File talk:WP RationalSkepticism Logo.PNG

Comments
Is the incorrect Latin meant to be ironic?--MWAK (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe "A dubitatione Veritas"  would be better and WP:GL should be informed about it. Please let's try to avoid unconstructive sarcasm. Thanks.   M  aurice     C arbonaro     10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't completely rule out that a certain sarcasm was part of my mood in 2008 :o), but the question was mainly motivated by an honest puzzlement. For whatever the value of doubt, there can be no doubt that the Latin is plain wrong! (In fact, it reminded me of the pseudo-Latin used in Terry Pratchett's books, the world's best-selling humorist, so I thought: "Maybe it isn't ignorance, it's irony").--MWAK (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hallo there, MWAK (talk). I was kinda surprised to find your answer here this morning... I guess this talk page is on your wp:Watchlist and you have been informed by mail about changes. Anyway... yes, it's interesting to notice that you acknowledged some sarcasm involved in your criticism... but again you criticize the "plain wrong" Latin (!) I am not Latin language expert even if I have studied this "dead language" in High school for five years more than 30 years ago. But at least I have tried my best in giving a contribution with "A dubitatione Veritas"  : I decapitalized the "d" in  dubitatione  on purpose and capitalized the "V" in  Veritas  on purpose because linguistically speaking the process shows an "improvement in time". Concering your reference to the pseudo-latin used in Terry Pratchett's books that you quote as a "best-selling humorist" (but also fantasy novels) ahem... AND SO? I could quote [[Alessandro Manzoni (1785-1883) for using in his The Betrothed novel ("I promessi sposi") the funny word  "latinorum"  (plural genitive instead of subject nominative singular  "latinum"  ) when Renzo, a farmer with no formal education at all that is trying to marry her beloved Lucia, refers to the lawyer  "Dr. Azzeccagarbugli"  (Dr. Quibbleweaver), that should help them get married even if a local youngman with no scruples wants to force marriage with her (the "Unnamed"). But as you can see our conversation is ending in spirals talking us nowhere without targeting what was our aim at the very beginning. Finding some improvement to this alleged  "incorrect latin"  that aims to be  "ironic"  with which you came up with. Which, IMHO, is not THAT important after all. Also the french painter René Magritte used to paint surrealistic drawings like "Territory (1957)". Please let's try to focus on what are we talking about:  "Art"  (with a capital "A") or about  "classical latin"  (with lower cases "c" and "l")? I don't know. Maybe we should agree not to disagree in this topic. Thanks for reading me.   M  aurice     C arbonaro     07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed :o).--MWAK (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Call for discussion: Adopt interrobang as symbol for skepticism
from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism I propose a vote to adopt the interrobang as a symbol for wikiproject skepticism and skepticism. This symbol indicates a rhetorical question where the inventor chose the name to reference the punctuation marks that inspired it: interrogatio is Latin for "a rhetorical question" or "cross-examination". This is an informal discussion. Your input is requested. All comments are welcome, but please at least consider leaving at least a template response. Kyle(talk) 22:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Kyle, an interesting proposal! As you probably know, this is the current project logo (on the right): a question mark superimposed on a picture of the Earth, with the text Ex Dubius Veritas (From Doubt [Comes] Truth). I actually quite like that one, except that I think it's grammatically incorrect: Ex indicates Dubius should be in ablative, so Dubio (I see I'm not the first one to notice this). That can easily be fixed though, if we want to keep it. An appealing alternative might be the UFO puzzle icon, which many Wikipedians use to say they're a skeptic, or is used as a symbol for members of the (currently dormant) Dutch Wikiproject Skepticism.


 * On the interrobang, I like its meaning as "cross-examination", which is very much in line with skepticism, but not the "rhetorical question" meaning, because rhetoric can be used to mislead people into thinking something is obvious just because someone says it persuasively, and obstruct critical thought, which is the opposite of what skepticism is about.


 * But more important that either of those is whether it is already widely used within the skeptical movement to symbolise skepticism. (As Wikipedians, we're only describing what the facts are, not what they ought to be; we can't decide here that X should be the symbol of Y just because we'd like there to be a symbol for Y. At most, we can only decide on a symbol for this project because it's our own invention). I happened to have done a lot of uploading of logos of skeptical organisations in the past c. 1.5 years; most can be found here on Commons or here on English Wikipedia. And there actually is a wide variety of symbols being used, although common elements are the question mark, the magnifying glass, brains, and speech balloons or thought bubbles.


 * What may also be interesting is what Michael Marshall said about using The Thinker (like his own Good Thinking Society does) versus Sisyphus (as the Czech Skeptics do) to symbolise skepticism.
 * The interrobang itself is, as far as I know, only used by Skepsis Norge (Norwegian Skeptics; I'm preparing an English page for them), and Skepticule, a British skeptical podcast. So it would seem it's not a common symbol for skepticism at all, and something with a question mark (as it is right now) or magnifier would seem more appropriate. (But I'm mostly familiar with European skepticism, so I may well have missed skeptics' usage of it elsewhere). In summation, I don't think the interrobang is apt to symbolise this project, let alone all of skepticism, and I'd favour a simple correction of Ex Dubio Veritas or the UFO puzzle to symbolise just this project. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well this is an interesting conversation. I've never heard of a Interrobang before, and have never seen it used. Like Leeuw writes, most groups use the question mark, or a magnifying glass. My local group uses a thought bubble with a question mark in it (coming out of a sea lion's brain). I really like the puzzle piece with the UFO and am going to put that on my user page after I post this. But I think it might be too UFO focused. Maybe just a puzzle piece with a question mark over it? Is this a symbol that will just be used here on Wikipedia in this group? I'm going to keep my options open to see what else is suggested. Thanks for starting the discussion.Sgerbic (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The request for Ex Dubio Veritas makes sense to me. What about a combination effort? Here is a sample logo with the new text below a reworked high-res world under the interrobang. Fonts, colors, question mark and style can change as needed upon consensus. Kyle(talk) 07:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Ex dubio veritas interrobang.png
 * Sorry, perhaps I'm just dumb but I am having trouble understanding just what you are proposing. What is this symbol for?  Where will it be used, by whom, to indicate what?  Does this relate to Wikipedia, or is it something you want to put on a bumper sticker on your car?--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * though I'd still favour the question mark over the interrobang, and I prefer its former colours. @Sgerbic and Gronk Oz, this will only be here for this Wikiproject. As I tried to explain, we cannot decide on a unified symbol for skepticism if there is no consensus in the real world on one yet; if anything, it's a magnifying glass or a question mark, not an interrobang. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can update the existing logo image while we discuss alternatives. Moving on from the ill-favored interrobang; we might consider incorporating a platonic solid, or a symbol known to exist before Plato such as Metatron's Cube or Adinkra symbols.


 * My preference among these items is the ball and stick tetrahedron. Kyle(talk) 04:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't see the relevance of those symbols to scientific skepticism and the modern skeptical movement. But they may well fit on your bumper sticker as Gronk Oz suggested. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have explained the link between platonic solids and skepticism. Plato was a student of Socrates who was profoundly concerned about the nature of knowledge. An examination of fundamental (and often simple constructs) was used to determine the fundamental basis for understanding. He described these fundamentals in many ways; including an examination of the platonic solids. These ideas and the discussion about building a framework of knowledge from prior more fundamental constructs is the basis of our system for knowledge today. These concepts are now found throughout philosophy, mathematics, science, medicine, and art. The platonic solids could be representative of our basis for modern knowledge and philosophy.Kyle(talk) 18:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ I have updated the existing logo per discussion. No change to symbols per (lack of) consensus to change. I will leave this as ❌ Kyle(talk) 04:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 04:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While you were at it, you might have corrected the Latin...--MWAK (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From February 9: "I'd favour a simple correction of Ex Dubio Veritas"; which was in fact changed. Ex Dubius Veritas -> Ex Dubio Veritas. Do you agree this is now correct? Kyle(talk) 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The text already was Ex dubio veritas. This is not correct. Dubius is an adjective, the noun is dubitatio, so the phrase should be Ex dubitatione veritas. The only way Ex dubio veritas makes sense in Latin would be to interpret dubio as the ablative of dubium, "a doubtful thing". But then the meaning is opposite to the intended one. I presume it was not the intention to claim that truth sprouts forth from flying saucers or surviving sauropods in the Congo basin. Although this would be quite tenable from a Popperian point of view ;o).--MWAK (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of latin remains Popperian. Unless we have an objection I will change the text to Ex dubitatione veritas. I will refrain from adding the flying saucer and sauropod with saddle however. Kyle(talk) 20:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kyle(talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)