Talk:Sharon A. Hill

Skeptic
Ms Hill stated in July 2018 that she does not want to be called a Skeptic. I will be using internet sources to add that info to this page. I should be done by 9 Feb 19. SEKluth (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice edit! Since the podcast has ended, How about noting that. One possible source is is this one. RobP (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

IP revert
An IP has recently reverted a major edit I have made. I ask them to please explain why here. Santacruz &#8258;  Please tag me!  16:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I will soon add reasons for my content removals, but in the meanwhile encourage editors to look at the BLPs of Ira Glass and Roman Mars for appropriate inclusion of podcast quotes and descriptions. Also refer to MOS:Quote, point 5 of WP:BLPSELFPUB, and point 5 of WP:PRIMARY. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please tag me!  06:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

See diff. I have followed the structure of my removals one-by-one, and as it was all done in a single diff realize it might be confusing at some points to follow my rationale below. Thus, asking questions is very welcome.
 * Reasons for removal/addition of content, per top-to-bottom of article:
 * Added consultant for Center for Inquiry to lead as it seems notable within her career (note: not notable per say, but in the context of her career).
 * "Media Guide to Skepticism" is not a notable event. The site has no backlinks, and no RS mention it either on a quick Google of the document name nor the name used in the article.
 * I moved the paragraph on her comments about the skeptics label as an amendment to the first paragraph in the section, and shortened it significantly to a single sentence. The quotes were unnecessary to explain her position, and so removed them per MOS:QUOTE. "This attitude was foreshadowed" is also an unnecessary addition, as one could indicate this by saying Neither her websites nor her podcast use the word 'skeptic', due to certain issues she finds with the label. as I did in my edit, and perhaps changing the wording there to reflect more long-standing criticisms of the term if felt needed.
 * Being a speaker at Balticon does not seem like a notable event seeing how little coverage it has received. Note that the third result when searching balticon is a polish container company.
 * On her master's thesis (note per WP:SCHOLARSHIP Master's theses are only considered reliable if they have significant scholarly influence and by the same train of thought one should really only include detailed descriptions of it in a BLP if influential) but I digress as I did not remove mention to it in the article):
 * Having at least 3 paragraphs about her thesis is completely unreasonable when it is a) a master's with b) not much influence. John von Neumann's master isn't mentioned in his BLP. Einstein's BLP dedicates a single sentence to his PhD. If these were much more influential scientists, and both are GAs, I think it would be wrong to not follow their article's example (or at least have very strong reasoning as to why one would make an exception here).
 * Quoting the abstract so heavily is wrong per MOS:QUOTE and by the fact that it is giving too much detail, surely if the article itself summarizes the results of the master's thesis detailing the abstract is redundant.
 * I summarized this paragraph into the one I kept in my version, but removed many quotes per MOS:QUOTE.
 * Same for this paragraph as the one above.
 * This is a non-notable opinion piece written by Hill. I don't see the merit of including it in her BLP, even if there might be an argument to include it in criticisms of Paranormal State (I don't think so but believe the possibility does exist). Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * Skeptical Inquirer covering the launch of Doubtful News is WP:COISOURCE, as she is a consultant to the parent company of Skeptical Inquirer and a contributor to the magazine.
 * The paragraph about the podcast is a mess.
 * No, we do not need to mention that show notes are made available as that is standard practice (Scriptnotes, my favorite podcast, only mentions show notes when it is an actual part of the podcast content in special episodes. John August and Craig Mazin's articles don't mention show notes when talking about Scriptnotes either).
 * No, we do not need to mention it is available on iTunes as that is standard practice.
 * No, we do not need to mention the release schedule as that is not important to the podcast's content nor notability (for example, this would make sense for a podcast where one episode is released a year or a daily news show).
 * No, we do not need to mention who composed the music for the podcast in the podcast's host's BLP as that is not relevant in this case (would be if, for example, the composer was her wife, had a significant connection to the host, or was in-and-of-themselves notable).
 * The next few paragraphs about her opinion on crossing the bridge between skeptics and "believers" just has too many quotes (see MOS:QUOTE). Thus, as the previous paragraph did a good enough job of summarizing her opinion on the subject (WP:SUMMARY) I removed the quotes and respective accompanying text. If there is an article about the topic of interaction between these two groups, however, her opinions on the subject would merit more detailed description there (if she is considered by consensus to be an expert on the subject).
 * Removed the header on consumer protection as an unnecessary division of content — a three-line paragraph does not need to be split-off.
 * The Skeptical Inquirer review of her book should not be included per WP:COISOURCE as she is a contributor to the magazine. The next paragraph is basically a block quote, and thereby should be paraphrased. However, seeing how the other review of her book fails WP:COISOURCE and should be removed, having the only mention of her book be by herself is WP:POV.
 * Being named a consultant is not an honor, its a job. I moved it to the lead as it seems a career highlight for her. Additionally, I haven't found evidence the consultancy itself is notable as an award.


 * These are the reasons for each edit I made to the article. I'd appreciate a response to each of them.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please tag me!  09:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, I am considering starting an RfC on the issue if there is significant disagreement between us. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please tag me!  09:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I realized a 3O is much more appropriate here. Seeing how you've made edits to wiki and haven't replied here I'll move along with that, . Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  08:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have listed this thread in the 3O noticeboard  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  09:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
 * Much appreciated, :D  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit
I've asked and waited that you please discuss this matter. You have ignored my request for a week while doing other edits on the wiki. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * no consensus for your controversial edits. 82.132.230.228 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * no attempt by anyone to respond to my comments above and therefore create such a consensus, either Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I emailed your university about your Wikipedia vandalism and they will talk to you. You need to come off Wikipedia, your vandalism of skeptic articles has been noted. 82.132.230.228 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand that what you've done is a personal attack. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  07:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Threatening to file a complaint against me for not responding on your schedule? If that is not an attack on me I don't know what is. Surely more of an attack than someone else saying you went "ape shit" on an article. And FYI, seeing that as equivalent to "calling you an ape" as you have repeatedly claimed means either you don't have a good enough command of English to be editing Wikipedia, or you choose to take everything out of context to play the victim. I can't say which. Regarding the article edits, I do not have the time now to go through all of you detailed edits, but your repeated false assertions that items need to be WP:notable on their own in order to be mentioned in an article is just wrong headed. Notability is about what topic or person deserves a WP article, not pertinent to every fact cited in that article. Your COI claims regarding what should and should not be allowed in an article are also without merit. On the basis of your misunderstanding of these two principles which are heavily forming the basis of your edits, I believe a full reversion is in order. If any of the other 30 watchers of this page agree with your, they should come to your defense. Else, my suggestion is to... Well, neverminded. Whatever I say you will take as an attack and lodge a complaint. Rp2006 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My actions in this discussion have all been guided by the advice of more experience editors and my understanding of the guidelines, . Note my "threat" is basically a copy-paste from the link supplied above. It is my opinion that in your message above you have not only rejected the opportunity to discuss my edit you reverted in any meaningful fashion and made references to unrelated discussions out of context, but also insulted my character. I reply here only to make note of that. Whatever grudge you may have against me is not one I share against you, and hope that in some future we will be able to work constructively together on the Wikipedia. For now it seems like that is not happening soon, sadly.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  22:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Especially when you seem to be canvassing to get more editors to come here and prevent me from editing rather than using the proper channels for or attempting to meaningfully engage in dispute resolution/consensus-building. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  22:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note there was no threat made to you, . The exact wording I used was If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you, which is the correct thing to do according to WP:DISRUPT. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I had the time you seem to have to devote to complaining about others treating you what is perceived as unfairly on Wikipedia. Rp2006 (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I wish you had the time to respond to the issues with the article I outlined above before you or others revert my edits. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  06:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard, there seems to be some kind of poorly justified targeting of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry going on here. That a person or publication is associated with the Center is not a good reason to delete material. All the 'not notable' stuff above doesn't apply, since notability is a guideline for keeping whole articles, not for mentioning things within articles. - MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all my edit was about the notability of its content, . A large majority of the removed text is due to the overuse of quotes. How do you think the use of quotes within the article could be improved, as quotes currently stand for ~30% of the readable text in the article (per my count). Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also interested in your opinion on including a review from a publication she works for, per WP:COISOURCE. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to show there's actually a conflict of interest. By the logic displayed here, we couldn't use the NY times to source anything about someone who has contributed an Op-ed. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with where you're taking my logic, . I just don't think we should mention a book written by a consultant for the New York Times company where the only review of it is in the NY times. The COI is that the company has a financial and brand-image interest in promoting the publications of those that work for it. Ms. Hill is not someone who contributed just a single op-ed to the magazine, she is a consultant for its parent company. Those two relationships are not the same. It is closer to FOX News reviewing Tucker Carlson's new book. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  16:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roxy and MrOllie. In my opinion, you totally misconstrue COI (and other) WP rules. It is like you read the rules and then see what you want to see. This is why I refuse wasting my limited time looking over your multitude of edits in detail. In this case, being a consultant for CSI is NOT even a paid position. It is more of an honor bestowed, with the org revealing that they trust your opinion on an area of expertise and will call on you to give it to them as needed. Also, Hill had a falling out with the org and is no longer listed as a consultant,. although nothing about this change has been published so cannot be included in the article. Bottom line: I suggest you stop obsessing over this article, and do something more constructive with the time you spend on WP. Rp2006 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Two points. Firstly, whether she gets paid or not does not affect the conflict of interest: it is on the publisher not on her that I find the COI here. The fact you consider it an honor or not should not matter: it is still a professional relationship between the two. Secondly, how do you know she had a falling out with the org, if this was not published, ? Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  18:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, I disagree with your take on COI. And it’s not that *I* consider it an honor. It is. Honors is even the section name it is under. And, as to how I know about her disassociation… Did you not read the article? “In 2018, Hill publicly eschewed the "skeptic" label due to perceived negative connotations of the term and issues she has with organized skepticism.” In the US, organized skepticism *is* CSI. Read the cited articles. Rp2006 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand how we can disagree on COI matters related to CSI, . In regards to the falling out, I'd appreciate it if you could provide links to her comments resulting in her being fired (or her "honor" removed). The book was published in December 2017, an article by her in SI in January 2018, the review of the book in March/April 2018, and her blog post in July 2018, so my understanding of the timeline of her fall-out wouldn't match your statement unless the falling out happened before her blog post. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like WP:OUTING. Do we need to take a trip to ANI, or would you please edit that out and find an admin to delete it from the history? - MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I thought this wouldn't be outing as the article he wrote in skeptical inquirer makes specific references to the diff I include above and the link is cited within this WP article (which has edited since and so I assumed they knew that information has been made public on WP). If it truly is outing I suggest that the citation be removed from the article as well to avoid this situation.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Notice the bold 'on Wikipedia' in the linked policy. MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have initiated an ANI. Rp2006 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The link to the information is cited in a WP article, so I assumed that counted as "on WP". As I said above, if that link and the information contained therein would be considered outing, I suggest that citation be removed from the page (and possibly remove page histories in between, although I have no idea how that would be done or if that would be the proper way to go about it). Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Admin removal of possible outing history
I unintentionally might have outed another user in these two edits. I'd appreciate prompt removal of those edits and these subsequent ones that also refer to that information. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  20:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * First you initiated a project to out editors who you felt were part of an off-Wiki editing team, even trying to get like minded editors to help, and now this. For some reason I am laughing at your "unintentional" claim. I am done with you. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the section above you told me to read the articles relevant to her comments on organized skepticism. The information is in one of those articles. Either you were aware that that information is in one of the articles, which means it wouldn't be outing as you are on-wiki asking editors to read off-wiki information about you (what I assumed). Or you were not aware that the information is in one of the articles and are opposed to that information being accessible to on-wiki editors, in which case it should be removed from the article. Again, I apologize if what I did is considered outing, it's just I've never been in a situation where an editor is ok with a link to their private information being on wiki but not ok with people referring to information within that link. You can understand how that is a tricky situation to navigate if not aware of it beforehand. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  21:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know I'm doing the proper thing in fixing my mistake. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Content suppressed. Thank you for recognising your mistake and correcting it. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, . Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  21:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that the mistake was only corrected after there was a notification of the lousy behaviour at ANI, and much very justified complaining by the outed party. Very bad form ACS. -Roxy the dog . wooF 21:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What the fuck? I made attempts to fix my mistake once I read 's clarification of how it might be outing. I'd appreciate you not coming to a finished discussion where I fully admitted my mistake and made the proper steps to resolve it just to comment on my "form", . Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  21:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you really sure you want to escalate right now? MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Roxy's response incited me. My apologies. I won't comment on the topic here any further, and will comment on the ANI thread through other editors when I request them to mention my opinion as I am temporarily banned from ANI. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I contacted the closing admin with this comment: I just saw that you closed my Outing ANI after the offending editor deleted their problematic text, and even thanked them from doing so. I must note that it took significant push-back from another editor (and me opening an ANI) before they made the revert. Before that, they wrote several times to justify what they did. Additionally, this is part of a pattern of behavior on their part, including harassments of editors, as I noted on the article's Talk page: "First you initiated a project to out editors who you felt were part of an off-Wiki editing team, even trying to get like minded editors to help, and now this. For some reason I am laughing at your "unintentional" claim. I am done with you." The issue there was an ANI brought against me and others by this editor because they were not getting their way editing a page - which led to a ridiculously long discussion wasting everyone's time. I believe the editor was temporarily blocked. (check this?) There was talk about initiating a topic ban as well. (?) So I think - this being on the same topic that they will not let go of (Skeptical articles and editors) perhaps that issue needs a reevaluation. Rp2006 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Birthdate & birthplace
If anybody can track down her birthdate & birthplace. That would be cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Birthdate needs to be widely covered in reliable sources, or published by the article subject in such a way that makes it clear they don't mind if it's public. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Radish (I have no idea how to abbreviate your name, terribly sorry for that). Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly bothered as to abbreviation, I think the most common is SFR, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds Fantastic, Really :D. I'll use that in the future, then. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  00:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC on mentions of her master's thesis
Should the article include mention of her master's thesis? Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

A related discussion to this can be found in this WikiProject Biography thread

Pinging due to having taken part either in the Wikiproject thread or in discussions within this talk page. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Notified WikiProjects: Biography, Skepticism, Women scientists

Survey

 * No, as RfC creator. I believe this is in violation of various PAGs, mentioned in the thread I have linked above. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Yes, but briefly - per Reliable_sources: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This thesis has no secondary sourcing or tertiary sourcing which describes it as notable, significant, or impactful. Ergo, we should not discuss it in any considerable depth. We can mention that it exists, but that's probably about it. If anyone were to find good sourcing which supports a claim of impact, I would be willing to change my mind on this. But I could not find any. (edited 03:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes (with some trimming of text). The thesis is in the area of study for which she is known, and part of the narrative throughline linking childhood and profession. This is clearly due a mention in a biography. The amount of text about the thesis is excessive, though, and should be reduced by half. WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and so on are not applicable, because this is not about using the thesis as a source for claims. Sennalen (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not post content from unreliable sources on Wikipedia, except for extremely basic and uncontroversial, uncontested claims. Do you have reliable sources which describe the thesis? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The usage here is allowable per WP:SPS both as a expert in the field of science communication and as WP:ABOUTSELF. Sennalen (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Depends. Are you trying to talk about her work broadly and make a statement like she completed her thesis on X? Or are you trying to discuss the content of the thesis? In the first case, I do not see an issue with including it, in the second case WP:NPOV come into play and I do not think it is appropriate. Tepkunset (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to the phrasing of the RFC. I believe the thesis bears mentioning, and  is good enough for me to include that it lead to her book. More than that, no.   Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - but basically per . That is, the question asks whether the article should include mention of the thesis. So yes, I think a mention of what the thesis was makes sense for a researcher, but anything more than a mention needs some sources which talk about it. So reduce it to a sentence (or two, max) unless other sourcing can be found. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per every inclusionist argument for adding more reliable and informative content to BLPs. Digital = more.  D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 18:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to that general question the RFC asks: Mention it in a sentence but not more. Trim the current text and remove text sourced to the thesis. per Shibbolethink and Dumuzid. --Mvbaron (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No to what I think the RfC question actually is, which is "should the thesis be more than a brief mention". It is completely WP:UNDUE to devote anything more to a topic that has not been covered at all in independent secondary sources. We wouldn't use ABOUTSELF to justify describing someone's blog post in this depth; why is an unremarkable thesis any different? JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Yes to a brief mention (such as a listing of its title), as this is an appropriate thing to include in a biography of someone working in a field related to the subject of the thesis. However, no to any more detailed description of the thesis unless it can be sourced to an independent reliable source. BLPSPS only allows factual claims, like titles of works, not opinion-based material, like a description of what the work is really about. Additionally, unless there is some independent source-based reason to think that the thesis had wider significance than merely completing the requirements for a degree, a single line about it should suffice; the whole paragraph we have now is far out of balance to its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes The article could, and I expect should, include mention of her master's thesis. It is an aspect of her life that seems to me sufficiently significant to be WP:DUE for mention. I am not expressing any view on how much mention there might be, nor on whether the contents of the thesis are reliable because we have not been asked about such matters. I would be amazed if simple mention violated any WP:Policies and Guidelines but a clear statement of alleged violations would be required. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I probably should have worded the RfC as "extended mention" or something along those lines, but I feel changing it now would be disingenuous. In any case, the detailed responses from everyone fill in the gaps in my wording well and will provide a good consensus on this issue. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. In recent years there's never (hardly ever?) been a well-worded RFC. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How the WP community manages to carry the utter chaos in here, like a toddler carrying an over-filled paper grocery bag up a flight of stairs, to this more-or-less consistent state of organized knowledge is black magic to me lol. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes - her book, Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers is described as being based on her master's thesis by reliable secondary sources. So why wouldn't we give this a (brief) mention? I do not believe the WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS policies apply to mentioning the thesis in this context. Tewdar (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral - As I don't know what a "masters' thesis" is. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's a thesis usually required to graduate with a Master's degree, usually taking between 6 months to a year of time to write and supervised by a staff member. In her case, the thesis was a requirement for getting her degree in "Science and the Public" from the University at Buffalo. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  16:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - include, since it's a rare accomplishment. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is most definitely not a rare accomplishment at all, . My university produces hundreds of these theses a year alone. Globally probably millions a year. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  16:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Best to let others weigh in here, at this RFC. I've little to no interest or knowledge in University degrees or thesis. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe - If per the comment by Tewdar, that her masters thesis was the basis for her book and this is mentioned in reliable secondary sources about her book, then a brief mention (no more than 1-2 sentences) of this link would be acceptable. However that is only in the context of larger section on the book. Otherwise, it is not due to mention the thesis. Without reviewing the article, are there sources to support this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's this, and her website says it is, and the book cites the thesis multiple times. I think a statement like, "Scientifical Americans, based in part on her master's..." is perfectly justifiable. Again, why would anyone want to exclude this rather mundane factoid from the article? Is there something I've missed here? Tewdar (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of interplay between this section and one at WP:COIN regarding the so-called "Guerilla Skeptics of Wikipedia" more generally, so that may be the subtext you're sensing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see. So that's what GSoW means! I thought it was something to do with the Graduate Student Organization of Wharton or something...Tewdar (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the current section in the article mentioning her thesis appears to be two paragraphs long. That length is undue, and makes no mention at all of its relevance to her book. A masters thesis is usually not notable, as a great many are produced every year as fulfilment towards university degrees. I would agree that your proposed sentence would be far more acceptable, as there is (thanks for the links) sources for that linkage. Her thesis is only notable because of her book. Otherwise it is just a necessary requirement for the degree pathway she was on at university. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this RfC doesn't really give many options, just include or don't include. Even so, I don't think describing the contents of the thesis does any harm... probably a little too much detail, however. Tewdar (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At worst, I would say it's just a poorly formed RfC, hardly the worst thing anyone's ever done. But I think a consensus by compromise has formed nonetheless, in favor of trimming any inclusion to just a cursory mention that the master's thesis exists. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, you should see the RfC I did. They haven't come up with suitable adjectives yet. Tewdar (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but briefly - No harm in mentioning the thesis as the basis of her book, but also no reason to spend any more time on it if the thesis isn't notable in itself. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, briefly - Mentioning that her master's thesis lead to her book is likely sufficient. No need to go into excessive detail about what it contains... at most a sentence or two of summary, but I'd be fine with (and prefer) just the fact that it led to her book, which is the notable thing.  Fieari (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes in the article, but not in the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. As JoelleJay mentions, it is UNDUE prominence to give any detail or an infobox coverage of what is a non-noted thesis meaning not given secondary coverage, and just no importance to others. DUE is supposed to be objectively shown by coverage, which this lacks, although other posters here seem to think it instead means “I feel it should.” The thesis also seems to have had no enduring place in her life so just isn’t a big part of her biography.  She wrote a thesis and got a degree like hundreds of thousands of others and help getting a degree is all it did.  I just don’t see it as worth a mention.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, briefly. This is not unduly promotional, and arguably due on the page because her Master's thesis is obviously related to everything she did later. But the field in the infobox is for the PhD degree only, unless I am mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall, this page does promote someone who is not so notable using weak sources and by producing too long texts. This needs to be fixed by making the page shorter. But I do not see this as a big problem since the page does not include any misinformation, withholding important information, or outright distortions. If all other editing by GSoW people is like that, this is much ado about nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Not as currently written, per Markbassett, it is UNDUE prominence to give any detail … … of what is a non-noted thesis meaning not given secondary coverage, … … DUE is supposed to be objectively shown by coverage, which this lacks. A sentence at most, specifically if linked to any later published work being 'based on' the thesis would be warranted, but this is not. Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Note, this is the first in a series of RfCs I will do about various edits I wish to make to the page (which you can see in the diff I provided in the thread "IP reverts"). I will not ping anyone that has participated in this RfC and not on other discussions in this talk page unless they explicitly mention in a reply to this comment that they wish to be notified for further RfCs regarding Hill. I think that's the best way to go about it. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  11:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you want a series of RfC's. What is wrong with the normal editing process? Your pings dont work anyway. -Roxy the dog . wooF 15:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Roxy the dog here; RfCs are certainly a useful tool, but as seen above, the constraining of the issues to a single question can be limiting. Normal editing is, to my mind, generally a better approach.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ.  Happy New Year, to those who celebrate! Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * please see the section above for why normal editing (or WP:BRD) failed in this instance. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  16:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand that, and don't begrudge you RfCs, but I also think it's worth attempting a return to the normal course after an RfC if only to see if new blood (so to speak) has changed the editing landscape. You are, of course, entitled to proceed as you see fit.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming because their regular edits were reverted wholesale, and they were told that RFCs we're likely the best way to make headway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So they want to do their poor edits by RfC? That's how it appears, compounded by their admitted antithesis towards anything to do with GSoW, which seems to be their cause celebre ATM. -Roxy the dog . wooF 15:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is community consensus to implement an edit, I'd be surprised to call it "poor", . I attempted to notify you of this discussion in good faith seeking discussion. As you have only replied with bad faith I will not notify you in the future, although you are more than free to keep this page in your watchlist and participate as you wish. As can be seen in the above sections of this talk page, various editors have reverted my edits without meaningfully discussing them. Thus, per WP:BRD and feedback I have received from other editors doing multiple RfCs is the only way to proceed towards a better article without starting an edit-war. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not sure what your justification is for calling them poor when you had previously admitted to reverting them without reading my justification for them. If you wish to discuss your issues with me you are free to either take it to my talk page or take it to the appropriate noticeboards. If you don't and just continue casting aspersions about my intentions in this wiki I will not hesitate to take it there myself. Any other editor can see that there is no need for all this piss-fighting between us and I'd rather you just back off and focus on the content rather than the person. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  16:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ordinarily I would agree. RfCs are a pretty heavy and bureaucratic way to preform article edits. However there are a of  present, including, who refuse to engage with the good faith edits A._C._Santacruz has attempted to make, and show no sign at all of stopping such tendentious behaviour. Per the discussion at COIN, this article along with others edited by GSoW in this topic area are rife with COI and potential BLP issues. However there is a seemingly strong resistance to change from editors outside of the GSoW group.
 * If the only way to clean up these articles is to do so via RfC, then multiple RfCs will need to be ran. If however the GSoW editors were instead to engage with Santacruz and others at COIN in good faith then that heavy handed process would not be necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think they need to engage at WP:COIN, come on. That is, in essence, admitting wrong-doing for which there is very little, if any, proof. But I agree with you: GSoW editors should engage with ACSC in good faith on this talk page and other talk pages. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While this is undoubtedly a discussion for COIN, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I suspect some of that lack of evidence is due to outing concerns, and also the number of articles involved that would require a review to establish it beyond reasonable doubt. I'd be happy to discuss further at COIN or your talk page. Feel free to ping me at either if you want. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A COI has not been sufficiently demonstrated, and no poor edits have been attributed correctly to GSoW editors, so I see no need for GSow editors to out themselves, unless they feel like doing so. RP, for instance seems to acknowledge their involvement, though in all the years I've known them, they appear to embrace P&G wholeheartedly, and the pettiness of this campaign is astonishing. People are going about this wrongly, arse backwards. Identify problem articles rather than allegedly problem editors. Note : This article is not a problem article. -Roxy the dog . wooF 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Roxy I will collapse your comment above unless someone else opposes me doing so. Leave COIN discussions for COIN, and stay on-topic in this discussion of the RfC, please. Labelling other editors as petty or your colorful use of language are both unnecessary for what is really all things considered a terribly boring, run-of-the-mill RfC. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  01:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A.C. Santacruz -- I would respectfully oppose the collapsing, for a couple reasons. First is peculiar to me: I think we try to bound talk page discussions too much and should broaden our borders a bit.  But more substantively, I think it generally serves only to exacerbate disputes, and I think it would especially do so where you are 'involved' (no offense intended by that term, of course!).  I agree with your underlying point, however.  Let's stick to the question at hand and let the other venues resolve themselves.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair assessment. Will do as promised then, . Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any opposition to me closing the RfC as "There is consensus to keep mention of the thesis to one or two sentences, within the context of it being the inspiration for her book. Arguments against any mention cite the policy of Reliable_sources, but the majority of users believe this is not enough to warrant not mentioning the thesis at all. Those against more than a passing mention argue based on WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. There were arguments to include more than that, but they were not the majority opinion nor based on policy."? I don't see the need for this RfC to go much longer, as I feel the consensus is quite clear. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, you shouldn't close your own RFCs. An uninvolved editor needs to do it. also RFCs may run up to 30 days unless the participants end it WP:RFCCLOSE. This one is heading to a SNOW close anyways in my opinion, so there shouldn't be a problem closing it. Mvbaron (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair, hopefully someone else closes it soon, then. Don't see the point in the process going longer just for the sake of it. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that in the future you don't bother opening an official RFC. You can use the RFC format for structure in a less formal discussion if you'd like, but avoiding opening a full RFC makes it a lot easier to move on once consensus is clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair, I'll do that for the next discussions. My main concern was without RfC notices the bias in the editors who have this page watchlisted might alter the results but I guess as long as I notify the wikiprojects (especially wp:bio, since so many users watchlist that), that concern is significantly lessened. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, opening this RFC was the correct thing to do. The stark contrast of the consensus emerging from the RFC and the aggressive and unreasonable stonewalling in the discussions leading to this RFC attest to the need of said RFC. Mvbaron (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. What I mean is more that the benefit is coming from more eyes and editors being involved in the discussion rather than the bureaucracy of RfCs, so (as I did for the thread before, just need to add the text testifying that) as long as I notify the relevant wikiprojects and the questions/issues to discuss are concise and clear this talk page should be able to avoid the stonewalling from now on. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Post-close comment/question
As a result of the closing statement, I made this edit:. That reduced the two paragraphs about the MS thesis to two sentences. I note that the paragraph after that deals with interviews, where Hill's quoted comments seem to be based at least in part on her thesis. So I'm not sure whether that should also be removed. It seemed to me that it's about the interviews rather than about the thesis, so I left it, but maybe I'm wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on her opinion piece on Paranormal State
Should the article include the following paragraph? After attending the Phenomenology Conference in Gettysburg, PA, Hill wrote about her observations for the Center for Inquiry (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). She described what she saw as a shifting attitude of these paranormal groups from a "sciencey-sounding" approach to a spiritual one. She refers to an example of this change, the Catholicism-influenced TV show Paranormal State, noting a lack of scholarship and noting that contemporary investigation teams seemed to be able to "do as they please". Of these paranormal groups, Hill wrote that it is critical for observers of paranormal culture to note "how important FEELING is in these experiences, rather than THINKING." I don't believe it should, based on A) Her opinions described here are not published in independent RS, so I don't see the point in including it B) adding more of her opinions just for the sake of content is unencyclopedic almost to the point I'd consider it WP:Fancruft or WP:SOAPBOXing Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey 2

 * No, as discussion starter -- Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, as it's a primary source given undue prominence. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, but I think it could be rewritten using in a similar spirit (pun intended). Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly that is paywalled to me, but if anyone else can verify Hill is quoted or mentioned in the article I'd appreciate that input. I'm not entirely sure what the copyright policy is with articles (i.e. how much content can be shared) so I won't ask for text itself, just a description of how Hill is used in the piece. The find is much appreciated, ! Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  02:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So, in essence, it is a brief bit of her description of paranormal television becoming more "science-y", though this time focused on the series "Ghost Hunters." A key quote (this much fair use I am comfortable with): “They had gadgets, they talked in jargon, it sounded professional,” Ms. Hill said. “It was convincing to the person at home that this was a serious thing going on in the world.”  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the type of secondary source so much needed in this article. e.g. "Sharon Hill... sees the rise of nonfiction paranormal television shows like Syfy's Ghost Hunters... as particularly influential in the culture" and then features several of her quotes on the topic. Thus it is the NY Times providing weight and context to Hill's views, not Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (reply to both) These are great quotes. I think they'd be much more fitting to an article on paranormal television than Hill's BLP, but I don't necessarily have an issue with including a few sentences based on the NYT topic. After all, she is an expert on the topic and her BLP should include some of her views on her subject of expertise if published by RS. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  03:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, rewrite using 3rd party sources - Per Dumuzid and conversation above. I'm sorry to hear A. C. Santacruz feels the need to do an RfC for every change due to edit warring with IPs, but I am glad to see that this RfC in particular might lead to a considerable improvement of the text without cutting information. Fieari (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'No, rewrite using secondary sources - Per Dumzid above. The source currently used is WP:PRIMARY and should be replaced with a reliable secondary source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion 2
Notified WikiProjects: Biography, Skepticism, Women scientists I assumed that notifying the users I pinged for the above RfC was somewhat redundant and could be considered spamming (there will be 4-5 discussions in this talk page including this and the RfC, after all), so I decided not to do so. If anyone believes I should notify them once again (or wish to be notified when I start any forthcoming discussion) feel free to reply. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC) This passage is based on a primary source (written by the subject), given undue weight. WP:PRIMARY states Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. WP:BLPSELFPUB allows some self-published sources, so long as the article is not based primarily on them. This article overall has the essence of selectively showcasing the views of and writings of Sharon A. Hill (which would be fine for a magazine article, of which Wikipedia isn't), rather than summarizing what Hill is most known for, which can only be demonstrated by independent secondary sources. There is a large deal of editorial discretion in picking one or a few choice tid-bits from Hill's columns or podcast appearances and inferring these are among the most notable aspects of the subject, a practice which hinders WP:NPOV at best and approaches WP:OR or WP:PROMO at worst. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

replying to you here. The reason for the repeated RfCs is due to some disruptive behaviour by other by both IP and registered editors. It's unfortunate that some editors are stonewalling progress in cleaning up the article, but unless they chose to engage in good faith with Santacruz this is the only way to establish a consensus. It runs the risk of RfC fatigue, but compared to the alternative of edit wars, AN/ANI referrals, etc. it is preferable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you want to work with someone who at the same time leads a massive campaign against you on noticeboards for months? I understand that the GSoW folks would not want to cooperate with someone like that. Or with someone who disses them as "stonewalling progress". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I propose the following wording for the section: Hill sees the increased number of paranormal TV shows as allowing paranormal theories to become more influential in culture due to the atmosphere of professionalism and science curated by these shows misleading viewers into believing invention as fact. What do y'all think? It's not a direct quote nor can I read the NYT article, but if or  believe it is supported by the source I think we could add this into the article and move on. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  18:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not an "atmosphere of professionalism and science". It's something that looks like it to a layperson, but it's fake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fair, . How do you suggest the sentence be phrased to incorporate that? Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hob Gadling's point here; perhaps a "thin veneer" of professionalism and science? Trying to find an apt way to point out that it's nonsense.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Veneer was the word I was thinking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I like that -- I would add from the source something like "This went hand in hand-in-hand with the growth of websites about the unexplained and mysterious--like certain Reddit communities--which gave believers the chance to connect worldwide." I am not at all picky about the wording here, but I think it's worth trying to get in the complete thought, as it were.  Happy Friday, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a great quote. Damn,, next time I want good quotes for an article I'll make sure to ping you /s :D! Perhaps that quote could be added paraphrased as part of a second sentence? It would also be interesting to see if she has any thoughts on online skeptic communities. Being able to contrast her thoughts on those two could give some interesting nuance, if there is some way to do it without WP:SYNTH. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was a bit misleading there -- that is in fact my paraphrase, so use it as you wish. In the interest of avoiding copyright issues, the actual quote is: The internet allowed for people across the globe to connect with each other over paranormal interests, Ms. Hill added. Reddit became a popular forum to discuss unexplainable mysteries, such as an eerie experience at a rest stop or claims of a demonic run-in at a hospital unit. The site added a new element to these stories by making them interactive, with readers going back and forth in the comments, joining and adding to the narrative themselves.  Sorry for my imprecision! Dumuzid (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In that case your original paraphrase mostly works, although I'm unsure if it should be phrased as an opinion from Hill, an observation by the NYT article or just stated as you did. No particular preference, but it is a choice to make. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's supported by the NYT, I think it's fine to say in wikivoice. Although it's a summary of Hill's words, it's also a WP:BLUE situation, so I think we're okay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Media Guide to Skepticism
Is the "Media Guide to Skepticism" WP:DUE inclusion in the article? The site has no backlinks, and no RS mention it either on a quick Google of the document name nor the name used in the article. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. -Roxy the dog . wooF 16:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The question here is not about notability, but about due weight. If this were to be an article about this Media Guide thing, it would require reliable secondary sourcing.  But this article is about Sharon Hill. I think this link should be looked at:  it's a blog page, so definitely not a reliable secondary source (thus it wouldn't support an article being written about it)... but I think it is a useful primary source, being an actual interview.  I think this primary source provides enough weight for a brief (that is, single sentence) mention.  Which is what I see exists in the article.  So yes, I think a mention is fine, but nothing more. To me, this seems about right for due weight, as it is an interesting example of the sort of thing which she is notable for. (I find these RfCs/discussions interesting, so I've started been watching the page now.) Fieari (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source so it shouldn't affect considerations of DUE weight (in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources., emphasis my own), although if it is considered due by consensus it can certainly be used to give more context on the Guide, in my opinion. As I understand it, notability is only for articles as a whole, not the content within them. Thanks for watching, ! :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 09:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's given undue weight. If no one but Hill discusses it beyond mere mention of its existence, then it deserves no weight in an encyclopedia. The actual document in question seems rather unremarkable. Rather than list any isolated facts that skeptic stans may find interesting, an encyclopedia article should cover significant accomplishments in proportion to their prominence in reliable secondary sources, from which context and significance can be demonstrating without inviting WP:OR in inferring the significance. Keep in mind WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, neither by DUE nor as mention of biographical note.  WP:DUE is supposed to mean widespread RS coverage, and google is showing this does not have that.  But this is a bio.  Things that are not DUE (famous) but mattered in one’s life should still be included in a bio so long as they are relevant and supported by cite, since the story of one’s life is not just a matter of WEIGHT what bits got famous.  But in this case, the item does not seem to have had any significant or enduring impact on her life, and the shortness of content makes it seem not a notable amount of her life spent on it.  So I don’t see any reason to mention it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Brian Regal's review of her book WP:DUE?
The section "Scientifical Americans" consists solely of a review by Brian Regal published in Skeptical Inquirer, a publication owned by the company Hill was a technical and scientific consultant to. She also published articles for SI. Therefore, the source in which the review is published is not independent, and thus I don't think it is WP:DUE inclusion. What are y'all's thoughts on this? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Notifying talk page that even though other editors have not commented on this thread I will proceed to remove the review from the article on Monday, as one week will have passed since I brought up the topic. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want my honest advice, I'd start going for the WP:BRD cycle for content addition/removal. WP:BOLD is good advice for pretty much any editor. I know in the recent past there has been stonewalling, and examples of this can be seen above for the context in why the two previous RfCs were necessary to incorporate positive change to the article itself. At the very least, going through those motions makes a trip through one or more of the dispute resolution mechanisms more straightforward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the options are agreeing, disagreeing, and ignoring. When skeptics disagree with you people, they are "biased" and have a "conflict of interest", and when they ignore you, they are "stonewalling". So, agreeing with you is the only option left. Wonderful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, lay off the WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. This is not sceptics versus everyone else. Secondly, ignoring is a form of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4 and 5. Disagreements are fine, they happen all the time on the wiki. This is why discussions generally revolve around finding an acceptable compromise for consensus. However that has not been happening here, and Santacruz has been forced into filing repeated RfCs to affect change that, through those RfCs has been shown to actually have consensus. This would go significantly smoother, and without a colossal waste of time and effort if certain editors present would engage in good faith. Alas despite the arbcom case, this is still not showing signs of changing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Ignoring" has a different meaning here and in that page. Doing nothing at all is one type of ignoring, and doing something in spite of a decision is another. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is talking about the second type.
 * What do mean, "despite the arbcom case"? Since this suggestion in the arbcom case, it should be clear to everybody that User:A._C._Santacruz' goal is getting rid of skeptics altogether. All assertions to the contrary are obviously just lip service. Assuming good faith is well and good, but sometimes assumptions are refuted. This is a battleground, and I will not pretend it is not just because there is a rule saying that it should not be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Several times, when I was a new editor in similar circumstances, I suggested an edit, and getting no reply, made the change. These were sometimes reverted with the edit summary "There is no consensus for this change." As I have been told while learning to edit WP, lack of discussion on a suggestion does not equal agreement. Just don't do it. BTW, currently, I have this situation on Havana Syndrome for something I suggested on Jan 22. I've learned to try to let such things go (at least in the short run) and not be obsessive. Rp2006 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * please retract your comment calling me "obsessive". I take that as a personal attack and do not appreciate it. It is unnecessary, especially as the arbs are currently deliberating on a case involving both of our conducts in this talk page. I'll start another RfC on the issue since you seem to continue wanting to stonewall the article. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on my own former behavior being obsessive about such things and working to get past it. I can't help you taking it personally. I guess I should take you accusing me of stonewalling as a personal attack. Rp2006 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was unreasonable to take Rp2006's comment as a personal attack on yourself. Can you now see that? Thincat (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , Rp2006 and I have a history of animosity. He has in the past been extremely patronizing to me as a relatively new editor here. Based on our previous interactions, both above in this page and elsewhere, I took his statement about learning to let things go and not obsess over things as an indirect message implying I was obsessing over this page. I don't see that as unreasonable. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your description of me (and others) patronizing and attacking you is, once again, playing the victim. Rp2006 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * having seen the interaction history between these two users previously, I fully agree with Santacruz that this was an oblique personal attack. One in the form of "I was obsessive in the past and I stopped. You are obsessive now, maybe you should stop." Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice you can read minds Sideswipe9th. Perhaps we can write a WP article for you being a psychic. Rp2006 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Everybody - now that Valentine's Day is upon us, do you think we can stop the personal squabbling and get back to discussing the issue?--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see any compelling reason not to include the current content of the section. If there is more to be usefully said on the topic, an there should be, by all means add it. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the inclusion of Brian Regal's review of her book
Is the inclusion of Brian Regal's review of her book in the article due? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Notified WikiProjects: Biography, Skepticism, Women scientists
 * Why is WikiProject Skepticism not in the list of notified projects (bio|sci|soc|policy) in the banner? In fact, why does it include Projects not listed on the Talk page? Rp2006 (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those aren't WikiProjects, they're topic lists. It has to do with how RfCs are categorized, see WP:RFC/A and WP:FRS. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 07:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey 3

 * No, as nominator. -- The section "Scientifical Americans" consists solely of a review by Brian Regal published in Skeptical Inquirer, a publication owned by the company Hill was a technical and scientific consultant for. She also published articles for SI. Therefore, the source in which the review is published is not independent, and thus I don't think it is WP:DUE inclusion. Note that WP:INDEPENDENT says: If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. While this quote is meant for whole articles, I argue that it applies to the content within as well. The book has not (per my own research) been reviewed in any independent, major book reviewing publication. It has no major legacy nor influence either in its field or in culture. Thus, I argue that a single, non-independent review of the book is not a proper summary of the majority opinion in reliable sources: there is no opinion because the book is not notable. Including the review reduces the neutrality of the article and is WP:UNDUE. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Hill has "contributed reports and articles" to Skeptical Inquirer, so it's basically a colleague (perhaps a friend?) writing positively about her book. Essentially, it's promo. At best, a mention of the review would be suited to a standalone article about the book (provided that it meets WP:NBOOKS) and balanced with other reviews from independant sources. Just a reminder, though, that there's no policy governing the inclusion of content in articles except WP:ONUS. However, this should not prevent editors from drawing potentially useful analogies with other policies and guidelines to explain why they argue for the exclusion or inclusion of content. JBchrch   talk  18:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A note: Hob Gadling has been quoting and interpreting this comment at various points and for various purposes below. Proceed with caution. JBchrch   talk  17:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The reasons given here are silly. Regal and Hill are obviously interested in similar rather obscure subjects, and there are not that many publications dedicated to those subjects. Please name another English-language journal of similar reputation that would review a book about paranormal amateur researchers. You can't. So, it is difficult to avoid publishing in those publications. If we start assuming people are "friends" or "colleagues" because they published in the same specialized outlets, lots of reviews would need to go. It does not need to be in exactly this form, but there is no real reason not to mention the review. All this is just part of the ongoing vendetta against skeptics on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * but there is no real reason not to mention the review. But what's your argument for inclusion, though? Because as you know, the instruction manual says that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and that the onus is on those in favor. JBchrch   talk  01:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hill wrote a book, and it was reviewed. It is normal to include that. This article is not so long that we have to cut it down as much as possible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree: if the issue is being framed in terms of WP:ONUS, I can't imagine that a consensus significant enough to override the status quo will arrive at the conclusion that a review of one of the subject's better known works is irrelevant, seeing as the mention of such reviews is pretty stock standard practice across BLPs for public intellectuals. I honestly think this is a borderline WP:SNOW call, but we'll see how it bears out. SnowRise let's rap 06:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is going nowhere, so I'm going to stop now. I will note that there's no basis for the assertion that this is normal, and recommend that you read Exclusionism so you can see where some editors stand on this issue. JBchrch   talk  14:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Skeptic Magazine is another such journal. That does not detract much from my reasoning though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a published book review in an RS-publication.  Unsupported supposition is not a valid reason for excluding an RS.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by unsupported supposition? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I gather Gamaliel is talking about the implications above that the review is some sort of quid pro quo, or at least certain to be the result of some sort of cozy relationship that automatically disqualifies it from being considered a legitimate part of critical reception for the book. I for one agree that is highly speculative, and the proffered principle itself is not reflected anywhere in policy that I am aware of--and is certainly nowhere to be found in the cited policy of WP:DUE. The source is clearly WP:RS and the WP:INDEPENDENT read is (at worst) a slightly mixed bag: the source easily satisfies two of the three loci enumerated in the balancing test defined in said policy, and only partially conflicts with the third, at most. Any remaining issue can be easily addressed with clear attribution, including the possibility of express notation through as simple a change as "Historian and fellow Skeptical Inquirer contributor Brian Regal . . ." In fact, the article already explicitly notes the fact that both individuals have published with that magazine.  With respect, the objections I am seeing in the discussion thus far seem to constitute a false dilemma: any issues with inclusion can be easily resolved with pretty minimal adjustments.   Sn</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 06:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for Galamiel to respond, but there is actually no consensus that Skeptical Inquirer is reliable. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 06:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you linking that discussion for additional context: I've just read a significant chunk of it, but I'll pause on further observation until I can digest all of it. Needless to say, my opinion on the issue here would pivot by necessity if there is a good reason to deprecate IS (regardless of the validity of any of the other policy observations) but it wouldn't do to make a judgement as to that RS question without more consideration. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 07:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A book review is not a column. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, but the discussion also talked about SI as a whole and reached no consensus on either the columns or the whole publication. If you wish to show there is community consensus SI is reliable as a source, I encourage you to start a thread at WP:RSN. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 07:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion did not "talk about SI as a whole". It was clearly framed as being about columns. When you tried to change the subject to SI as a whole, I said, The subject here is "Columns at Skeptical Inquirer". You gave your personal opinion that they should be treated the same, but nobody agreed with you.
 * Independent of that, book reviews are clearly a very different subject. Editors have little influence on them in any case, in SI or elsewhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with the comments by SnowRise. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Per Santacruz and JBchrch above, it is not due. I agree with the comment that it might be due on an article about the book, if that book itself met WP:GNG, but it is not due in this context. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per my observations immediately above.  The source is WP:RS, doesn't really violate WP:INDEPENDENT, is fully attributed, and directly engages with one of the subject's works.  It quite easily meets and exceeds the requirements of WP:DUE for the purposes of a brief mention. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 06:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * above you mention "two of the three loci enumerated in the balancing test defined in said policy", I was wondering what you are referring to. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It seems the argument for exclusion is based on false premises. Skeptical Inquirer is a reliable source (and the recent RSN discussion did not change that evaluation), and WP:INDEPENDENT envisions a much closer relationship than what we have here - and even when it does apply, it suggests attribution. This article already presents the mention with proper attribution. - MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, reduced, with a few supporting comments:
 * Firstly, the question about whether the source is independent or not does not determine whether it can be included. The essay on Independent sources which was cited needs be treated with care because it "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."  In particular, it focuses on what IS independent and why they are important, which means it often loses sight of other sources that can also have a role - but they are mentioned.  For example it says "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified" and later, "Once an article meets this minimal standard [for notability], additional content can be verified using any reliable source."  I don't have any problem with independence on this article, but even if somebody disagrees about that, it does not prevent it being used in the article.
 * Secondly, there was some question whether a review of the book even belongs in the article about the author. So I checked four Featured Articles on authors, and all of them included reviews and responses to their works. Should we aim for a lesser standard?
 * Finally, I would like to reduce the quotes in this review section and just summarize his findings. Better still if other reviews could be added: there is a short one from Protoview (available through Wikipedia Library), but it is uncredited and I don't know how reliable the source is (not listed at RSP), so probably not worth any more than a quick mention.  Perhaps something like "Protoview's review notes how she suggests that the greatest contributions can come from doing genuine research, rather than simply mis-using legitimate scientific terminology and concepts without their actual meaning." --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the source on Wikipedia Library, — I myself am trying to use it more. Protoview's link is not a review however, but an  Unbiased content summary of an academic book. The final sentence in the summary, The core of her book is her study of amateur research and investigation groups (ARIGs), who are passionate about extraordinary claims and the paranormal., probably could be used as a basis for a description of her book. Note that I do think her book should be mentioned in her BLP (there's a reason why it's mentioned in the NYT when quoting her), and that reviews should be included if independent ones can be found, but as the only review is not independent my point above is that we are creating an undue promotional balance by including it. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Protoview's reviews are classified as book reviews in numerous library databases, so I see no reason we should not treat them accordingly, and I support inclusion. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The connection between the two is too close for the review to be considered independent. BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - Of course. This source is not proposed for WP:NBIO evaluation.  Keep the attribution, as is usual for reviews.  It's also from someone notable in the topic area and the author of PseudoscienceA critical encyclopedia (the reason I'm familiar with his name).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If much briefer, yes, but as is, no. (This is on my watchlist now, so I might as well comment.) In reading the page as a whole, the section with the review sticks out like a sore thumb, because it devotes so much text to quoting from one book review. On the other hand, the book being reviewed is by the BLP subject, so the book should get more attention on the page, per due weight. So I think the section should be rewritten, and the arguments in this RfC discussion about COI would really become beside the point. There should be about 2–3 sentences about the book, followed by about 1 sentence citing the review, with attribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At all? Yes. Unconvinced by the procedural gymnastics demonstrated in the arguments to omit this, and amount of bludgeoning going on here. Does it need its own section -- or more than a sentence or two? Probably not, no. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but - I just realized that I don't believe I have officially weighed in here. If I somehow missed it, please forgive me, but my thoughts are very much in line with Rhododendrites, Tryptofish, and others above.  I see no problem in a mention, but it doesn't deserve a lengthy exegesis.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, briefly - It is a WP:RS and I agree with the argument that WP:INDEPENDENT does not apply in this case. As for WP:DUE?  Complete exclusion is not warranted, but an entire section devoted to it may be a bit much.  It could be cut down, merged with another sections, etc... just not excised completely. Fieari (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, briefly The source is WP:RS, doesn't really violate WP:INDEPENDENT, is fully attributed, and directly engages with … the subject's works.. The CoI seems to be of such a low degree that it should not exclude using the review. There is too much rather "flannelly" text from the review at present, but there is no reason to think the reviewer - a subject expert - would be bought so cheaply that this needs to be excised completely. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes It appears to be legitimate comment on the book. However one would reasonably expect more content in the section, so expand it.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 10:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion 3
"While this quote is meant for whole articles, I argue that it applies to the content within as well." Your argument is contrary to policy, and thus null and void. If one applied this to individual contents of every WP article, most all would be slashed to the bare bones. Certainly most bibliographies of authors would be deleted. To what point? But there I go again, stonewalling you. Rp2006 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which policy? WP:INDEPENDENT explicitly applies to the sources used within an article. The subsequent sentence to the one quoted above is These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources The source for this review is not independent of the subject of this article, given her past contributions to the source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim that "this review is not independent of the subject of this article" because Hill formerly contributed articles to the journal in which the book review was published - by someone with no clear connection to her - falls flat. Also, the review excerpt in the article is a fairly straightforward summary of the book - not a glowing account or similar that might be seen as having been written to hype the book. I fail to see what all this fuss is about, and why every item in THIS article continues to be singled out by this editor for these type of controversial deletions. Rp2006 (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. It's almost as if there were a Wikipedia guideline "Assume bad faith" about judging skeptic sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , please see WP:AOBF. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 07:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood that one at first, so I am deleting my first response. AOBF says you should not accuse others of assuming bad faith without giving evidence in the form of links. "Bad faith" refers to the following edits. I will not copy the links because they are in this thread.
 * so it's basically a colleague (perhaps a friend?) writing positively about her book.
 * the source in which the review is published is not independent - the source has a connection to someone with a connection to the subject, and that makes them "not independent"? That is, as I said above, silly.
 * The rules suddenly seem to become stricter when it is about skeptics. Huh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You actually said this to Gadling in the very same thread where you assumed bad faith about my comment about me trying to overcome being obsessive about my own edits? How do you not see the irony? Rp2006 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thing about "colleague". You people seem to think that those who write for SI sit in a room together, typing their articles, and get their monthly cheques. But with the exception of the editor and maybe a few organizers and tech people, they have other jobs and do it because they care about the subject. I don't know if they even get paid for what they write for SI. If I did, I would not want any money for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Hob Gadling here. There seems to be a sort of slow erosion of SI's status as reliable.  It seems reliable to me, but I am willing to hear arguments otherwise.  If we assume for the moment it is reliable, I can't see disqualifying such a review as not independent (though there may be other issues).  As noted, it's a bit of a niche area.  I cannot see, for instance, an issue with a review in Trains Magazine because the author had previously submitted pieces to that publication.  Again, if the publication is reliable, we put some faith in the ability to weed out such issues.  If it's not, we don't.  A bit of a silly comparison, but imagine if we decided that the New York Times was not independent as to everyone who had ever published an op-ed (or whatever we call them in this brave new world).  If people would like to argue SI is not a reliable source, that's all well and good, but I think that's an argument that should be made explicit.  Then again, I am frequently wrong about a great many things.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not someone that just published a single op-ed, it's someone that was hired for multiple years as a technical and scientific consultant, spoke at its conferences, and published multiple articles in its publications (including a regular column). There is a long-standing working relationship there, paid or otherwise, that causes a conflict of interest and means that the source is not independent. This does not only need to affect the content of a review, but also the request or acceptance of a review. The reliability of SI does not affect how independent a review is. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply disagree. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is a volunteer "hired for multiple years"? Have you been hired by Wikimedia? SI writers (and consultants) are not paid. Using the word hired here is poisoning the well, despite you adding "paid or otherwise" later. And you have been repeatedly told this. Again: see here, ("The Skeptical Inquirer is unable to pay authors, but authors will be mailed several complimentary copies of the published issue.") Rp2006 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, whether she is paid or not the long-standing working relationship and her advisory role to the parent company means that the publication is not independent. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You know someone is not paid, but you claim they are. When called upon it, you claim it does not matter. That is not how honest discussions work. First you take back the false statement, then you can say it does not matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * She said it does not matter from the get go (i.e., BEFORE being "called on it", in the very same post that the "false statement" was made). To be clear, you're accusing AC of making a "false statement" because she used the word "hired" in reference to a position that was unpaid, and in the very next breath she said that her argument applies equally whether the position is a paid or an unpaid one (in other words, that it doesn't matter). Then you accuse her of not saying that it doesn't matter until after being "called out", when in fact she had. That's some pretty elaborate wikilawyering, Hob Gadling, and is downright dishonest. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A036:88B7:C36F:4744 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * being a consultant for CSI is NOT even a paid position
 * "You know someone is not paid"
 * someone that was hired for multiple years as a technical and scientific consultant
 * "but you claim they are"
 * SI writers (and consultants) are not paid.
 * "When called upon it"
 * As I said above, whether she is paid or not
 * "you claim it does not matter"
 * See? It was exactly as I said. Yes, she had said before it does not matter, but that does not change anything. Hiring implies payment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hiring does not imply payment to me, as I have done various jobs in the past for no compensation. What term would you suggest be used for CSI engaging in a long-term professional relationship with Hill, ? I'm glad to change the terminology I use if it is the source of misunderstandings. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would "employ", "enlist", or "appoint" work? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Employment implies payment. The others do not, I think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll use appoint then, but I think my points above still stand even with the new terminology. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If we look to our colleagues at Wiktionary, "hire" means "To obtain the services of in return for fixed payment" (and other senses that are minor variations, all depending on payment). "Employ" is much the same: "To hire (somebody for work or a job)".--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The spanish wiktionary equivalent does not outline payment as necessary, Aceptar a alguien para que realice un trabajo o un servicio, normalmente mediante una contraprestación económica. translates as "accepting someone to perform a job or service, usually through an economic benefit to the counterparty". Neither does the Spanish Royal Academy . I guess it's one of those bilingual slips where the connotations in one language don't translate to the other. But again, we're getting into semantics and my point still stands. Someone appointed as a consultant for multiple years has a long-term professional relationship with the company that may result in conflicts of interest by either party. I'm certainly inclined to believe that is the source for her book being reviewed by SI when we can't find any other review outside of a service that mass-reviews academic books. Also, I realized that the article does not have a link to the review, you may wish to read it here (from Regal's website). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Professional' also implies that they're deriving some direct or indirect financial benefit. The word you're looking for is 'volunteer'. She does volunteer work for the Center for Inquiry. MrOllie (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok at this point it's a bit of an exaggeration to call her a volunteer, . She spent years as a consultant, published a number of articles for their publications, and spoke at their conferences. How could that not be considered a professional relationship? Are you arguing she received no direct or indirect financial benefit from her connection to CFI? I am genuinely confused. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because a profession is defined as a paid occupation. If your argument is strong you should not be resorting to blurry language like this to imply financial COI where none exists. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in engaging further with this, . My language is not blurry, I believe I have argued coherently above while observing PAGs to the best of my ability, and I don't think either of us is going to convince the other. When one needs to resort to dictionary definitions in order to get some kind of "gotcha" moment while evading or ignoring the spirit of the argument, we will get nowhere. I encourage the others to just let it go and recognize that we won't convince each other. I hope y'all do your best to convince previously uninvolved editors of your perspective in the rest of the RfC the same way I will. I don't claim to know the truth of how best to handle inclusion or mention of the review more than y'all, nor do I claim to understand the nuances of WP COI guidelines better than y'all. Let's just hope that whatever the result of the RfC is that we've been able to guide constructive discussion towards a result that will benefit our ability to cover the subject in a more encyclopedic manner than before. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found this particular RFC to be frivolous. As I noted this is only a review and one by a notable person, there's nothing peculiar or suspect with it and it's not even controversial information.  It would be different if the situation was that most of the article was to be based on it (and obviously no RFC would be needed to fix that), or if it was very controversial like pushing conspiracy theories or false medical claims without independent analysis...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Amen. Rp2006 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You accuse someone of launching a "frivolous" RfC, and your argument is that... you disagree? And that people should only launch RfCs when WP:FRINGE or WP:MEDRS are involved? Come on, I'm sure you know better than this. JBchrch   talk  19:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten to the point where it regrettably illustrates why this dispute has gotten to the place where there has to be an ArbCom case about it. As I and others have noted in the survey section above, this need not be a matter of choosing between wiping the page clean of the content, or leaving it untouched. There are reasonable middle-ground options available here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (I never know how to handle indenting when outdenting is involved. Never mind.) That is quite some a strawman, turning this is only a review and one by a notable person, there's nothing peculiar or suspect with it and it's not even controversial information - four substantial reasons - into you disagree. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)