Talk:Susan Gerbic

NPOV dispute - no section specified - WP:DRIVEBY
This article has been tagged NPOV dispute without a section specified, nor the talk page annotation. I am creating the section because the tagger did not, in order to spur conversation and improvement to the article. In addition, cited material has been removed without talk page comment. It would be appropriate to review Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material and NPOV_dispute. Please "Be active and bold in improving the article" without removing cited content. Per WP:DRIVEBY tags should be added as a last resort. The talk page is a good starting point for constructive action. Kyle(talk) 22:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the NPOV template per WP:NPOVD. There was no reason stated why the neutrality was disputed; the user did not respond to two calls for clarification on this talk page and their own talk page (where the message was removed without comment). Failing to clarify one's motive in placing such a template means 'any editor may remove this tag at any time'; it's been two days with no response, so I removed it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Frequent Speaker?
"a frequent speaker at skeptic conferences such as The Amazing Meet!ng (TAM)"

Source please
 * Hello there unsigned person. The citation is provided in the article, citation 6. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hats.
Why is there a section about her wearing Hats? Is that really noteworthy? Lots of people wear hats. And this -Everybody thought that she would have to have a lot of time off but Gerbic decided to work through this challenge, because of the passion that she has. this reads like it was written by a Fan. 2601:483:101:9BDD:F86A:2FB6:5D42:28C0 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no such section, so if there ever was such a thing, it seems to have been deleted. RobP (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Dunning
Gerbic has been one of Dunning's strongest supporters (I hesitate to say apologist) during his fraud trial as can be seen in the talk section for his page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Dunning_%28author%29). She has yet to speak to things since his plea bargain and it would be nice to see a section on her page about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.209.137 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do people leave comments like this? Feel free to add one! RobP (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ref format
This article is using two different styles of reference formatting. I am transitioning them all into a single style (collected under References). RobP (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns
I'm concerned that this article, especially as a BLP, is far too heavily sourced by questionably reliable or primary sources. To give some examples: "Gerbic and Mark Edward came up with the name 'Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia' (GSoW) to describe skeptical activism that is 'more underground, more grass-roots, more mole-like'.[15]:(0:02:00) The idea for an organized effort came from Tim Farley after Gerbic was frustrated by typical WikiProjects, finding them either dormant or not user-friendly, especially for new editors. Instead, she started communicating and training other Wikipedia editors directly on Facebook or using email.[16] She stated that the formal beginning of GSoW is May 2010,[17] yet its birthday is celebrated in June.[9][18]" In the above paragraph, most of the content is coming directly from Youtube videos, uploaded by the subject. Another ref is to a podcast with her as a guest. The following sentence: "Interest in the project grew after Gerbic made presentations at SkeptiCalcon, did a Sunday paper presentation at The Amaz!ng Meeting[15], and also created a blog on the subject.[19]" again cites a self-published video, as well as a an interview (again, the sources are all coming from Gerbic.) There's huge chunks of this article that are ultimately only being cited to primary sources, suggesting a severe undue weight problem. In addition, we've got sources such as The Messianic Drew, Data Skeptic, Escepticos, Patheos, and more. I suggest that this article be cut down and focus on what content is given from sources like the New York Times and Wired. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2021)
Per discussion at WP:BLPN jp×g 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag twice now. That discussion does not justify such a tag. -Roxy the sycamore . wooF 17:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 13% authorship has "I proudly support the work of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" on their userpage. At least one other major contributor is connected as well, although I'm not sure about disclosure on wiki. Definitely covers having the tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No coi has been demonstrated. -Roxy the sycamore . wooF 17:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You've reverted multiple editors over the tag, and are ignoring multiple editors on BLPN stating they see an issue. I don't believe you're the final arbiter of if something has been demonstrated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence on wikipedia is provided in the form of Diffs. I dont see any evidence. Has anybody got any, or are you all being spiteful? BTW, I proudly support the work of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia too. they do a fantastic job. -Roxy the sycamore . wooF 17:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at the contributors, you'll see the connection. Also, the article is written as hagiography. SarahSV (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Re the Wired article: "Today, the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project has more than 120 volunteer editors from around the world, each of whom Gerbic has recruited and trained herself. They’re collectively responsible for some of the site’s most heavily trafficked articles on topics like scientology, UFOs, and vaccines." The editor responsible for much of one of those topics has nothing to do with Gerbic. Does this group really exist as described? SarahSV (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the group is organized off wiki we're in a position where we don't know if a particular editor is associated unless they disclose on wiki. It's an unfortunate circumstance where we have to go with sources despite what we may know. I believe wired is generally regarded as a decently reliable source as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But Wired's source is presumably Gerbic. SarahSV (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Marriage
Thanks to for the rewrite - I think it looks great. I notice that the Personal life section mentions Gerbic's marriage to Robert Forsyth but does not mention that they were divorced in 2003, nor that she is currently in a domestic partnership with Mark Edward. I am concerned that a reader might come away with the mis-understanding they are still married. 49.180.243.9 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks. It's a question of finding sources. I've added that the marriage ended in 2002; I did it before I saw this, so I'll now look for a source for 2003 and for Mark Edward. Thanks again, SarahSV (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks!   (Sorry my previous comment wasn't logged in - I used the app on my phone and assumed it would keep me logged in.  Wrong.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This article must be permanently tagged w COI tags
There are over 140 editors with close connections to the subject, whose names are not public, and who are part of an online coordinated group. I am not passing judgement on them, and I support all work on dispelling pseudoscience and unscientific content on Wikipedia. However, it still remains that this article has a very high chance of being edited overwhelmingly by editors biased in favor of the subject (as can be partially seen by the proportion of Skeptic Inquirer or other Skeptic* sources used in the article). Thus, this article must be tagged w COI both in the talk page and in the main page, and especially so until the usernames of all associated editors are known to the rest of the project. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just terminally boring. We have been over this many times. Read the yellow stuff at the top of this page, and the page archives. Thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 08:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please there's no need to be so abrasive in your response. Other editors below have been much more patient with someone like me that is unfamiliar with the "many times" this has been gone over.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles do not carry a tag unless a defined problem has been explained. What major contributor with a close connection has recently edited this article? I don't see any. What cleanup is needed? What content policy is being violated? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * as the list of members of the Guerilla Skeptics is completely unknown to the public, there is no way to say for certain if any contribution to this article is affected by COI. If, as she claims, the subject has taught over 140 [skeptic] editors how to contribute to Wikipedia (extra word my own), the possibility of this happening is notably high. Major contributors all have strong interests in Skepticism.  publicly supports Guerrila Skeptics. Some editors, such as  have only edited this article.I am not claiming any of these editors are disruptive, negative, or doing anything wrong. However, one could argue that due to the large size of the Guerilla group (about two-thirds the size of WikiProject Skepticism) there is a high probability editors that have interacted extensively with Gerbic have edited this article and participated in relevant discussions.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  09:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Recently SlimVirgin did a complete rewrite of the article, and I am confident in saying that she did not have a COI and was one of our best editors. While it is likely that there was a problem before that, the rewrite would have addressed any concerns. - Bilby (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically this is a conspiracy theory about a cabal controlling Wikipedia. I can affirm that I do not personally know any of the participants, but that I understand WP's position in relation to its presentation of science and fringe topics.  I don't have the time right now but could eventually review this article.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Bilby. The article has been stable since the rewrite and doesn't appear to be an issue now. Are there any specific concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the COI tag should not be applied unless there is a specific, articulatable problem with something in the article, caused by a COI editor. Additionally, no specific editor has been confirmed or accused of having COI on this article. I don't currently see an argument for keeping the COI tag. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. Removed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Permanent tagging" is a strange idea that I oppose. The purpose of tags is to identify a specific problem so that it can be solved. Once solved, the tag should be removed. We do not place a tag of shame on articles forever. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Appreciate all the community replies to my proposal :) A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

BLPs are not my forte but I looked at the article. The Awards and honors are a common problem in BLPs and stands out, but the article overall doesn't seem like a hagiography to me. Most sources are secondary, although a number are within the skeptic community (however some are not and those appear enough to show BLPN). To prevent future promotional editing (or vandalism) the best way is to watchlist the article. Also, there's material supported by non-skeptic independent sources (ideal sources in this case) but that is short, perhaps it'd be possible to expand using the same sources, or where possible substitute other citations by these if they cover some of the same material (i.e. the NYTimes magazine)... — Paleo Neonate  – 21:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestly all the SI cites are somewhat problematic seeing how she is a very regular contributor, so I definitely agree there. Additionally, seeing how she personally has led efforts to reference an issue of SI as much as possible in the project one should place additional scrutiny on citing that fits that pattern. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Clear of cancer
I am perplexed by this change, where you removed the information that the subject is now clear of cancer. At the time you gave the summary "I think this is a very bad taste (speaking of a cancer survivor); we should be more conservative in describing personal lives of people on BLP pages". I really don't see how it is acceptable to describe the diagnosis and treatment, but not the clear test at the end - especially when the subject herself has been so open about it. It's certainly not a matter of privacy; the subject uploaded the photo herself.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I thought that info was there. But I now made a change to make it more clear. As about the subject uploading the photo by herself... I insist that placing such photo by her (I only mean the image itself) was profoundly distasteful, although probably not against any policy. And I do not think it was funny. This is an atrocious disease, and a lot of other people did not survive it. OK, I self-reverted. Do not see a problem here, except that the image makes a mockery of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)