Talk:Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing

Criticism
I added a section heading for Criticism because it is not clear that the bulk of the article content is critical unless one reads it in detail and I think it needs to be made plain, it's what section headings are for. But another editor deleted it on the grounds that it invites a countering "praise" section. I disagree with that - sources for criticism are far more likely to pass WP:RS than sources for praise and woo merchants will be trying to sneak in the praise anyway. What do folks think about restoring that section heading? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS discourages such sections; criticism and discussion of controversies should be blended in with other content. In FRINGE articles such a section absolutely invites woo-pushers to add praise, which is a reason why we don't do this on woo articles.  If this article is kept, almost the whole thing will be criticism. There is no reason to label it.   Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

QuackWatch
Anybody know why this is not on the list of Nonrecommended Periodicals of QuackWatch? --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea, but you could always email Dr. Barrett and ask. I'd be interested too. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wondered about emailing about this, too - my guess is that its omission is an oversight. EdChem (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK Nomination
I have nominated the article for DYK. It has expanded five-fold, and with the AfD closed is now eligible for nomination. I named as expanders myself,, , and. If anyone else believes they should be included, or any of the three editors I mentioned don't wish to be credited, please say something. EdChem (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing me, but my contributions were more directed towards limiting the expansion of the article (which I think has now become a rather bloated hatchet job), so I don't think crediting me with expanding the journal is justified. And I also rather doubt that a DYK is a good idea, because the article content really is not very stable at the moment. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to echo Randykitty here, and my role was mostly to cut down on random crap, rather than expand on it. I suspect one could argue we've curated the expansion, as done by others, but don't really see that worthy of a DYK credit. I also share some concerns about the appropriateness of this as a DYK. It's a bit of a WP:COATRACK, but it's been cut down significantly from the long-winded attack page it was a while ago. As far as I can tell, the current version does fairly reflect the status of this journal (as seen through WP:V/WP:RS), but I also feel it's a bit one-sided and missing some remarks on how quacks perceive this journal / the journal's (or editor's) response to criticism (if they have any), similar to how we cover it in Journal of Cosmology. Not sure if that's enough to prevent a DYK about the journal, or just enough to prevent a bump from C to B / B to Good or whatever. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed credits as requested. I think adding some reliably-sourced comments / remarks on perceptions from the advocates would be appropriate, though well-attributed as their views and not uncontested fact.  I made additions that noted refinement would be appropriate, that doesn't make my work "random crap" nor a "long-winded attack page."  Please bear in mind where it started, the context of the AfD and NJournals controversy, and the views that anything the journal says is unreliable even in describing itself and when presented as its self-description rather than as an objectively factual statement.  I don't think all the recent changes that have been made are improvements but I haven't fought about them nor criticised those making them, and I would appreciate being offered the same courtesy.  it will likely be at least a couple of weeks working through DYK processes, this will bring in fresh views (I hope), and lead to improvements. General comment / request:  Surely we (collectively) can have disagreements without needing to make comments which reflect negatively on editors, even if only by implication rather than by editor-focused comments?  Can we at least agree we are all pursuing quality encyclopaedic content for readers?  EdChem (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Article about mediumship in Brazil
This publication on Explore Investigating the Fit and Accuracy of Alleged Mediumistic Writing: A Case Study of Chico Xavier’s Letters was commented positively by brazilian media, e.g., here and here. But brazilian science journalists says that "no", and "A conclusão, a esta altura, deve ser óbvia: o artigo não só falha em estabelecer o que parte da mídia diz que estabelece – a realidade da comunicação de Chico Xavier com os mortos – como ainda é fraco demais, até mesmo, para cumprir a tarefa mais modesta que lhe foi dada pelos próprios autores: a de enfraquecer a tese científica dominante de que a mente não passa de uma função do cérebro." and no again. The last author, a brazilian parapsychologist pt:Alexander Moreira-Almeida, replies. Ixocactus (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)