus is a great force. Alexbrn (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Come off your high horse, Alex. You lost that discussion and the only reason the wording didn't go further against your favor is because you won through sheer frustration of everyone involved. MarshallKe (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Danth's Law strikes again. If in doubt, return to WP:FT/N for a reality check, although personally I wouldn't recommend it when the consensus text is good. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WINNING. We're all in this together. There does not need to be winners and losers. jps (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome

Ok Skeptical folks... as years pass and and no indisputable evidence is uncovered proving the Havana Syndrome is the result of proposed but undiscovered sci-fi weapons, the likelihood that it is all due to mass psychogenic illness, the hypothesis put forward by the expert Robert Bartholomew, seems to be growing. YET, the Wikipedia page IMHO does not reflect this. And editors have kept this hypothesis totally out of the lead. What are we to do? RobP (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In connection with this, the topic is being discussed on Administrators noticeboard! RobP (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And now it has sparked discussions in several other locations, including: here, and here. RobP (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome RfC

I have opened an RfC on the Havana Syndrome talk page. Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC: Is "Science Vs" a Reliable Source and does it support the addition of my proposed text?DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Postmodernism, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

BLP noticeboard discussion re: Michael Shermer

An article related to this project, Michael Shermer, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Shermer. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Inside Job

Conspiracy theories seem to be hot now, so it's nice to see a show that treats them with the "respect" they deserve. I'm talking about the new Netflix animated series: Inside Job. It pokes fun at every fringe claim and conspiracy theory out there. This review takes a unique look at the show from a skeptical movement perspective. If anyone thinks it makes sense to add it to the Reception section, have at it. RobP (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect of Peter A. Levine to Somatic experiencing.

 Discussion ongoing...
Talk:Somatic experiencing § Proposed merge: Peter A. Levine → Somatic experiencing ––Formal ^talk 04:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Rfc on Falsifiability

Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability#RfC:_Adding_a_challenging,_counterintuitive_but_instructive_and_well_sourced_example_in_the_lead. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

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 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)