Talk:Pavel Štěpánek

Unreliable sources
This article uses entirely fringe sources. Indeed, it even uses fringe sources for the tiny-bit of pseudocriticism it includes

If one of your references is:


 * Keil, H. H. J. (1990). How a skeptic misrepresents the research with Stepanek: A review of Martin Gardner's How Not To Test A Psychic. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 151-167.

A source from a fringe journal blasting a well-known, respected scientist, but you do NOT bother to include Martin Gardner's actual book or any other criticism of the subject, then the article's POV. this is a fringe subject. It's clear criticism exists. Wikipedia policy requires that it be included. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 04:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The tagger offers the adjectival slight of "fringe sources," "fringe journal," and so on, as sole justification for her/his slight against the information as "biased." There is no point of discussion offered in such adjectives; we can not reasonably be invited to simply juggle adjectives about the sources of knowledge in the encyclopedic representation of knowledge. Let us also note how an article by a psychologist at a respected research institution is here debased, in a few colorful terms, in relation to (we might colorfully rejoin) a science fanzine columnist on mini-math-puzzles. If the critique by the author Gardner were independently evaluated as a triumph of science, we should hasten to add it to our reading list. However, the references in the field to which this work is offered find it to be quite unacademic and unscholarly. We await a secondary source commending the title. What, in any case, is the substantive point, beyond personal dislike? --Rodgarton 12:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. All of which this article is contravening. The attack on Martin Gardener is quite staggering and tells us more about you than Martin. Pseudoscience journals reject accusations of pseudoscience? Colour me surprised. Verbal chat  16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Found a decent critical source, removed some poorly-sourced or unsourced puffery, and think the article is now within NPOV guidelines, as it at least reflects the mainstream view. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as TR by SshibumXZ In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Pavel Stepanek → Pavel Štěpánek – Name's correct spelling is "Pavel Štěpánek". There is no reason why it cannot be rendered with the appropriate diacritics. The "move" function did not work, likely because there is already a redirect page named "Pavel Štěpánek". Kelisi (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support it's because 2 September 2011‎ someone tried a cut and paste move. Honestly you could close this and do it as a TR. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and WP:DIACRITICS. AusLondonder (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.