Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 9

Conversion therapy
I think this article fits this Wikiproject, if someone more experienced agrees please add your banner to the talk page. Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Psychiatry integrative medicine?
Is Psychiatry integrative medicine?

Discover Magazie just named this story as "Top 100 Science Stories of 2012" - The "Bible of Psychiatry" Faces Damning Criticism—From the Inside From that story -
 * "...the most recent attack comes from within the DSM-5’s ranks. Roel Verheul and John Livesley, a psychologist and psychiatrist who were members of the DSM-5 work group for for personality disorders, found that the group ignored their warnings about its methods and recommendations. In protest, they resigned, explaining why in an email to Psychology Today. Their disapproval stems from two primary problems with the proposed classification system: its confusing complexity, and its refusal to incorporate scientific evidence.

That is the very definition of pseudoscience in the Wikipedia article on the topic.

The resigning docs are quoted as saying -
 * "The proposal displays a truly stunning disregard for evidence. Important aspects of the proposal lack any reasonable evidential support of reliability and validity. For example, there is little evidence to justify which disorders to retain and which to eliminate. Even more concerning is the fact that a major component of proposal is inconsistent with extensive evidence…This creates the untenable situation of the Work Group advancing a taxonomic model that it has acknowledged in a published article to be inconsistent with the evidence."

Part of psychiatry is clearly evidence based and is science. But the field integrates this with pseudoscience and worse (forensic psychiatry and its associated fraud). Per the WP arricle, integrative medicine "integrates" evidence based medicine with the other stuff. Does WP:Spade apply here, or must there be a secondary source calling the spade a spade? ParkSehJik (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that yes you need good quality secondary sources to make these points and you need a sufficient number by medical/scientific academic publishers to establish weight. What constitutes a sufficient number is particularly poorly defined in the relevant Wikipedia policies. In all likelihood there isn't a sufficient number of sources which meet the inclusion guidelines for medical articles to support the contention that psychiatry or aspects of it - say, specific taxonomic categories - are pseudo-scientific constructs. Moreover, if the medico-scientific "community" or a majority thereof do arrive at the consensus position that a given psychiatric category is without evidential support in all probability that category is doomed in any case and will be replaced by another.
 * The other point is that with posts such as the above you're going to be accused of treating wikipedia as a forum for your views. That you regard psychiatry, or aspects of it, in this way is of course legitimate. Lots of people, here and elsewhere, entertain a variety of criticisms about psychiatric knowledge and practices. But that's irrelevant here. For an encyclopaedic article you need to represent the majority perspective from the most reliable and authoritative sources. As psychiatry is still the dominant discipline in terms of the production of knowledge about mental illnesses/disorders the preeminent psychiatric publications are, for Wikipedia, the most reliable and authoritative sources. Therefore, this encyclopaedia will largely, but not exclusively, represent the mainstream views within the discipline regardless of whether those perspectives correspond to the "truth" or not. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And I suppose we define "mainsteam" as whatever DSM-whatever says it is, today? You know, DSM is a lot like what Bismarck said about laws and sausages-- if you want to retain any respect for them you shouldn't watch them being made. The same is true also of Wikipedia articles, and (yes) and medical and scientific concensus. Which is why we wait awhile for these things to happen in science, and try to avoid recentism like those speedy neutrinos that slowed right down again when the loose cable was wiggled back in. Which suggests you really should NOT pay any attention to a DSM until after it's 30 years old. Or more. You know, once upon a time, the dominant mode of American psychiatry was Freudian psychoanalysis? I kid you not. You know, that had neurotics and psychotics and people with character disorders? And the neuroses were due to people with unresolved subconscious conflicts? It was all very interesting and it was all in DSM I and II. But then in 1980 DSM III came out and "poof" the neurotics and neuroses all disappeared. Like over night. Very much like the disease of gayness going away in 1974. Which had been a lot of fun for the Freudians with the penis envy and the anal fixation, let me tell you. But anyway, the neurotics all disappeared in 1980 and presumably the entire Freudian subconscious conflict, along with them. Or, at least, I think it did. I dream about all this stuff, sometimes, but when I wake up, it's all gone.... S  B Harris 02:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol - sorry I missed this reply at the time SBHarris; I liked the comments very much on your dreams ... Yes, I'm aware of these points and once upon a time wasn't so long ago - American psychiatrists had to receive psychoanalytical training up until 1989. I have lots of opinions on psychiatry and even a little research but what you can do on Wikipedia is quite another thing. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @Fiachra - Yup, appearance of FORUM applies. I need to be more careful, or I will end up wasting alot of time on reverts to my edits based on forming an opinion of me, not my edits. I actually do not have views that I am aware of to be desiring a FORUM for, but I hoped instead to get thinkers with backgrounds outside of medicine involved in editing the psychiatry articles, by posting here. Re "sufficient number", I am going over the WEIGHT article to suggest improvements. There is also an academic legal community commenting on use of psychiatry in the courts, to base questioning "truth" on. I found it odd that every psychiatrist I engage with comments the same, that diagnoses like "bipolar" are "junk science" categories so easy to diagnose that it insures payment under an insurance billing code, and a critique that attorneys and insurance industries are hijacking the profession for money, and leaving the science in the dust, yet there is none of this universal self-criticism in the Wiki articles. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
This article could use a thorough review by anyone interested. —  C M B J  09:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting the page for the "point of inquiry" podcast.
Working on the point of inquiry podcast. If anyone has suggestions or things they would like to see added please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicWatts (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge

 * Category_talk:Traditional_knowledge

I have made a request for comment on this category and also the main article associated with it. My objection is the use of the word "knowledge" in the title, and it's inclusion in the category Category:Knowledge. It seems to me to be completely inappropriate, as "knowledge" implies that one would be validly justified in believing it. My proposal would be to rename it to "traditional beliefs" or "traditional lore" and certainly keep it out of the knowledge category. However, there is a strong political climate against that. If we were to use their standard, "astrology" would also be counted among the knowledge category, which it certainly is not. So is it just me and my "scientific fanaticism" here? Or is this a serious WP:FAIL? In any case, I will be adding the Rational Skepticism banner to it. Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine
Requested page move from Alternative medicine to Complementary and alternative medicine initiated. Relevant talk page discussion can be found here. Let the luddite bashing commence. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a userbox.
Since I didn't see any scientific skepticism userboxes at Userboxes/Philosophy or Userboxes/Science, I made one: What do you think?--Atlantima (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ingo Swann - date of death
Hallo! I live in Poland and I'm pl-wiki editor. How do you know that Ingo Swann died 31 January? I saw 1 link in which date of death is 31 January. In others it's 1 February, for example:. Which date of death is correct and why?   Mariusz Swornóg   ( talk ) 07:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Book Article Improvements
I notice that there have been several book article improvements underway lately, in some of which I have been involved, so I'm refactoring this section to include discussions on improvement, evaluation, etc. of book articles germane to our topic. and maybe help some of these reach GA status. Nmillerche (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad Astronomy: Request for Re-assessment
The article Bad Astronomy has been substantially improved by Joshuafilmer and is a DYK. Please re-assess. MrBill3 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tracking the Chupacabra
Recently published an article on Ben Radford's Tracking the Chupacabra, and looking for an evaluation and any guidance regarding its improvement. Thanks. Nmillerche (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Goals of this WikiProject
The goals of this project are fairly well stated, are applicable to Wikipedia, and match those of rational skepticism in general. I do have a question about item #4.

"4. To identify cases of fraud and other unethical/illegal activities undertaken by religious and quasi-religious organizations, as they often go unreported."

What is the intent of this goal and how does it fit into the scope of Wikipedia? I am not denying that this is an honorable goal nor am I saying that it lacks merit. I am simply wondering about the intent of including it here on this WikiProject. Frederick Green (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That does seem a little out of place. We're not here to right great wrongs; we're here to record what sources have said, and so we shouldn't cover anything that's "unreported" or put undue weight on things that have had only slight coverage by the media. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that goal appears to exceed the scope of a WikiProject and seems to go against WP:RS if indeed the intent is to add "unreported" information. I move for its removal. Nmillerche (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree. It's not Wikipedia's place to report on things that are unreported elsewhere. I will take the step of removing that goal, as it seems it should be uncontroversial, but I'm open to restoring it if there's further discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MartinPoulter. I have also added a clarification to item 3, as WP:CRITS generally discourages the addition of a section dedicated to criticisms to an article in most cases, but it is within our scope to find reliably sourced criticism to ensure WP:NPOV is maintained. If anybody else has guidance to provide on this matter, I'd welcome it, but for now I've adjusted the phrasing to be consistent with WP:CRITS. Nmillerche (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

David Gorski
Hello, I believe I am in need of assistance or advice. I'd been working on the David Gorski page and someone has come right behind me and deleted everything, the same person who tagged it for needing sources. I'm more than a bit confused. If I was doing something wrong I'd have expected some discussion on the talk page, but there was nothing. The things I added were sourced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski So? Now what? Cap020570 (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like the restructuring is still taking place at the moment, and that a large portion of the removed content that was reliably sourced came from articles and/or interviews tied to the subject's skeptical activism. If after the restructuring is complete reliable sources per WP:RS that are not BLP violations are still missing, then I'd suggest restoring them. The subject's research career, impacts of publications on the field of study, etc should still be expanded. I will attempt to contribute more about the subject's professional career, as well. Nmillerche (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with article: Relationship between religion and science
This needs attention, I think, from any or all who are interested. -Darouet (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Usage of acupuncture in the military for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Usage of acupuncture in the military is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Usage of acupuncture in the military until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 15:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's revitalize this project
This project seems to have been pretty quiet for the last few months. I am going to clean up the active user list. Should we put the inactive list into comment tags so that it does not display on the homepage but is still available as an archive? The list is pretty long and might be sending the wrong message to prospective members.

I would love to have someone else help update the to-do list and/or add the project banner to additional pages that fall within Rational Skepticism. Allecher (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say just remove inactive editors, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think a bot that scans Wikipedia articles for esoteric terms and things like crop circles would be a good idea. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably best to just comment out the list of inactive members for now. We can always delete it later. Which is the more authoritative list: To-Do or Cleanup? Frederick Green (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't remove me! I wanna be on the cool team. Sgerbic (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved all of the inactive users and commented out that section for now.

I'm happy to get involved, not long come across this project. AfD needs work, could the page be set up to automatically add Rational Skepticism listed AfDs? The last ones there were from 2007. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have updated AFD page to be updated automatically by a bot. Seems to be working well. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to update the main page to simplify it a bit so that it is not so imposing looking to new members. I may have to remove the template that is transcluding all the sub-pages unless someone else can help figure it out. I guess I will start by trying to move the long member list to a sub page and then try to make the "articles by quality" more prominent. Allecher (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be good. thanks. After this weekend I'll have more time to do stuff like this and will see what I can do. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I keep running into problems reorganizing the main page because of the tabular format. I think I will copy the formatting of another project and replace the tables on this one. I'll do my best to retain all of the details but once I replace it feel free to help me get it all looking good. I just want to make it easier for new editors to find a way to help us. Allecher (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworked a lot of it and I will come back to it tomorrow to finish up some the way some of pages are linked. Hopefully other editors can now see what my ultimate goal is and will suggest additional improvements or jump on in now that you don't have to navigate that darned table. Allecher (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's looking much better, Allecher. To the rest of us trying to revitalize this project, I'm wondering what it would take to get this old chestnut running again? —-> Template:RationalSkepticismCollaboration
 * Nmillerche (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely less scary page now, thank you Allecher.Joolzzt (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nmillerche - I don't understand that bit. How can we add info under WP rules if an event went 'unreported', ie there are no citations.  Agree it shouldn't be something we'd do.Joolzzt (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great to see this work taking place. A while ago I did a similar overhaul of WP:PSYCHOLOGY, including the project page layout and the goals, so it might be worth a look (or not?) MartinPoulter (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal
My proposal to help revitalize this project is to do a complete merge of WikiProject Pseudoscience, a semi-active project, into this one. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting idea. It does seem to fit well within our scope. Perhaps we could have two to-do lists (science and pseudoscience) to keep the lists more manageable? I'm sure many editors would work with both, though. Allecher (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also intrigued. This could be mutually beneficial if organized well, as Allecher suggests. Nmillerche (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am willing to do the work. One of the things that would make it easier for me to merge them is if we just renamed it "Skepticism" and came to the understanding that it's about Scientific skepticism, and not about deep epistemological issues. That way the merges won't require a lot of deletion of existing pages, but rather just simple moves, editing and redirects. Then we can get a bot to tag talk pages with the appropriate banner.Greg Bard (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a great idea! Cap020570 (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that changed sooner that I thought. I guess I'll have to get used to the name "Skepticism" as opposed to "Rational Skepticism". Did we lose the member list in the changeover? How do we update/merge the talk page templates for both projects? Allecher (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My goal is to make sure that nothing is lost. The membership list is under the link to "Join the project." This list includes people who signed up for the pseudoscience project. I have made a request to move the template banner, and I will keep people updated on that. If there are any issues, please do contact me, but please, also be patient. Greg Bard (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay folks, things have stablized since the move. There are about 6 bots that are affected, and they seem to have made the adjustment. Everyone was very patient about it, so everyone can stop being patient now and let me know if there is anything that should be addressed. Obviously people should feel free to change things around to suit their needs (it doesn't have to be grey, and nav tamplate can have different links, etc.) The only other idea I want to float out there is to turn all the "WikiProjects to monitor" into taskforces of this project. Greg Bard (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories
Is Moon landing conspiracy theories something that this project should cover? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that it does because we specifically include pseudohistory in the project description. --Allecher (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there anything I need to do to add it to the project other than put the banner on the talk page? Is there a list of articles to watch or anything? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting the talk page banner on there will be enough to add it to the Project. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I failed to realize that it was already there! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Anything where skepticism is relevant is on topic. That includes conspiracy theory articles in general, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy
Greetings folks, I finally created Category:Pseudophilosophy, as I have been meaning to for a while. The creation of this category has made it possible to classify all of the non-scientific claims which are pseudo-scholarship. For a long time I wondered whether or not the Philosophy project was strong enough, to deal with having this category. Already, we have an editor, (User:Lerr) who has depopulated the catgeory, and prodded it with the claim that "there is no such concept" as pseudophilosophy. Well, I think all of the serious philosophy editors know that not just anything is philosophy, and are frustrated and alarmed at some of the impressions of non-academically oriented contributors in the area of philosophy. Some guy handing out photocopied sheets of paper with a tiny font and misaligned text on a street corner in San Fransico is not philosophy. Please help sustain the integrity of academic philosophy and Wikipedia in general, by monitoring this category. Greg Bard (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in drama so I'm not getting into it, but Ayn Rand, Objectivism (and prominent objectivists), LaRouche movement and Lyndon La Rouche are perfect examples of pseudophilosophy and belong in that category. Sædon talk 22:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed (on all counts). I have added them. Greg Bard (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC) --- ... and the LaRouche movement was immediately removed form the category by User:Collect. Perhaps what we need to do is get on record as ahving a consensus for the inclusion of certain members of that category. This category could create a series of on-going battles. Greg Bard (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy with the view this is a problematic category, but perhaps it could be clearly determined to apply if a belief system terms itself a "philosophy" whereas mainstream philosophical scholarship does not. I'm thiking, for example, of the ideas of Rudolph Steiner. However the problem with applying a category is that it needs to be clearly demonstrable that the category has been used as a principal defining characteristic of the topic in question, by reliable sources. Is "pseudophilosophy" even a word that sources use much? Alexbrn talk 02:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What's really important here is whether or not we have sources as it's hard to use editor discretion on contentious topics (even if it's not contentious amongst experts). And though I could think of 100 things that should be listed as pseudophilosophy I mention those above specifically because I'm almost certain that they have all been referred to as such in high quality sources. If I have time this weekend I'll do the research myself.  Sædon talk 07:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Eidetic memory
Is there a skeptical position on Eidetic memory? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've looked it up on google books, read various psychological books on it and found it at least plausible then tried to find skeptic viewpoints on it, did get a little and there must a be at least something worth adding in the article. Have you found any? I didn't spend much time searching... -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A friend asked me if skeptics had debunked this. I briefly searched Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic magazine, and Skeptic's Dictionary and I didn't find anything.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Error in list of topics?
I noticed that the article Otherkin and its redirect Draconity were recently added to this project's list of topics, under the Cults subheading. I believe this is an error, since neither topic is religious in nature and therefore cannot be related to a cult. For that matter, I'm not sure that either topic actually belongs within the scope of this project, since both topics are about personal identity at their core, not scientific or philosophical claims. --Tathar (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No scientific claims? They claim to have health-related problems when coming in contact with iron. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As an otherkin myself, I do not make that claim, and I do not personally know any otherkin who would make that claim. The claim or suggestion that all otherkin claim to have an iron allergy is false, and is not supported by the article's text either.  --Tathar (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put them under cults but this is obviously a topic within scope of the project. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this topic is certainly within the scope of this project. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion on the article's talk page, I take back my concerns about the article's inclusion under this WikiProject, but I'd still like to discuss its categorization within the project. --Tathar (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the proper categorization, I'm not sure where it would belong among the existing categories. Since the article's subject is an umbrella term for those who identify partially or wholly as non-human on any non-physical level, you have a wide variety of those levels, including spiritual, mental, emotional, and indeterminate levels.  Personally, I don't think any otherkin truly know why they identify as non-human, only that they identify as non-human.  Any claims as to why they identify as such generally appear to be just guesses.  My own guess is that the cause would be similar to what causes people to identify as Transgender, given the similarities.  Sadly, I'm not seeing anything in the list that stands out as a candidate for categorization, though that may be because I'm looking for a single category that covers everything.  --Tathar (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up my watchlist, so I'm going to remove this page from it since it appears discussion has stopped. If anything happens in this section, please let me know on my talk page or on the Talk:Otherkin page. --Tathar (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Theosophy related
''Posted the below on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group. As you have done fine work on Theosophy - and some of the articles I draw attention to relate to the history of theosophy etc - I thought it might be helpful to repost here.''

Please take a look at Subud, George Gurdjieff, Findhorn Foundation etc

You have been doing great work. However I tripped over the article on Subud a few weeks ago and discovered it was written entirely from within this relatively obscure little movement (ie taking the movements jargon etc as commonly shared) and not even mentioning any of the criticism or controversy which has followed it round the world for decades. For example the suicide of the founder's son - which features in academic literature as well as an otherwise hagiographic biography - finds no place.

Subud is categorised as a NRM but doesn't appear to have benefited from your NPOV work. I added a small academic reference to it being called a cult (by the French government among others) but this was deleted on spurious grounds. Just put some in again but have little confidence this will survive.

Looking at Subud led me to George Gurdjieff, an article which is just as biased. Most scholars would these days characterise GG as something of a joke - but there is again no NPOV in this article, no criticism, and merely a (to an outsider) baffling, lengthy and jargon-heavy exposition. The bibliography doesn't include a major accessible scholarly work on him and his kind (Madame Blavatskys Baboon), no doubt because it is not to the taste of GGs few remaining followers.

Going further I found plenty of other articles which relate to these two subjects - and whose articles are linked in one way or another - but which are similarly flawed. I hope someone can take a look at the whole group.

Finally, some time ago a 'controversy' section was deleted from the article on the Findhorn Foundation (something of a clearing house for esoterica in the UK) and so I have copied that material here, having given up on my attempts to try and keep some balance on that page. Hope someone can help:-


 * ==Controversy==


 * There have been many critics of and controversies surrounding the work of the Findhorn Foundation since 1962. For example:


 * A. Roberts, writing in the Fortean Times, alleges that in the 1960s, Caddy and other 'channelers' believed that they were in contact with extraterrestrials through telepathy, and prepared a 'landing strip' for flying saucers at nearby Cluny Hill.


 * In 1993 the Scottish Charities Office commissioned a report into holotropic breathwork, having received complaints about it at the Findhorn Foundation. The report caused the Findhorn Foundation to suspend its breathwork programme. According to The Scotsman, Dr Linda Watt of Leverndale Psychiatric Hospital in Glasgow said that the hyperventilation technique might cause seizures or lead to psychosis in vulnerable people. (The Scotsman, 14 October 1993).


 * In 1999 one of the foundation's long-term members, Verity Linn, died of exposure on a Scottish mountain while following the teachings of the self-styled Australian guru Jasmuheen (not connected with the Findhorn Foundation), who teaches that human beings can "live on light" alone.

Testbed (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who edits medical (or alt-med) articles...
...may be interested in Cochrane. As of April 2013, Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access to 100 medical editors. Individual access would cost between $300 and $800 per single license subscription.
 * Applicants should...
 * Not already have free access to Cochrane reports through your local library, university, institution, organization, or country
 * Be highly active in areas of medicine, medications, health, and/or related sciences
 * Have an account that is a minimum of 1 year old
 * Have a minimum of 1000 edits to the Wikimedia projects
 * Have your preferences enabled to receive email messages on English Wikipedia (see Special:Preferences)


 * Recipients should...
 * Try out and use their Cochrane account during their free access period
 * Always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a Cochrane article
 * Not use bare links to non-free Cochrane pages
 * Note (subscription required) in the citation, where appropriate
 * Review WP:V, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and WP:PAYWALL
 * Respect the copyrights of Cochrane reports, in line with our copyright policy.
 * -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleve Backster
I think the biography Cleve Backster has serious need of the skeptical viewpoint. It reports very dubious sounding science about the feelings of plants. Sorry, not able to take this on myself. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, only his "previous career" section is left for expansion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thank you. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed to merge this wikiproject and 12 others to a new wikiproject. Please see the proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The revised propsal says I'd suggest that either WP Alternative Views or WP Skepticism should serve as the "umbrella project" for all the remaining projects involved in this discussion.. I really feel that science and facts cannot be lumped under Alternative Views, if you agree you may want to make that clear in the merger discussion.Joolzzt (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Chip Coffey
Interested parties might want to look at this AfD

This comment is signed with timestamp so this section will be archived.MrBill3 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011 This comment is signed with timestamp so this section will be archived.MrBill3 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience categories
An editor has been removing subcategories from Category:Pseudoscience, arguing they do not belong. I am working on shoring up these categories, ensuring they are properly sourced as pseudosciences. But this is a big job, and I would appreciate any assistance from other editors. Thanks. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles can I presume be used as a source which might support the inclusion of the topics included in a list of pseudoscience of some source, which would reasonably also be a fair basis for including categories relating to it in the pseudoscience category as well. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Help expand for DYK: Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Ordinance
Seems like a fun topic - would make for a nice DYK. If anyone would like to expand it, it would be appreciated! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

AfD of interest to project Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges
An Article for Deletion discussion for the article Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges is at Articles_for_deletion/Association_of_Accredited_Naturopathic_Medical_Colleges. This may be of interest to WikiProject Skepticism. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Lisa the Skeptic
This is a note to let the main editors of Lisa the Skeptic know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Lisa the Skeptic" is the eighth episode of The Simpsons ' ninth season, first aired in November 1997. On an archaeological dig with her class, Lisa discovers a skeleton that resembles an angel. All of the townspeople believe that the skeleton actually came from an angel, but skeptical Lisa attempts to persuade them that there must be a rational scientific explanation, asking the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould to test a sample. After Gould tells Lisa that the tests were inconclusive, she compares the belief in angels to the belief in unicorns and leprechauns and in response, Springfield's religious zealots go on a rampage to destroy all scientific institutions. The episode's writer David X. Cohen (pictured) developed the idea after visiting the American Museum of Natural History, and decided to loosely parallel themes from the Scopes Monkey Trial. There were mixed reviews. It has been discussed in the context of virtual reality, ontology, existentialism, and skepticism; it has also been used in Christian religious education classes to initiate discussion about angels, skepticism, science, and faith. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Above was posted to my user talk page, just updating here as well. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice to know. It will be interesting to see how this affects the traffic on the linked pages. Allecher (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

These are the ones related to this WikiProject that could use quality improvement and improvement in sourcing. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Scientific skepticism
 * 2) Skepticism
 * 3) Scopes Trial

GA Reassessment
Pedra da Gávea, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

AFD
The following AFD is of interest to this project, and could use additional eyes as only two editors have !voted. Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Baratz
Hello, back in October I created an article on Robert Baratz, and I am putting a mention of it here in the hopes that it will be noticed and edited by other people with interests in skepticism (not just me). Jinkinson  talk to me  20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
I've recently created the page List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Additional help with research, secondary source suggestions, and quality improvement ideas would be appreciated, at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

List peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

Michigan Triangle
Apparently two plains disappearing over Lake Michigan in the span of a half-century means there's a Bermuda-Triangle like vile vortex sitting over it... as a pretty right-angle triangle at that. I've put this up for AfD on the grounds that no reliable sources exist for a mystery vortex over Lake Michigan. Simonm223 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In an effort to prevent canvassing, you probably want to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan too. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will do. If you think of anywhere else I should notify, I'm all in favour of as many people as possible getting to know about AfDs. Simonm223 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What are the definitions of "alternative medicine" by "major world health organization[s]"?
At Talk:Alternative_medicine I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".

I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You will find various definitions from different organizations and groups, and because this is Wikipedia, we don't use only one definition. We might mention different ones, but we will likely also come up with our own per WP:LEAD, where the lead sums up article content.


 * I notice that you have spread this out over many places. Can you please try to direct all of them to the article's talk page? Otherwise we'll have split discussions which will create problems. Let the other places serve as notifications, but shut down any discussion before it gets started and direct them to the article talk page. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

How we title myths
This discussion may be of interest: Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative.

jps (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
 * 1) List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
 * 2) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudohistorians has been proposed for deletion again.
Category:Pseudohistorians has been proposed for deletion again. Anyone interested in commenting can do so here. __ E L A Q U E A T E  06:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Preston Long
This AfD and the article Preston Long may be of interest to project members. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Narragansett Runestone
is a new fringe archaeology article based almost entirely on sources that fail WP:RS, eg the cult archaeology magazine Ancient American, edited for years by Frank Collin under the name Frank Joseph, and a pdf by RM. de Jonge (coincidentally an editor here, see Articles for deletion/Early discovery of the Faroe Islands and User:Dr. R.M. de Jonge and his website. The pdf downloads automatically but is from the Migration-Diffusion website - the copyright status of the pdf is unclear but it hosts complete copies of articles from the hyperdiffusionist journal "Migration & Diffusion - an international journal". Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These say that the owner of the website was producer/editor of the journal, so it appears that copyright is a non-issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An proposal to construct a new article on the Bill-Nye debate and a quest for a name
With the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate of February 4 now a week behind us, it's clear that this was a bigger media event than I and perhaps some other people anticipated. Perhaps as a result of underestimation of the event, no article for the debate was created prior to the event, despite several weeks of lead up time. With before-and-after coverage being available, I think an effort should be made to constructing a proper article on this event. What would be an appropriate name for such an article? There doesn't seem to be a consistent name for the event yet, though a social media hashtag of "#HamOnNye" was thrown around. I think "Nye–Ham debate" would be fine given the naming scheme used for other debates on Wikipedia. --Cast (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical as to whether this event is really that notable. Have you considered writing a short blurb in an existing creationism article? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with IRWolfie and see inclusion in another article as the most appropriate venue for inclusion. If that. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right-o, then. We'll see what comes of it.--Cast (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

New articles, suspect they may be relevant.
A new user User:MentalHealthGroup has been creating dense "articles" which seem like they might be term papers or personal essays or something. They really seem like they aren't notable, but to me the writing is incoherent gibberish. I'm thinking they all need to be deleted, but they're all extremely well-cited, and It's very hard to understand where to look to determine if the citations establish notability or if it's all internal jargon from a single non-notable group. This seems like the closest thing to a Wikiproject on, I guess.. nonsense, so maybe y'all know how to deal with this appropriately. The articles are: Meaning-making, Cultured resonance, Autologous knowledge-translation, Inverted synergy and a huge chunk of Mental health literacy. I've also come across Mental literacy, which seems to be the same general area and has been sitting there lacking citations for 10 years. Looks like it might fail notability as well. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 05:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to cross-post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and the fringe theories noticeboard, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I got very good responses at the Help Desk(saved revision). One of the articles was deleted for copyvio. The other three have been nominated for AfD:


 * Articles for deletion/Meaning-making
 * Articles for deletion/Inverted synergy
 * Articles for deletion/Cultured resonance


 * I'll notify fringe theories noticeboard as well. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 16:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography of critical thinking, source evaluation, and skepticism resources?
I've just begun reading a new book,, which I learned about as I was reading another book in the broader literature on skepticism. I was wondering if any of you have suggestions of other books that would be good to mention to fellow Wikipedians as all of us work on various articles that can gain from an application of critical thinking to their editing. On my Wikipedia user page I keep links to quite a few bibliographies on controversial topics in my userspace, and I'm always happy to receive suggestions for new sources for those bibliographies. Perhaps I should begin compiling a new bibliography on critical thinking, source evaluation, and skepticism. What books and articles would you suggest for inclusion in that? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 02:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few reference works on pseudoscience, and I generated one page at WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles listing them by relative length. Maybe consulting the source there, and a few similar works, to see what content and sources they frequently list for several of their articles might be useful. John Carter (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow-up comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article List of books about skepticism might be worth mentioning as well. Nmillerche (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Repressed memory article
The Repressed memory article is in a great need of work. The article is tagged for factual accuracy (since 2012), neutrality and lede. Some discussion here about how to improve it: --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Repressed_memory

Poor quality of articles from archaeosophical topics
When I was at Guardian of the Threshold I noticed a lot of uncited content and a lot of material giving heavy weight to archaeosophy - which appears to be a branch of Italian esotericism from the early 20th century. I've got some WP:DUE concerns regarding this area of Wikipedia. I'll be sorting through a bunch of it shortly to see how much of it is a walled garden and working on adjusting the WP:NPOV balance slightly. I'll be notifying a few different noticeboards about this in case anybody wants to lend a hand / rein me in. In case anybody wants to suggest I'm canvassing, I've already notified wikiproject occult and wikiproject paranormal. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind peer review
I have submitted the article Kent Hovind for peer review. He is an American evangelist and creationist. If you have time please give your thoughts on the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly pseudoscientific claim for Al Plastino's cause of death
Could those well-versed in scientific skepticism and Wikipedia's policies related to WP:FRINGE join this discussion on the talk page of Al Plastino, recently deceased comics creator? Someone tried to add the claim in his article that he died of Guillain–Barré Syndrome, and that his GBS was caused by a flu vaccine, and source that claim to this piece on the website of comics and TV writer/producer/journalist Mark Evanier, which attributes that claim to Plastino's daughter. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oil pulling
I took the liberty of adding this article to your wikiproject's scope. Many thanks, Lesion  ( talk ) 00:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category proposed for deletion

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_24

Has everyone noticed that Category:Pseudoscience was proposed for deletion?! Greg Bard (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Skepchickal



 * File:Skepchickal.jpg
 * 1) Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal

I've nominated this photograph by, for Featured Picture consideration.

Discussion is at Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medicine
Here we go again. This time User:Obiwankenobi, is removing Category:Alternative medicine from Category:Pseudoscience, claiming to have a consensus, and that not all alt med is pseudoscience, so it shouldn't be classified as such. See discussion at Category talk:Alternative medicine. Greg Bard (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Greg, I had asked you to not violate WP:CANVASS, but here you post a blatantly one-sided notification of the discussion. In addition, you include a serious misrepresentation of what has happened - if you look at the edit history, it is YOU who has repeatedly tried to insert this category, only to have it removed. It was gone for several months, then added a month ago or so, until I removed it, and you edit-warred it back in. Anyway, everyone else please join the discussion which is sure to be a good one given it's inauspicious start here...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are completely out of line here. The category is within the scope of this project, and my characterization was not only accurate, but objectively so. You don't seem to understand what the canvass policy is at all. Quite frankly, I find the canvass policy offensive to a basic sense of decency for any person in an open society, but even in accepting it, you are still over reaching to claim it. Greg Bard (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Greg, your notification was not neutral. First, you start with "Here we go again" - as if a wink to those "in the know" that some troublemaker is up to no-good once again. Secondly, your description of it being me "removing" the category in inaccurate - for much of the lifetime of Alternative medicine, that category has not been present, and in spite of your continual edit warring to restore it it has been removed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an objective fact that we have been through this issue many times before. My claim is that you are the problem editor, and you claim that I am the problem editor. Only one of us is right. I only hope that the Wikipedia consensus decision making process doesn't fail, as it occasionally does. Could some reasonable editors intervene please?Greg Bard (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The objective facts of adds/removals of that category can be seen in the edit history. It's pretty objective. You've added in 5 times, and have been reverted 5 times. Other interested editor should join the discussion at the category talk page, instead of here in any case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the consensus was established, and I restored it from edits by "true believers" five times.Greg Bard (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Folks, are we actually letting this stand?! Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo on adequate evidence
There is a lot of blog coverage of a change.org petition calling on Wikipedia to adjust its editorial policies to allow in more article text about "holistic approaches to healing." Jimbo Wales responded, "Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately." See Respectful Insolence, Skeptical Software Tools, and other blogs for more details. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, expect this to be covered in the next Signpost. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This:

Now, if anyone would like to email me, I have a friend who is a well-known proponent of free content who has been invited to comment on the specific case at issue. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Guy, I hope you don't mind that I just put that user template on a page I keep in user space describing my editorial approach here. Alas, I tend to know mostly about topics that attract a lot of POV-pushers to the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, nice work with that essay...very well written. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which journals are considered acceptable to Wikipedia? It looks like the American Psychological Association Journals, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, the Journal of Alternative Medicine and Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies are not. So how can one tell which published Journals Wikipedia will acknowledge and which they will not? Sbwinter2 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are you looking for signs of what Wikipedia deems to be reliable sources? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My question is based on the rejection of sources on the Rolfing page and reading about others sources that were rejected on other pages. Sbwinter2 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to such "rejections". Are you sure it was the journal being rejected and not the claim made about the journal? D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a very useful Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources on medicine that all editors would do well to consult before revising article text dealing with medical claims. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am actually not even referring to an article making medical claims because it is not considered medicine. It is alternative medicine, which according to wikipedia's own definition, does not even need scientific validation in terms of what it intends to do or how it is defined. Problem is that the "editors" do not like the Journals that publish articles on research or explanations. I am actually getting some response on that page again now, so I will continue this discussion there. I was just curious as it seemed that there were just some published journals which the skeptics project didn't even consider valid. Thanks. Sbwinter2 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Medicine, alt med, spirituality or whatever the underlying issue is biomedical information. If the intentions or definitions involve biomedical information, the best sourced currently available mainstream medical science must be presented prominently.

Sources are evaluated based on their ability to support the facts in proposed content. Analysis of the quality of a source starts with the publication's reputation for accuracy, fact checking and bias but goes on to look at how the information is supported in the source. When considering biomedical information an evaluation looks at the quality of the source from a variety of aspects. This post to a talk page provides one example of evaluation of a source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Nikola Tesla's birthplace be changed?
An RfC Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? has been created. Comments are welcome.- MrX 15:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

More to do - theosophy related
As if you didn't have enough to do just thought I'd add a reminder of several articles in serious need of attention. Last year I posted the below on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group but no one has followed up. As you have done fine work on Theosophy - and some of the articles I draw attention to relate to the history of theosophy etc - I thought it might be helpful to repost here.'

Please take a look at Subud, George Gurdjieff, Findhorn Foundation etc

You have been doing great work. However I tripped over the article on Subud a few weeks ago and discovered it was written entirely from within this relatively obscure little movement (ie taking the movements jargon etc as commonly shared) and not even mentioning any of the criticism or controversy which has followed it round the world for decades. For example the suicide of the founder's son - which features in academic literature as well as an otherwise hagiographic biography - finds no place.

Subud is categorised as a NRM but doesn't appear to have benefited from your NPOV work. I added a small academic reference to it being called a cult (by the French government among others) but this was deleted on spurious grounds. Just put some in again but have little confidence this will survive.

Looking at Subud led me to George Gurdjieff, an article which is just as biased. Most scholars would these days characterise GG as something of a joke - but there is again no NPOV in this article, no criticism, and merely a (to an outsider) baffling, lengthy and jargon-heavy exposition. The bibliography doesn't include a major accessible scholarly work on him and his kind (Madame Blavatskys Baboon), no doubt because it is not to the taste of GGs few remaining followers.

Going further I found plenty of other articles which relate to these two subjects - and whose articles are linked in one way or another - but which are similarly flawed. I hope someone can take a look at the whole group.

Finally, some time ago a 'controversy' section was deleted from the article on the Findhorn Foundation (something of a clearing house for esoterica in the UK) and so I have copied that material here, having given up on my attempts to try and keep some balance on that page. Hope someone can help:-


 * ==Controversy==


 * There have been many critics of and controversies surrounding the work of the Findhorn Foundation since 1962. For example:


 * A. Roberts, writing in the Fortean Times, alleges that in the 1960s, Caddy and other 'channelers' believed that they were in contact with extraterrestrials through telepathy, and prepared a 'landing strip' for flying saucers at nearby Cluny Hill.


 * In 1993 the Scottish Charities Office commissioned a report into holotropic breathwork, having received complaints about it at the Findhorn Foundation. The report caused the Findhorn Foundation to suspend its breathwork programme. According to The Scotsman, Dr Linda Watt of Leverndale Psychiatric Hospital in Glasgow said that the hyperventilation technique might cause seizures or lead to psychosis in vulnerable people. (The Scotsman, 14 October 1993).


 * In 1999 one of the foundation's long-term members, Verity Linn, died of exposure on a Scottish mountain while following the teachings of the self-styled Australian guru Jasmuheen (not connected with the Findhorn Foundation), who teaches that human beings can "live on light" alone.

Testbed (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Skepticism At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets

Adikhajuria (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories
We are discussing what to rename this article and I hope for input on what words to use/not use in titles and subtitles of such articles. Please come and give your opinions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Huffpo article by Deepak Chopra

 * Wikipedia, A New Perspective on an Old Problem

Apparently, WE are the ones who have turned Wikipedia into an "ideological 'battleground'" Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Be ever vigilant... D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In related news, the article Deepak Chopra is currently undergoing some changes, while User:SAS81 ("I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia") is contributing to Talk:Deepak Chopra. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice to meet all of you. Specifically, I am an employee of ISHAR, Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository. It's newly formed and Dr. Chopra, through the Chopra Foundation, gave us a grant but he will not be our only funding source. Our responsibility is representing all knowledge on our archive, including subjects such as Dr Chopra - without bias to media and online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. Not a PR company. Not a marketing company. Not a promotional company. We are a non profit educational organization. We are required to work directly within Wikipedia's policy. SAS81 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, how do you propose that you can represent this materiel without bias when Deepak himself argues that objective reality is nothing more than shared subjective experiences shaped by personal experience (i.e., reality is biased). Honestly, I'm not being factitious, this is an honest question. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A shell game does not a reliable source make. Nor boilerplate eliminate motivation. However if the material in the "archive" represents reliable sources ISHAR can be a welcome resource for providing access to referencing sources found reliable. A linear string of electrons leading to a repository of representations of physical atoms presenting a notion of notions of disassociated association. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm thrilled we can have this sort of discussion, thank you. D kriegls I was not sure when you said 'answer here' if 'here' was my talk page where you posted or 'here' where the original question was posted. So I am going to repost my answer....in both 'heres' :)

This is an absolutely fair question and I really appreciate you approaching me like this. I'm so thrilled with this question I've supplied a wall of text, sheesh! I also don't mind coming over to your noticeboard. As to what it means to be 'without bias' - I'm not sure that is possible for anyone to be without bias. However I do believe that where circumstances require, we can at least attempt to view issues without our personal bias and report on them the best we can and this is very possible and something journalists or researchers have to do quite often. It's just a matter of framing things so our own personal bias is removed from our language (and the encyclopedia's). For example, what you wrote above is actually does a pretty good job. You may not agree with Dr Chopra's assessment of consciousness - and you may agree with for example Dan Dennet's framework for consciousness so if you're writing an encyclopedia or building an archive, you would just report that x said this, y said that and you would attribute their voices, not the voice of the encyclopedia to their statements. Without bias therefore means INCLUDING all facts and attributing all points of view directly to their sources without being represented as a source for those views or facts. We also have to be careful not to mislead a reader by interpreting the work of an author through the lens of our own bias. This can be challenging. Imagine if you had to frame the point of view of say someone you don't like (if your a dem and you had to frame the viewpoint of the tea party for example). So this is where skeptic editors face a challenge too! I'm a little wonky nerdy type, so I actually enjoy this sort of work and challenge.

Also, I would not assume that I have the same bias that say Dr. Chopra would have regarding his views. Before I got this gig, I was not a 'follower' of Deepak Chopra and actually never read much of his work. I also did not have much an opinion on it either. Now that I dive into this work, I've actually been a little shocked to discover many things that I assumed were true about Dr Chopra were my own misperceptions (for example, I assumed he was an alternative medicine practitioner, he isn't) and I also was not aware of the high level of acceptance Dr Chopra has on the world stage. So unless someone is an extremist of some kind, I think most rational people can be aware of their own viewpoints and be aware of how those viewpoints are being represented and can take responsibility to represent those viewpoints without using biased language.

let's keep this discussion going, yes? I'm not the enemy, and believe it or not, I am fascinated by this 'problem' and I think we can work together to find a productive solution. I think this will speak well for the skeptic community and Wikipedia. Problem I have is that since skeptic groups or organizations have so committed themselves in a certain direction - if they reach out and work with an opposing viewpoint they get pressure from their own peers which prevents a solution from occurring since they have locked themselves into a debate and any resolution will cause them to lose respect or position. Very human problem that has nothing to do with the ideology behind it, it's just human nature getting in the way. SAS81 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Without bias therefore means INCLUDING all facts and attributing all points of view directly to their sources without being represented as a source for those views or facts." Here at Wikipedia, we're extremely cautious about labeling information as "facts" especially when that information comes from people with fringe beliefs and products and services based upon those fringe beliefs.
 * Likewise, we don't care about all points of view, only prominent ones.
 * Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, especially when there's a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To expand on Ronz's reply, do you truly think it's possible or even reasonable to include all points of view? For instance, should every article on the Holocaust include a section on how holocausts deniers interpret the information, and another section for how various Muslim groups interpret the information? Wouldn't that be giving these views some undeserved appearance of acceptance by mainstream historians? Additionally, do you really want us to include every negative thing written about Deepak Chopra by quackwatch? Or even by mainstream newspapers like The Guardian who published this critique by one of his contemporaries Susan Blackmore? If we do accept that not all possible views should be included, then we agree to some form of editorializing. Rules for which have been fiercely debated and laid down by our editorial forefathers (so to speak).
 * However, if you truly do think all these views should be included, I ask, have you taken it upon yourself to add such negative critiques of Chopra's page? If not, isn't that a measure of biased editorializing on your part? Which I would suggest again brings us back to the inherent bias needing agreed upon rules for editorializing with COI issues. The third option of course is that Ronz and I misunderstood your definition of being "without bias". For which I am happy to entertain the correction. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 21:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Ronz - my answer was to the question what does 'without bias' mean and my answer was broad, it was not meant to reflect what Wikipedia should do or be like, it was meant to represent how ISHAR represents knowledge or facts without bias. Of course Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and ISHAR is committed to those policies and guidelines. I was rather hoping you could find some appreciation to how we approach things and see similarities where we can find consensus. SAS81 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@ D kriegls I'm not sure if you're asking me a broad, almost philosophical question about presentation of knowledge in general without bias or if your question is to Wikipedia specifically - my answer was meant to reflect the former. Bias, and without bias, are expressed in language and text and context primarily. I can hold a biased view of say, Justin Beiber, who personally makes me gag, but I Can still frame a neutral sentence about him that says 'Justin Beiber is very popular'. I dont need to write 'Justin Beiber is popular with people who have no taste in music' as that reveals my bias. I also dont need to associate the meaning of him being very popular with other things that would discredit him in the eyes of those who I think would know better, such as readers of Rolling Stone, such as 'Teen Beat magazine claims he is the most popular singer ever'. Also, great to know there is no spell check for Beiber, so I'm winging the spelling here.

If both of you are wondering my thoughts on how this should play out on Wikipedia, maybe this can help. And please keep in mind that my point of view is always evolving. In matters of a BLP, I believe that readers should be able to discover who someone is, what their ideas are, and what reception they have had. So to your analogy re: holocaust survivor museum, no of course not but the same with someone's BLP. If I go to a holocaust survivor museum, I want to learn about what it was like for THEM, and I want to know about their experiences. I don't want to learn about the holocaust from the point of view of the aggressors. Likewise, if I go to a Deepak Chopra article, I want to learn about HIM and HIS ideas, not what his ideas look like through the eyes of those who are suspicious of him. If suspicions of him are prominent (and they admittedly are) I would expect to find those too. I would NOT expect the article to confuse the both of them. And that's what I am here to help with. I think we can have both. I want the article to address your concerns too, I'm not trying to fluff it up or remove criticisms. We can discuss this more if you like.

SAS81 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the question "will we have critics of Dr Chopra on ISHAR" My position is yes we will, however our focus is different. We will be showing the discussion around the critics and where the discussion is at. SAS81 (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have hit upon a key concept in WP. On WP we report on HIM and HIS ideas as reported on by reliable secondary sources. They don't have to be "those who are suspicious". The secondary sources we choose and the prominence we give the content based on their published reporting is according to the due weight they have in representing the mainstream academic community. This is the encyclopedic nature and policy of WP. If one wants to find out all about HIM and HIS ideas one can go to HIS website and read HIS books etc. I hope this is abundantly clear. This is fully documented and explained in the core policy WP:NPOV. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * SAS81, I'm not sure I follow, as I now understand you to be suggesting the opposite of what I first thought. As MrBill explained above, are you suggesting that only Deepak Chopra's perspective of himself should be represented by his BLP? I honestly don't think that's what you meant, but that is how I am currently reading your last comment. Though I am using the Chopra article as an example, I am asking for the broad philosophical view of what it means to you to be "without bias" in a world with no external verification as the traditional scientific method describes it. What Chopra explains as a world "created" by consciousness and not one simply experience by consciousness, thus allowing for an external world that can be tested and verified. Your example: "I Can still frame a neutral sentence about him that says 'Justin Beiber is very popular'"; fits Wikipedia's NPOV, but I don't think it fit's your claim of "without bias" as it is biased towards a Neutral Point of View. Pinning down this point of distinction seems important to understand because you claim to be working to represent Chopra's materiel "without bias" while other Wikipedia editors who appear to at be odds with you are claiming they are working towards a NPOV. I don't have a new question to sum up my thoughts this time because I am still wondering what you mean when you say you are working to represent the materiel "without bias". D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's important to grasp that we are not so much writing an article about Chopra, as merely digesting what serious sources have to say about him. If no serious source takes Chopra seriously (pretty much the case), Wikipedia will reflect that. This, in WP terms, is neutral. Alexbrn talk 07:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
 * We are certainly writing about Chopra and his ideas, reception, criticism We digest sources to do that. Removing the idea that this is not about Chopra but about sources removes the humanity from our decision making and opens the door for abuse.
 * Academic sources are generally good, verifiable sources. They are not the only good sources.
 * Chopra is a world renowned figure for his work in multiple areas. Our articles had better reflect that in addition to the criticism launched against him. Any other approach such as making sure no one takes Chopra seriously is NPOV.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC))

MrBill3 - sure, we use secondary sources to report on him, but we also are guided to use primary sources, with care - to verify secondary sources - and that just make sense to do in some, but not all situations. There seems to be allot of variance in interpretation amongst editors here. For example, in the case of Dr Chopra’s article, Capn, SlimVirgin, Atama, Olive Oil and I all agreed on how to use primary sources with secondary sources. Ronz and a few others had a different idea.

I STRONGLY disagree that the encyclopedia isn’t a place to learn about someone’s ideas and life but a place to learn about how others view the subject - that statement seems very counterintuitive and a little extreme and would be an entirely subjective process, devoid of much value. Wikipedia wants to be a respected encyclopedia. Of course the article should not be like the subject’s website, that would be ridiculous. But if the subject says on his website or book, “My views are x”, and a secondary sources says “his views are Y” then it’s mind boggling to assume that we must misrepresent the views of a biography, even knowingly, because the secondary source trumps all. That’s an algorithm for a unreliable encyclopedia. I see the encyclopedia as a place to learn about people, places and things and we compile the articles through secondary sources as a methodology for determining notability, reliability and verifiability only.

As to ‘those suspicious of him’ I was primarily referring to the editors on the article, not necessarily the sources they are using. SAS81 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

DKriegls and SAS81 part two
D kriegls I truly thank you for this discussion, and apologize for the walls of text - I'm hoping that by formatting my responses below the way I did, I created an easier way for follow up questions by others as well. Feel free to correct me if this drives you nuts!

NO! That’s exactly not what I am saying, its not the subject’s ‘perspective on themselves’ that needs to be in the article (that would be bizarre) it’s the subjects actual ideas and work that must be in the article. SAS81 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As MrBill explained above, are you suggesting that only Deepak Chopra's perspective of himself should be represented by his BLP?


 * NO! the subjects actual work and ideas belong in the works of the subject. WP presents the interpretation, evaluation and analysis of the subject's works that have been published in reliable sources with prominence and quantity as due. You seem to not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a website for the presentation and promotion of an individuals work. If the subjects ideas are significantly considered these ideas will be discussed in secondary sources with adequate explanation, context and interpretation. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is another point of confusion I run into quite frequently - the traditional scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with someone’s biography. Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you saying that scientists opinions about people are facts of science? I would expect scrutiny if the article was about integrative medicine, or the effects of meditation on the endocrine system, but it’s very perplexing when I read that scientists opinions about people are equal to scientific evidence about physics and chemistry. SAS81 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I am using the Chopra article as an example, I am asking for the broad philosophical view of what it means to you to be "without bias" in a world with no external verification as the traditional scientific method describes it.


 * What Chopra explains as a world "created" by consciousness and not one simply experience by consciousness, thus allowing for an external world that can be tested and verified.

I’m going to have very serious problems with any position that wants to assume a formal stance on the nature of consciousness and then use that to defer Chopra into a category. Dr. Chopra is very prolific on the topic of consciousness and spirituality - this to me falls under the purview of philosophy (at this time but my position can evolve). Therefore, although I disagree somewhat with your statement that Chopra’s viewpoints on consciousness can be tested by 3rd party data - I’m not sure if it’s productive if you or I have a conversation about the nature of consciousness. So I view his views on consciousness as philosophy. Another thing that may surprise you is the level of support Dr Chopra has for his ideas in this regard. He has lots of very very interesting, academic scientists contributing to his work. I’m on many of these email chains and sometimes I have to pinch myself because I can’t believe I’m actually on an email chain with some of the scientists at that level. While his viewpoints on consciousness may be a minority view in science of philosophy itself - its a significant minority and in terms of the entire world, Dr Chopra’s arguments are representative of an entire emerging paradigm and thought system that is very mainstream - so it’s important that we report on that accurately. And to be fair, that aint easy! Even if I was doing it all by myself - Dr Chopra is a very very complex person, very prolific, and very challenging to ‘nail down’ so some of this is his own fault in that sense. SAS81 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have a new question to sum up my thoughts this time because I am still wondering what you mean when you say you are working to represent the material "without bias".

It means stating the facts where the facts can be verified to exist and describe them using neutral language that does not reflect my personal point of view nor a broader point of view of the subject unless it’s directly stated as such. It means presenting information from a more agnostic position. It means reaching for completeness and objectivity where possible. It means assuming I have failed in doing so and then repeat the steps a few times more until I get it right. SAS81 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Opening words of the WP:NPOV policy: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We base articles on views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic since we are a tertiary and not a secondary source. We are not engaged in "stating the facts" (unless they have been covered in secondary sources), we are not bothered to be "complete" (other than to the extent secondary sources are) and we are not agnostic, but neutrally relay the viewpoint of our good sources. This neutrality is one of WP's 5 pillars. Alexbrn talk 15:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Alex, sure, there's that, but then there is also WP:BLP with the rule to 'get it right'. Then we also have WP:PSTS, WP:V, WP:ISNOT and WP:OR. Also, I'm not finding much difference between with neutral point of view means and my own usage of 'agnostic' point of view - and DKriegls questions are about how I view this and how ISHAR views this, not how I think Wikipedia does, so please if your going to participate in this discussion, try to follow what *my views are* too. One of the things that makes this a frustrating experience is that every thing I write on this encyclopedia I have about 3 or 4 editors trying to make me wrong. Well I think my views on the encyclopedia are mainstream views, SlimVirgin and I are in total harmony on how to apply these things, as well as TheCapn and a few others. It's frustrating because I find editors are hiding behind WP:Policy when really it's their own bias they are trying to cover up. You know, we can disagree about policy - WP:Policy is not written in stone, it's a moving breathing thing and I feel confident that my views on how to do it are instep with how other experienced editors like Slim do it. I've actually have been studying SlimVirgin's contribution history - that's the quality I am trying to achieve. She is the best example I can find so if you want to understand what my standards are, it's something close to hers. SAS81 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The core policy NPOV is far more important than the other policies. The fundamental nature of WP as an encyclopedia is not to represent the orginal works of the the subject of a bio but to present the significant views published in reliable sources. You can't negate or water down one of the five pillars or three core policies with interpretations of other less important policies. WP is not a place for the promotion or explication of the ideas and works of the subject of a bio that is what the books, website, interviews etc etc etc can do. WP is an encyclopedia, we paraphrase and summarize published reliable sources giving prominence to the sources that represent the views of mainstream academia. This is not something negotiable this is what WP is. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * SAS81m I fear I have confused my inquiry a bit due to my use of the Chopra biography as my example, and I understand this form of discussion can be tedious and tiring when a large group of editors disagrees with your edits (I've been there). But my desire to try to understand your philosophical views on bias do stem from a desire to try to elucidate the obvious differences between your views on NPOV edits and the editors who disagree with your edits. While I believe you when you say that you are "not finding much difference between with neutral point of view means and [your] own usage of 'agnostic' point of view"; I think it is obvious a majority of editors (but defiantly not all) do seem to be at odds with your implementation of NPOV, and given your COI, they find it easy to dismiss your attempts to force your view (as they see it). I personally believe this is not a matter of finding the right Wiki policy and verse to justify those edits, but a fundamental difference of philosophy. Chopra has accused this wikiproject of militant skepticism boarding on conspiracy or at least grand delusion; but I take you at your word that you are not trying to work around the Wikipedia guidelines but honestly want to work within them, which would mean trying to find where the difference of interpretation is stemming from and reach the aspired to consensus that makes Wikipedia so great...and frustrating.-- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 20:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So with that I come back to my desire to try to elucidate where the difference in philosophy might be occurring (presupposing you agree that discussing this may help elucidate the differences you are experiencing with fellow editors). I initially thought it might be a difference in the understanding of the nature of reality. I personally don't think it's much of a challenge to "pin down" Chopra's rejection of a materialistic world as envisioned by Newtonian Physics. He's written several essays outright rejecting it. By highlighting this point, I did not mean to propose that a biography article should be written based on scientific studies, but rather that a NPOV assumes the perspective of a hypothetical external perspective envisioned by the dominant post-positivist perspective of mainstream science. P-p assumes pure objectivity can never be achieved, only approximated to the best of our ability. Thus the goal is to "minimize bias", but never assume its complete elimination. Thus when you used the words "without bias" my curiosity was sparked and pondered whether a fundamental difference of philosophy was at work. Assuming you shared Chopra's take on the nature of reality (a leap of assumption I mistakenly didn't make clear from the onset) I wondered what the hypothetically assumed un-biased perspective was for someone who is editing for a philosophy that argues against an unbiased external world and argues for a world that is actually created by the bias of consciousness, or at least where consciousness can manipulate the world beyond standard cause and effect (Here I do agree on the difficulty to pin him down given that his view swings between some strange shared metaphysical solipsism and a mildly less radical mind-over-matter philosophy). I honestly don't even know what it means to measure predictability with science from such a philosophy that rejects materialism and the order of cause and effect. So, admitting I may have wrongly assumed you share Chopra's philosophy on the nature of reality, I ask do you? If not, then their might be a another difference in philosophy needing elucidation and we should disuse (view ONE). Or perhaps Chopra's philosophy simply confounds your efforts to report facts about his life, because he does not recognize the same weight of evidence for something to be considered "true" that mainstream academics do. So this scenario puts you in the middle of interpretation, a tough place to be when admittedly representing the work of one side in the debate (view TWO). Or, the THIRD option, that you agree with Chopra's philosophy on the nature of reality and we are needing to find a bridge across a very large divide that I fundamentally don't understand, or at most understand to the point of seeing fatal flaws in the argument. I hope the removal of some of my coyness has helped me more clearly state my inquiry this time around. Cheers. --  D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 20:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have as much time this moment to respond to this great discussion and will elucidate more in a bit, but quickly I can say that this statement "P-p assumes pure objectivity can never be achieved, only approximated to the best of our ability. Thus the goal is to "minimize bias", but never assume its complete elimination. Thus when you used the words "without bias" my curiosity was sparked and pondered whether a fundamental difference of philosophy was at work." is very close to my own personal view, and I thought I clarified this somewhat in my first response, i.e. 'i dont think anyone can be without bias, but we can remove bias from our language and context'. More later sir, thank you for taking this time - I think the community (meaning myself included) could use this and if you and I can find a way to bridge a gap together - I think it will say plenty about Wikipedia. Thank you for treating me like a rational person and not an enemy. SAS81 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

DKriegls and SAS81, part 3

 * Assuming you shared Chopra's take on the nature of reality (a leap of assumption I mistakenly didn't make clear from the onset) I wondered what the hypothetically assumed un-biased perspective was for someone who is editing for a philosophy that argues against an unbiased external world and argues for a world that is actually created by the bias of consciousness, or at least where consciousness can manipulate the world beyond standard cause and effect (Here I do agree on the difficulty to pin him down given that his view swings between some strange shared metaphysical solipsism and a mildly less radical mind-over-matter philosophy). I honestly don't even know what it means to measure predictability with science from such a philosophy that rejects materialism and the order of cause and effect. So, admitting I may have wrongly assumed you share Chopra's philosophy on the nature of reality, I ask do you? If not, then their might be a another difference in philosophy needing elucidation and we should disuse (view ONE).

Wow. Well this is a very interesting question - and I hope I am not abusing Wikipedia by just having an enjoyable philosophical discussion. I get your questions. What does a NPOV look like when you believe that the universe was created by consciousness? We assume that this belief is an assumption, right? One that is not supported by modern scientific theory ( at least not mainstream theory). Answer to the question is I don’t know! I’m not sure that is a NPOV at all. I would say that’s a belief if stated as true - and on the other side of that belief is a contrary position (consciousness emerges from physical reality). I don’t believe that a NPOV is an established static position, I think the NPOV is dynamic given the circumstances (I am speaking philosophically - right? Please no one try to bust my balls on WP Policy right now). So if there are two competing views for acceptance, one says physical reality emerges from consciousness, and the second one says that consciousness emerges from physical reality - then if one is to adopt a NPOV, one would be agnostic (in language primarily) towards both positions so to me the NPOV is always a ‘third’ position or value, a position taken as if the knowledge value of both is unknown. This position is breathing and moving - it’s not locked into place - it merely reflects a point of view that neither favors one side of a dialectic nor the other. Therefore the NPOV can also function like a thought exercise - for example one can adopt a NPOV to explore one side of an argument, even if they believe it or accept it.

If you’re curious about what i personally believe, when it comes to consciousness, I am truly an agnostic and I enjoy the overall discussion and I also enjoy many models of consciousness and continually waffle back and forth between which model makes the most sense at the time. I also like to explore the first person perspective on consciousness as well as the third person scientific data. I think what makes the discussion difficult with Dr.Chopra and others is that Dr. Chopra’s position is informed by first person experience - and of course anyone who practices the techniques can modify their consciousness to have a similar first person experience. Of course, while this practice can be empirical in a way, it’s not scientific and provides no useful data to science. Dr. Chopra gets hit pretty hard by his ideas on consciousness, but you would be surprised by the level of support (amongst some scientists) that he has for them as well.

tldr: my views on consciousness are agnostic, and NPOV I view as an agnostic dynamic that is relational to the context of the discussion, not in itself a static viewpoint. SAS81 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps Chopra's philosophy simply confounds your efforts to report facts about his life, because he does not recognize the same weight of evidence for something to be considered "true" that mainstream academics do. So this scenario puts you in the middle of interpretation, a tough place to be when admittedly representing the work of one side in the debate (view TWO).

Hmmm, well one is not accurate, and two is not accurate either. Yes Dr Chopra’s views on consciousness are not accepted as mainstream academic views….kinda. That's a tricky position IMHO. Panpsychism is an emerging mainstream view in philosophy and Dr Chopra by far is not the first person to put forth the ‘quantum consciousness’ argument - he is just the most known. Also its philosophy, not really governed by the rules of science since philosophy must be speculative. The view that the universe is alive (in some way, pick your religion/poison/philosophy) is probably a more prominent viewpoint than materialism if you look at world numbers. However, this is not a problem in terms of editing his biography on Wikipedia! It’s still just as simple as ‘what are his views? state them. What are reception to his views? state those.’ I have not once felt in a compromised position, and also Dr Chopra does not tell me what to put in his article so there is no conflict here, at least on my part. SAS81 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Or, the THIRD option, that you agree with Chopra's philosophy on the nature of reality and we are needing to find a bridge across a very large divide that I fundamentally don't understand, or at most understand to the point of seeing fatal flaws in the argument. I hope the removal of some of my coyness has helped me more clearly state my inquiry this time around.

Well, here i do very much agree with Dr Chopra in terms of ‘bridging the divide’ of Science and…(to be honest, I really dislike the word ‘spirituality’ but for lack of a better word...spirit). I really don’t like allot of the animosity between both sides and often I think there is allot of arrogance happening, and confusion too. On the spirit side, there is allot of ‘woo’ fever with little or no critical thinking - but on the science side there is also not as much philosophical introspection, which I find can lead into group think or something similar. I do think that the discussion he is having around consciousness is very very interesting. I never knew Dr Chopra before this work - and to be honest, I never took his work that seriously either (primarily because i just associated him with Oprah Winfrey, I really didn’t know much about his work) so please accept this as an honest answer. I now think Dr. Chopra is a pretty amazing and impressive human being, even if you or I disagree/agree with him. I can vouch that he truly is a well intentioned human being and has integrity. There are allot of misperceptions about him. To me he is a classic creative type who is very very passionate about his work and ideas. He gets excited. In his excitement I think he speaks poetically when it’s not in his best interests sometimes. I disagree that his views on QM and consciousness are inherently without meaning and that scientists can’t understand him. I happen to know for a fact that many scientists do understand him and and support such views, or at least find them interesting. (source: I'm cc'd on emails) I don’t think he communicates his views on consciousness as well as he likes, and he is constantly working with scientists and philosophers to refine them. I also think there is allot of orthodox in science which resists a merging of views, and I think that is unfortunate.

tl:dr - so while myself I am an agnostic - I support the work Dr Chopra is doing in terms of bringing sides together and think that such work is invaluable, regardless of the outcome. I also have a cool gig! Being a nerdy type, the amount of access I have to him as well as some very very interesting people is amazing - so I do have my ‘job bias’ as in ‘I love this gig’ but my thoughts on Dr Chopra are my own and they are genuine.

ps: I love this discussion, but worried this is the wrong forum? I would love to keep it going but don't want to be disruptive in doing so. Thank you once again sir - you are a gentlemen and a scholar. SAS81 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that very much helped me better understand your position. Instead of addressing everything, I'm going to focus on two key ideas I think might better explore some of the philosophical differences at work (I hope I don't get to "thick" here). First, you said (and I understand it was philosophically speaking): "if one is to adopt a NPOV, one would be agnostic (in language primarily) towards both positions so to me the NPOV is always a ‘third’ position or value, a position taken as if the knowledge value of both is unknown." This sort of dry middle ground assumption of probability that posits two claims on equal footing without first weighing the claims against prior knowledge (and assessing for "fit" within current accepted scientific understandings) is in direct contrast to the Bayesian interpretation of probability widely used by many physical scientists.


 * To emphasize this difference with an absurd analogy: In a debate between a Loch Ness monster true believer and a prominent marine biologist, we might see a sharp contrast with interpretation of "facts". The truther might argue that the Lach has never been fully explored and there is a possibility that something large could be living down there. Going just by the evidence, the marine biologist would have to concede that point as true, the Lach has not been fully explored and we can not outright dismiss the possibility that something large is living in the unknown. But they would disagree on whether this agreed upon fact supports their claim. Now, the probabilistic analysis that supports the middle ground approach would argue that both truth claims are an unknown, so both possibilities are likely and thus we should consider each from an agnostic view without giving undue weight to either. In contrast, the Bayesian concept of probability would force us to ask which of these two truth claims asks us to make the fewest assumptions and violates the fewest currently known scientific principles and then assign a weighted probability to each claim. It's important to emphasize here that the Bayesian probability does not assert the truth of one claim over the other, only that it is more likely. This is the basis for Marcello Truzzi's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" proposition, in that, extraordinary is the degree of disagreement from the mainstream scientific position. So while early papers on Chaos theory were properly rejected by physicists based on the theories' presumed violation of Newtonian Physics (among other issues), they were later accepted by the mainstream once the evidence outweighed the extraordinary nature of the required paradigm shift. While I'm not asserting this as "THE" interpretation for Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I only encourage you to understand that in your edit debates, this is how many editors like myself interpret that policy when it calls for shifting the weight of an article towards the mainstream view (though perhaps not as sophisticated as a Bayesian reference). e.g., the hypothetical "unbiased view" is not in the middle, but the one that makes the least assumptions and violates the fewest known physical principles.


 * Point two- You clearly have a respect for Chopra as an honest purveyor of facts about himself that I think you can agree some editors around here don't share (as well as many verifiable sources). When we move past the convincingly repeatable hypotheses of science like turning water into ice, and move into the more murky edges of sciences, like the claims of Non-locality, which are more philosophy than science, we also move into the murky measures of what it means to be "taken seriously" by scientists (a claim you make about Chopra). I think delving into the differences between Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, who has co-authored papers with Chopra, will help emphases why there is a difference of opinion in whether Chopra is a serious contributor to these fields. Disclosure: I have shared more than a few drinks philosophizing with Hameroff at his home, I hope that isn't biasing my analysis. So, Chopra and Hameroff both start off with medical degrees, and both are public about their philosophies regarding the possible interaction between the quantum world and a dualistic consciousness. The difference comes with their relationship between the medicine and the philosophy. Hameroff has a non-controversial medical practice as an anesthesiologist and separately spent over three decades publishing articles in academic journals about his efforts to find studies that might demonstrate his philosophical claims. In contrast, Chopra has spend decades making medical claims based on his philosophies and only in the past few years published anything in an academic journal about his philosophies, none of them as research studies, only two as first author and one of those was as a commentary piece on someone else's work. So while there may be similarities with Chopra's philosophies and Hameroff's (and they are only similarities, not the same theory), and Hameroff may be interested in Chopra's philosophies enough co-author an article with him; this is not the proper measure used by academics to assess if someone is part of the scientific discussion (e.g., being taken seriously by scientists). For most, that measure is academic publishing, not books, but articles in scientific and philosophical journals, were the idea can be debated separately from the celebrity of the author. So while his celebrity may garner him invitations to speak at conferences, and conversations with scientists; his refusal to participate in the traditional blind review of academic journal critiques (even if he claims bias against him), currently inhibits the perception of him being a serious academic by many in the philosophical and scientific fields. This is only confounded more by his insistence on making money off these claims prior to offering them up for debate in the traditional format, which one would assume his medical training prepared him for. Hence critical articles like this by predominant academic Susan Blackmore who has shared the stage with him at TSC. Again, I don't write the above as a personal attack requiring your defense of his character. I write it a means to emphasis the difference in perception that is likely at the root of differences in editing biases.


 * With point one and two, I combined them for point three. While point two clearly demonstrates a difference in perception about what claims made by Chopra are authentic and which are not (if any), point one highlights a different area of contention, and that is where the neutral ground stands between a claim made by Chopra that is counter to the mainstream scientific view. Perhaps assuming an agnostic middle ground may put you at odds with those who perceive a neutral position as the one requiring the least assumptions and supported by the most mainstream citations. While neither view is claiming an absolute truth, the Bayesian probability can feel like it is because it is inferring increased likelihood of claims that better fit known predictive models. And when an editor makes such a edit from the Bayseian NPOV, it can feel to a believer of the alternative view that the mainstream view is being argued as true and the alternative view as being argued as false. But it is not. I hope this essay helped shed some light on the philosophical differences at play in your editing. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dkriegls. You have soothed some of the shock I encountered when I read the Deepak talk page. ..I may not be a smart man.. but I know what clear thinking is ..and I thank you for it. Ptarmigander (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Part 4
This sort of dry middle ground assumption of probability that posits two claims on equal footing without first weighing the claims against prior knowledge (and assessing for "fit" within current accepted scientific understandings) is in direct contrast to the Bayesian interpretation of probability widely used by many physical scientists.

Point one is an Entirely different exercise and although we are speaking philosophically, I would not apply my philosophy in this instance to the manner in which your assigning it to claims about reality. We're not talking about investigating scientific claims, or at least I am not - we're specifically talking about the framing of two or more distinct points of view, especially views that contain an opposing cosmology or worldview. And perhaps you're correct somewhat, because if editing is done on Wikipedia using this scientific approach to research and investigation and applying it to editing - it's no wonder why we may be worlds apart. If I was investigating something scientifically - I would be more inclined to see your philosophy reach it's proper measurement.

 Now, the probabilistic analysis that supports the middle ground approach would argue that both truth claims are an unknown, so both possibilities are likely and thus we should consider each from an agnostic view without giving undue weight to either.

There is a huge leap you took here that does not reflect the point of view I wrote above. If two claims are unknown to an observer, any observer is going to put weight on what is the 'most known' in each view to evaluate both to begin. There is no 'magical' suspension of what someone already believes to be true and a feign of agnosticism. If I look at two distinct points of view agnostically, it's a place where I begin, not necessarily where I conclude. I'm referencing the framing of events and ideas - you're referencing an approach to claims about reality. Two different exercises. In spite of what you may assume, I'm always going to assign weight to a more scientific point of view but even if I did not, it would matter little if I had to write an article about believer x, his claims and beliefs and scientific skeptic y, his ideas and beliefs. I would not frame the believers ideas from the point of view of the scientific skeptic nor vice versa. I think the confusion here is it appears that you suggest there is a neutral point of view about what someone's ideas are (say the skeptic idea about Dr Chopra's ideas) and I am saying a neutral point of view means framing subjective ideas as they are recorded, not as they are interpreted.

'''I think delving into the differences between Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, who has co-authored papers with Chopra, will help emphases why there is a difference of opinion in whether Chopra is a serious contributor to these fields. '''

I see, and even agree with some of your point two. And I can see for sure why Dr Chopra is frustrating for many with the examples you write above. Here is where I think some, but not all, of the confusion lay.

Deepak Chopra is more of a philosopher than a scientist in the sense of Hammeroff. His philosophy is informed from first person experience AND third person scientific data. I think it is obvious that Dr Chopra is finding the 3rd person data from science that matches with his first person experience. I think the 'first person' experience component of what Dr Chopra's ideas (or anyone's really) are what cause the confusion, because that is not how science works as you know, and the philosophy of science or the philosophy that is derived from scientific data only allows the view point to extend as far as the data, but no further.

But if the misunderstanding was that simple it would not be that big of a problem. What makes the confusion worse is the very human side of Deepak Chopra. He has a few extra qualities that are hard for anyone to wrap their heads around in terms of scientific analysis or reporting. Deepak Chopra is a larger than life celebrity who also loves being a showman and writing creatively and playing the role of an entrepreneur. That side of him does not think like a scientist, that side of him thinks like an artist. Combine all of those things into one package - and it's very easy for me to see where there is misunderstanding. I can only speak for his intentions and integrity, meaning I believe he has very good intentions. I don't know all the facts in his career, but his career has been a long one and if he has stumbled here or there it would not be surprising. I'll also give you an inside scoop on another 'shocker' I discovered - Deepak Chopra is not the revenue seeking business man that I too always assumed was true. The Chopra Center (the biggest chopra revenue generator) has never even generated a profit until last year and he has put over $14MM into that alone. Deepak makes his personal money from books and lectures - and what's left he funds research. And when he is out there promoting something for sale, it's usually because it's going to be funding something else he believes in. In this sense he just thinks like a classic entrepreneur - he is a genius marketer, but he is not the revenue profit motivated person I assumed he was.

I'm not saying that to defend him, I'm telling you that because it's the only way to make sense of all the sources and dynamics. It's simply a matter of fact that many scientists are drawn to Dr. Chopra's ideas. Before I started - I had no idea actually how extensive his career and accomplishments really were. You know, some people view Deepak Chopra like they do Gandhi, he truly means that much to many many people - and other people have so much contempt for the man. I've never encountered such a polarizing figure. Let me give you an example, in 2015, the World Organization of Nobel Prize Laureates are giving him an award for his contributions to world peace. He's also apart of the Clinton Global Initiative. So while I understand why many people may get frustrated with him - those who get frustrated with him also have to acknowledge his genuine contributions. He is a puzzling man, very prolific, and very hard to pin down. I would not be able to say that if I did not experience the man for myself + have access to sources that simply show that to be the case.

He does have some very interesting research, much of it has not been published yet so pointless for me to cite, but it will be published some point soon and that's where his millions have been going.

So, scientists are scientists. Deepak Chopra is a physician, a philosopher, an author, an entrepreneur, a showman and a celebrity. I completely understand why many would be frustrated with that and would be turned off by any three of the above combinations. SAS81 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is kind of a bizarre discussion to me. To the extent that Chopra does religion or philosophy, his work can be described neutrally and placed into the context of those fields, be his views they mainstream or not, all based on reliable, independent, secondary sources as per WP:RS.  To the extent that Chopra makes claims about the physical world itself (physics, biology etc) those claims can be described neutrally and, be they mainstream or not, placed into the context of those fields, all based on reliable, independent,secondary sources as per WP:SCIRS.  To the extent Chopra makes claims about mental or physical health (a subset of sciences and subject to additional constraints) those claims can be described neutrally and, be they mainstream or not, placed into the context of those fields, based on reliable, independent, secondary sources as per WP:MEDRS.  Wikipedia takes a neutral, scholarly approach to everything we work on.  A huge amount of un-necessary fuss arises when people start trying to source content from primary sources - we should avoid that like the plague in general and we should avoid it like Ebola on articles concerning controversial subjects.Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)(clarified pronoun Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC))


 * Quite. And in fact in a BLP we are required to "exercise extreme caution in using primary sources": the only time we may use them is when "primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source". Curiously, this is quite the opposite of what some editors seem to be arguing - that because this is a BLP we should be quick to reach for primary sources when merely reporting what is in the secondaries might be seen as harsh on Chopra. Alexbrn talk 14:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * SAS81, I don't know that there is much more for use to discuses on this topic as I feel you've restated your position now but with a "philosophy only" qualifier. And I'll restate mine. I don't mean that as a criticism, only that I see this as a natural end.


 * Basyian probability is used as a starting point for discussing all events, ideas, or claims about reality. For many scientists, the processes of science are not something confined to the lab or our studies or even "reality", they are tools for assessing all claims, philosophical or not. The rules of logic we use are the same for both, and those of use who use a Bayesian approach weigh the possibility of philosophical claims the same as truth claims about physics. There is no duelist approach to truth claims until such time as duelist claims breach the evidence threshold. While people like Chopra call this an inharent bias against his method of discovery, it is the mainstream scientific approach. This is why mainstream scientific sources probably feel "bias" against Chopra, but unfortunately, that is the bias we base Wikipedia against. For better or worse, that was the line we drew in order to prevent the inclusion of every claim under the sun. Though, I'm not sure what it means to qualifies Chopra as a Philosopher as his philosophy deeply informs his medical practice and alternative medicine prescriptions. A distinction I was trying to make with the Hameroff comparison.


 * Finally, I encourage you to look back over your defense of Chopra's "revenue seeking" behavior. While I understand you think this needed to be defended in order to validate his sincerity, for me at least, it did the opposite, and served to highlight the struggle you face with your COI interpretation. I'm a capitalist and don't think revenue seeking in particular is a measure of sincerity. I know honorable rich people and disgustingly dishonest charities. The bit I wrote about Chopra was not about his profits, it was about the honesty by which he makes it. Now this point can be debated by mainstream sources, but what I ask you to consider, was how you defended it. Pointing out that this man can spend $14 million on just one of his projects and not need an immediate return on investment is not a defense of his profit seeking behavior, it's a testament to the size of his wealth. The argument you formed did not defend the point, it only presented a perspective that taking long term risk was somehow testament of good will. This is why our COI policy exists, because that interpretation of the "facts" at play causes so much stress in editing. I don't presume for us to reach any agreement here. I am only assuming good faith on your part and trying to elucidate philosophical differences that might cause the perception of bias from either side of these edits. I hope this discussion has helped, but I think Jytdog and Alexbrn are correct in refocusing back on what independent sources say, perhaps now with a better understanding of why you might find yourself at odds with other editors about what is an appropriate edit based on those sources. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well at least we had a good chance to exchange views and see clearly where we part. The views I shared re: Chopra $$$ were just my own personal ones, I mentioned them to show a side of Dr. Chopra I believe causes some confusion but it appears I just created more, not my intention. Disappointed however that you raised the COI issue, I thought we were having a frank and off the cuff discussion.

I'm not sure if the Baynesian approach to Wikipedia editing will win the appreciation of the over all editing community and I think placing editing into the Baynesian scope will make for some awkward articles and may be somewhat over reaching it's purpose. I think methods like E prime, General Semantics, or Framing in the social sciences are helpful guides that address the issue directly.

The use of primary sources as mentioned in this thread is something that has already been clarified by a number of admins, including SlimVirgin, in the context to how I introduced them in the Chopra article and it appears that the position expressed here is a more extreme one - not necessarily how Wikipedia's guidelines work or are used by all sophisticated editors. SAS81 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oil cleansing method
Hello! I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate place to ask, but I'm trying to figure out whether a book is self-published or not. The company is called Betterway Home Books and this is the book in question. At the end of the cited passage, it notes: "for more information, head to SimpleMom.net [the author's blog] and search oil cleansing method" This leads me to believe it is not WP:Reliable. Thoughts? - Sweet Nightmares  20:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That company website and the author's blog set my alarms ringing. But the Google book link says that it was published by F+W media, this gives it a little more credibility since the publishing company looks respectable enough. I would say that this is moderately reliable. I see that the article you linked has its notability disputed and uses only this as a source. The source (if it indeed mentions the subject, I didn't check) does give it some notability but you may need more if it has to survive an AFD via WP:GNG. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I smell Appeal to tradition POV pushing with this single sourced article. Worth watching with skeptical eyes. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion
A Request for Comments is in progress at Talk:Cold fusion concerning which of the WP:ARBPS categories of research (unquestionably pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience but with a following, widely accepted but considered pseudoscience by critics, alternative scientific formulations) should be associated with cold fusion, also known as low-energy nuclear reactions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I really did want to get involved with that debate, but I found it was going over my head on the topic. There seems to be a clear pseudoscience fringe pushing there, but the subtleties between what is actually new technology and what is pseudoscience was a bit hard to asses from a layman's knowledge of the subject. This debate could really benefit from skeptic who are experts on the topic if any member of this group has a friend or colleague they might be able to recruit to review the current debate and add their expert opinion (with citations of course). -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias?
The discussion on Eastern medicine at WikiProject Countering systemic bias may be of interest to the members of this project. Sam Walton (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists of skeptical topics
I added the 'conferences' section and improved the 'organizations' section in the List of skeptics and skeptical conferences and organizations (that I renamed for this purpose). Shouldn't we split this list up in three separate pages about skeptics, conferences and organisations? There is already a list of books about skepticism, we could also create lists for skeptical podcasts, skeptical magazines and skeptical television shows and films. On top of that, we can create a 'lists of skeptical topics' or 'lists about skepticism' as a list of lists page (similar to lists of atheists). Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya, I would split it in two; with Notable skeptics making up their own list. You should also change the name in the Skepticism footer, or more accurately add both new lists there. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why two instead of three? I'd say conferences and organisations require their own separate lists, don't they? And yes, I'll update the template once the split is done. ;) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice re RSN regarding Vani Hari
A RSN discussion regarding Vani Hari, a.k.a. FoodBabe, has been posted at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Shermer sexual assault allegations
I have initiated a discussion on this controversy given detailed mentions in multiple reliable sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Wireless power
There is a disagreement developing at the article on Wireless power transmission, over the section on Nikola Tesla's contributions (or lack thereof). Additional opinions would be welcome. See Talk:Wireless power. Thanks -- Chetvorno TALK 04:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Flim-Flam! article expanded, DYK eligible for another 24 hours
I expanded the article on James Randi's classic skeptic book Flim-Flam! enough that it is eligible for DYK. The nomination would have to go up in the next 24 hours or so. Anyone familiar/interested in the DYK process? It would be nice to see one of the seminal works of skepticism by one of the vanguards of the movement on the front page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Nice job on the article, ! I was not sure what hook you wanted to use, so for starters I went with "... that James Randi used his 1980 book Flim-Flam! to announce an annual award for "the psychic who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort"?  There is the facility to add one or two alternate hooks if anybody has a better idea: to do this, just fill in the ALT1 field (and add ALT2 if necessary) in the nomination form at Template:Did you know nominations/Flim-Flam!.
 * Follow the progress of the nomination through the review process at Template_talk:Did_you_know (seriously, you should bookmark it and watch it in case the reviewers ask questions). Be aware that there is a large backlog of articles awaiting review, so it may take some time.  I might as well put in a plug here: any experienced editors reading this can help by reviewing a DYK nomination at Template_talk:Did_you_know; the instructions are there at the top of the page.  Bill, I hope this helps, and congratulations again.  --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Reliability theory of aging and longevity
This AfD could use some input from knowledgeable editors here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Hum
The above RfC relates to the basic topic area of this project, and all informed opinions are welcome. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride toxicity Merger
Over at WikiProject Chemistry, we've been trying to resolve some of the merge proposals for articles in our scope. One of these is a proposed merger of Fluoride toxicity into Fluoride. There's not a strong consensus either way at the moment, but it seems agreed that Fluoride Toxicity is (or was) overly reliant on non-WP:MEDRS compliant sources. As it stands now, I think the main question is whether, once non-WP:MEDRS-sourced statements are removed, there will be enough left over to justify its own article. Would anyone mind taking a moment to go through and assess to what degree it will be possible to clean up the article without gutting it? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 13:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Superfruit into Superfood
I have proposed the merger of Superfruit into an article in your project's scope, Superfood. Discussion is centralized at Talk:Superfood. Thanks for your time. 0x0077BE ( talk ·  contrib ) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommend watching Dean Radin and associated for a while
Radin and company have recently released a new study (in a physics journal which, while peer reviewed, has a history of publishing crackpots) in which they claim to demonstrate that meditation can influence the results of double-slit experiments. It's circulating all the new-age blogs right now. Probably worth watching out for; especially considering the "now with peer reviewed journal entry" connotations. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this a year ago? When he reported weak replication of the 2012 PHYSICS ESSAYS "Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern -Six Experiments"? Ptarmigander (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. Goblin Face (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Rational Skepticism articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Horn Of Helm Hammerhand Must Sound In The Deep
Things are quiet at Helm's Deep-ak. It's walls are well defended. But Saruman and his servant Grima are busy in Isengard and they are marshaling their hordes outside our borders. They have devised numerous devilments that can penetrate our inner walls and they are now organizing them and putting them in place.

Saruman's army is an army bred of one purpose. To bring down our walls and instill their dark ways upon us all. Watchers are waiting at stationed positions and at the first intrusions alarms will sound and the beacons will shine.

There may come a time when the hordes will gain entry, overrun our defenses and do their worst, but this will not be that time and this will not be that day. This will be a time when we will draw our swords together and stand side by side!

Take warning! Be ready! The Horn will soon sound. Ptarmigander (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC) --- @~@~@~@~@~ --


 * I think you were looking for WikiProject Middle-earth. This project is for rational, non-cryptic editing discussions. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________ D kriegls  and other Wikipedians.. "Saruman's army is an army bred of one purpose. To bring down our walls and instill their dark ways upon us all." Here he is marshaling recruits and resources for the attack under the duplicitous guise of correcting misinformation. Ptarmigander (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NEQvrcVcQo#t=39


 * Looks like Deepak may have dropped out of the board. He is no longer listed. I suspect he was concerned it was turning out similar to how he reportedly got fleeced the year before by Intentional Chocolate's James Walsh when Chopra and Walsh set up The Consciousness Project a system of prizes and grants - to rival the Nobel Prize- for "consciousness" (mind over matter) studies.

Ishar only achieved 46% of their Raise Ishar indigogo goal. Being on flexible funding they get to keep that money and are still begging for more. They project a December 1st roll out now.
 * $22,846USD
 * raised of $50,000 goal
 * 46%
 * 0 time left
 * This campaign started on Sep 15 and closed on November 14, 2014 (11:59pm PT).
 * Flexible Funding
 * Campaign Closed
 * This campaign ended on November 14, 2014


 * Still probably good to keep one eye open Ptarmigander (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up on this. I've already seen their very existence used as a talking point to try and prove that "their science" has been suppressed all along. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 22:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Deepak is back.. he was missing for a spell but is now listed as a "champion" and "advisor" on the "board of curators". ISHAR is busy getting ready for going live in one day as per their announced Dec. 1st rollout. I think there will be some interesting developments as soon as there are ISHAR interactions with Wikipedia. Ptarmigander (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dec. 1st has come and gone and really nothing of interest is coming out of ISHAR. Until there is real interaction with Wikipedia I guess there is little to be done. Since ISHAR is an anti Wikipedia initiative organized by Tumbleman and ASKAHRC/the Cap'n -who are bad faith editors of the past- no real issue arises until/unless they interact once again with Wikipedia.  ( from their website: "ISHAR’s researchers are all Wikipedians and are responsible for improving the encyclopedia..") Their hope is to rally new-agers, alternative med. and yoga and meditation practitioners to take up their cause. So far this exploitation seems only to be a way to solicit cash from these believers and practitioners and also get money from the disgruntled New Age Wikipedia Page holders that are unhappy with their treatment on Wikipedia. If ACEP and Deepak Chopra and Rupert Sheldrake etc.. etc., want to give these guys thousands of dollars under the guise of "correcting" Wikipedia I suppose that is a form of karmic justice especially if this money does nothing to change their bios or the pages of the so called alternative modalities which they make their bread and butter by. Jim Walsh of Intentional Chocolate has shown before what an easy mark these people can be. Until there are actually droves of new-agers using ISHAR materials to try to edit and raise Wikipedia's vibration. Heh. I suppose it is just an amusing sideshow.  A tempest in a neti pot. Ptarmigander (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well.. it turns out that ISHAR Wikipedian SAS81 has been blocked as a sock of the notorious Tumbleman. And user Askahrc/ the Cap'n is employed as the Archivist for ISHAR.Ptarmigander (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ISHAR has as a goal providing formatted references and sources for pseudoscience and fringe topics that can then- by way of canvassing and organizing- be flooded into Wikipedia. This project has support of groups like ACEP and The Society for Psychical Research and individuals ranging from Deepak Chopra to Rupert Sheldrake, Robert Shwarz and Dean Radin. They also are supported by people that make money from Tapping (EFT), Life After Death, other "energy therapies" accupuncture, dowsing, homeopathy, kinesiology, mind over matter (magical intent) and what they call consciousness studies - which generally is the belief that since everything is consciousness and (they claim) consciousness is the primal substance of the universe that your (yes your) consciousness has godly superpowers and can do anything it sets it mind to do. This idea has a lot of appeal to the masses and that can sell a lot of products. No matter that it is wholly lacking in valid scientific support and is blatant hucksterism. In order to sell these pseudoscience ideas as products in the New Age market it is necessary to present them as 'the latest advancements of science". Part of a coming new age of "enlightened" "spiritual" science- "who's time has come". Wikipedia by not buying into this agenda stands in their way. Hence ISHAR. An organization cooked up by Wikipedia editors Tumbleman (currently banned) and The Cap'n and funded and helped in it's organization by Deepak Chopra. Here on ISHAR's page titled "Wikipedia -ISHAR as Wikipedia representative"  they give an example of their formatting. They have chosen a decidedly non pseudoscience topic to showcase because their strategy is to masquerade as a non biased research and archiving "library". They like to call it (ISHAR) a "Library of Alexandria" as this gives their endeavor a lofty feel and appeals to the New Agers from whom they have been soliciting donations. The article they have chosen is "Caloric intake and aging: mechanisms in rodents and a study in nonhuman primates". This choice is likely because one of the ways that they are pushing pseudoscience is by exploiting the idea that human lifespan can be extended by means of various products, activities and therapies that they have mingled with their fantastic claims of psychic energy and "consciousness". These are commercial ventures and the goal is largely financial. The idea is that people can forestall aging by buying their books and products, taking their workshops, receiving or learning their therapies and believing in and spreading their pseudoscience.  Fundamental to this whole movement is the belief that if enough people believe something it will become reality. This is a Chopra-esque and other new age entrepreneurial formula called "critical mass". A "global shift" It was originally called the "Hundredth Monkey theory". Thus the idea is that by changing Wikipedia they can change reality. I don't know if they believe this really or if it is just a sneaky way to create marketability of their products. I suspect it is an abundance of both.
 * In any case I encourage all Wikipedians to educate themselves about this initiative and any others like it. And because ISHAR specifically is a proxy and brainchild of an indefinitely blocked editor (Tumbleman) and other editor(s) masquerading as model Wikipedians while engaging in these anti Wikipedia activities I suggest pursuing any and all efforts and remedies to limit their activities in regard to direct editing. This would mean blocking editors that are obviously canvassed and organized through ISHAR (the so-called "ISHAR Wikipedians") who show a pattern of trying to cram "properly formatted" pseudoscience references into historically contested (battleground) fringe and alternative med. articles.
 * PS regarding the study: "Caloric intake and aging: mechanisms in rodents and a study in nonhuman primates" this is an old study and it has not been supported by further research. If you are interested please see here.. and here. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading this. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is both rather odd and unnecessarily alarmist. Yes, I work as an archivist with ISHAR, that's stated clearly on my user page.  No, there's no conspiracy by immortal charlatans to overthrow Wikipedia, nor is ISHAR a proxy of a blocked editor, it's just a research archive, plain & simple.  It seems unreasonable (understatement) to seek the preemptive banning of all personnel and visitors of ISHAR just because it offers the fairly standard function of formatting academic sources for citations, especially given that this function comes with a disclaimer emphasizing Wikipedia policies and ideals. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's just a research archive, plain & simple" - The Cap'n
 * Rome Viharo/Tunbleman- "WOW, Robert Schwarz - Hey ISHAR, why are you a benefit to the mind/body community? Hey ISHAR, just how are you a benefit?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_Fz3cX4FWk
 * "What are you going to do with this information- I mean we need more than just another database .. don't we?" - Robert Schwarz Executive Director- Association For Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) and a founding "Curator" of ISHAR. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "ISHAR will combat misunderstanding" "We are not passive observers but active agents.." "If facts are being misrepresented ISHAR will be there to ensure accurate information is available and defended."
 * "Take Emotional Freedom Techniques and Energy Psychology.. despite large amounts of research on the topic if you look at the Wikipedia page on EFT you would think there was only one person in the world that supported it.. that person was a whacko.. and that there wasn't a ton of information out there supporting it. When in fact there is a lot of research that supports it." "What can ISHAR do about that?" "ISHAR's library contains dozens of scientific articles on EFT and will convert them into Wikipedia-formatting for you."
 * "Every time someone tries to challenge the content on a Wikipedia page in some of these integrative studies like EFT they get slammed with ever changing lists of rules, the editors don't even follow their own guidelines, and then these folks are eventually harassed off the page." "Why would ISHAR succeed in getting facts properly represented where others haven't?"
 * "ISHAR is designed to change the paradigm of online discussion, including Wikipedia. ISHAR's staff are experienced Wikepedia editors who know how to work with hostile individual editors."
 * "WE know Wikipedia policies. Have the sources to Back up our statements and the determination to follow through. ISHAR confronts abusive editors by being better Wikipedians than they are."
 * "When bias and hostility take root on "controversial" pages ISHAR will be there to provide accurate information alternative approaches and fair discussion." "Ishar provides the reliable sources that that make Wikipedia informative and safeguards the ideals that make it neutral" "We will not compromise on either front."
 * "ISHAR will provide information. Correct misrepresentation of sources. Enforce content standards. Challenge double standards. Educate the public. Empower researchers. Lead discussions online. Uphold Wikipedia ideals. be neutral. Be reliable. Be free." -from the video-
 * Seems like it is intended to be more than "Just a research archive, plain and simple" as the Cap'n keeps saying. Looks more like an organized advocacy and attack.
 * As Bernardo Kastrup says in his solicitation for ISHAR donations.. it is an "epic archetypal battle". So I think the ISHAR people have done their share to create this "epic battle" idea.
 * I think the Cap'n is less than forthcoming about all this and the end result of ISHAR will be a huge waste of time. Both for the Wikipedia community and even for the so called "mind body" community which has helped fund the project.
 * The Cap'n has already been warned about wasting the Wikipedia community's time in areas related to pseudoscience and fringe science. And now he is at the helm of ISHAR which has been canvassing and organizing and soliciting donations for activities that will turn out to be much greater time wasting for Wikipedia editors.
 * While the proof is in the pudding so we can wait and see what -if anything- it comes to. One can hope that ISHAR and the Chopra Foundation get some common sense and abandon any plans to organize "ISHAR Wikipedians" to "combat misunderstanding" "Correct misrepresentation" "Enforce content standards". "Challenge double standards" and "Lead discussions online"- Which I think would be against Wikipedia standards and policies.
 * It seems to me that both Rome Viharo/Tumbleman and the Cap'n have not been honest in how they represent themselves and their ISHAR activities on Wikipedia compared to how ISHAR is represented off Wikipedia. Since the Cap'n has already been warned about time wasting activities in fringe and pseudoscience areas I believe that he should be closely watched since his organization- ISHAR- has made statements that clearly point toward it being determined to try to do so. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Also, one, um, maybe strange question - what exactly is the title of this $&@* thread supposed to mean? I assume it is some sort of reference to something, but I have no clue what that something might be. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note my response on your Talk Page, Ptarmigander. I have no desire to derail this page any further by repeatedly explaining that when I say "If/when we interact with WP, we strictly adhere to WP policies and ideals," that is not  secret code for "Our only purpose is to undermine and attack WP." The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting this misleading quote. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi John Carter.. always a pleasure. Helm's Deepak was a word-play reference to the battle of Helm's Deep from Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings- The Two Towers of course. The Horn of Helm Hammerhand is a gigantic horn sounded at the approach of an enemy. And Saruman -and his servant Grima Wormtongue- would be organizers of the battle for Helm's Deep.
 * Grima (Wormtongue) was a humorous reference to SAS81 who was a paid representative of Deepak Chopra. SAS81 was always saying that he was an archivist for an entirely non biased non-pseudoscience "library" named ISHAR that was a model upholder of Wikipedia policies and a great gift and service to Wikipedia. It turned out that SAS81 was Tumbleman/Rome Viharo who was an indefinitely blocked editor masquerading as a reputable, highly principled contributor.
 * So the adherence to the highest Wikipedia standards and policies was a farce from the beginning. Hence Grima. Ptarmigander (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Or it's an important value and there's a reason SAS81 is no longer working for ISHAR. Also, in the midst of comparing the people you disagree with on WP to the utterly evil, murderous hordes that must be slaughtered by the faction of Rohan (who I assume you identify with) and calling on editors to prepare for battle with these allegorical monsters, did you ever pause to check out WP:BATTLEGROUND?  I highly recommend doing so. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedia is not a battle ground and sounding the horn is not an attack.. it is a warning. A warning response to months of deceit by the main ISHAR Wikipedian SAS81, and to statements like when Deepak Chopra said - quite obviously referencing his involvement with funding ISHAR- "I am definitely going to pursue this correction of behavior of some very bigoted, predjudiced people on Wikipedia..." and when Bernardo Kastrup refers to ISHAR's activities as a "major archetypal battle" and says donating money to ISHAR is "your historical opportunity to join this battle". And when Robert Schwarz of ACEP says that "ISHAR will combat misinformation.." and ACEP says about ISHAR "If you continue to be frustrated by the way so-called “skeptics” have usurped Wikipedia, this is a way to bring power to bear on them". This doesn't sound like a "research archive, plain and simple" and when you, Cap'n, try to play "gotcha" with WP:BATTLEGROUND I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on. Ptarmigander (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Autism Research Institute
Proposal to cut and paste rewrite from Talk:Autism Research Institute/draft into blanked article. I think needed changes can be made after the cut and paste and that the draft is acceptable improvement of existing article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Include atheist, freethought, humanist, secularist conferences?
Could someone or several people please help me here, to find a solution in demarcating the differences and similarities between skepticism, atheism, freethought, humanism, secularism etc. and whether all of those conferences should be included in the list of skeptical conferences or not? Thanks. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Gunung Padang
excuse me if this is the wrong place, but this article is in desperate need of help Gunung Padang. It is full of claims of ancient pyramids dating back before the last ice ages. Someone involved in the Wikipedia should see at it. Please. For the love of God. 172.56.30.120 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a good editor
Hi,

A journalist is inquiring about a response to claims by an "energy psychology" practitioner that WIkipedia is biased against "holistic therapies". He is apparently a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and he suggests that our entries Energy medicine and Emotional Freedom Techniques have deliberately excluded relevant peer-reviewed scientific research.

I'm looking for someone willing to engage on this topic. Preferably someone with appropriate scientific credentials themselves, but barring that, an excellent and level-headed Wikipedia editor with intimate knowledge of this area would be good.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If no one else comes forward, I would be happy to talk to the journalist. I can be contacted through my user page. But I will defer to more active participants in this project if someone else would like to speak to the journalist. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any more specifics about the conflict? Nothing is obviously jumping out at me on either of the talk pages, so it seems like it would be hard to discuss the particular reasoning used. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I too am not seeing relevant peer reviewed research proposed for inclusion on the talk pages. Some specifics from the edit history might be useful in providing examples/context. Has this peer reviewed research been posted to the talk pages of the articles? Has content from this research been added then removed? Absent examples the claim seems rather vague. I would assume a journalist would have done some research into the editing and discussion of these two articles and be able to provide examples of edits, discussions and excluded research.


 * Of note the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is considerably more active than this project and a good place to bring a discussion of the editing of these two articles and of interpretation and application of policy regarding alt/fringe medicine. Similarly the WikiProject Medicine talk page is another active venue where these topics and editing this kind of article are discussed. As the articles present biomedical information there has likely been vigorous application of WP:MEDRS. I have been active in quite a few discussions on reliable sources, MEDRS, alternative and fringe topics and would be happy to discuss the subject. I don't hold much in the way of credentials but I am fairly well versed in policy, decent at finding and assessing research and generally level headed. I can be reached on my talk page or via email.


 * I am willing to look at this peer reviewed research, post it to the talk pages and engage in the discussion and editing of the articles. This might provide the best possible understanding of the WP process to a journalist. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help. I'm a scientist and peer reviewer for the Journal of Clinical Psychology. I am almost done with my PhD in Clinical Psychology at IIT (thesis proposed/collecting data) but am not an "expert" on either Energy medicine and Emotional Freedom Techniques. I have a solid background in assessing pseudoscientific literature and have previously read both articles. Like the above editors, I do not know of any peer-reviewed Wikipedia articles from respected journals being "deliberately excluded" from either article. Please feel free to direct the journalist here or to my talk page. And as mentioned above, direct links to the attempted suppression would make for a more informative discussion. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 03:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jimbo Wales D kriegls  and other Wikipedians "It took the organizational strength of ACEP (Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology) to change the APA’s stance on energy psychology. More recently, ACEP has focused its organizational strength on new goals. We are advocating for integrity in following the doctrines of fair play and neutrality in describing and evaluating EP (Energy Psychology), EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) and other integrative approaches on the web and in print. ISHAR stands for the same things. We are so pleased to have an ally in ISHAR."
 * "If you continue to be frustrated by the way so-called “skeptics” have usurped Wikipedia, this is a way to bring power to bear on them." So uh.. OK Yogis and meditators and alternatively concerned citizens.. get out your pocketbooks and help the attack on Wikipedia. Oh wait help the neutral fair minded "online digital library of Alexandria" correct imbalance at Wikipedia by "improving the encyclopedia in strict accordance to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia’s guidelines". "I.S.H.A.R. is a library dedicated to preserving ideas whose time have come". "Now launching December 2014".Ptarmigander (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Being addressed as: "Jimbo Wales Dkriegls and other Wikipedians" sure makes this nerd all tingally inside. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 09:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tingly is good Dan.
 * The Society for Psychical Research is trying the same tactic.
 * "If we go about it in an orderly way I’m pretty confident that the encyclopedia will soon be in the top four or five rankings for searches on paranormal topics, along with other new projects that are about to launch, such as Deepak Chopra’s ISHAR and Rupert Sheldrake’s Open Sciences."
 * "I thought we needed a viable alternative to Wikipedia, where psi-related articles have become almost unreadable as a result of editing by sceptics."
 * "How do you think sceptics will react to this?"
 * “I think they’ll be challenged by it. For a long time now they haven’t had to do any real work. They can simply lift bits and bobs from the research literature that support their case, quote them out of context – job done. This will change the game entirely." "It’s inevitable that this will eventually impact on the media, which will make a big difference. Until now sceptics like Richard Wiseman have been able to say pretty much what they like on radio or TV, with the expectation of being taken seriously by programme producers and presenters. The opposition – psychic claimants, mediums, parapsychologists – are at a disadvantage because educated people don’t know about the scientific research that supports their position. But I can imagine situations where the sceptics start getting push-back from journalists who have taken the trouble to educate themselves. This will be an interesting development, to say the least!” Ptarmigander (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is the guy. Harvard Doc To Wikipedia: You’re Not Playing Fair On Alternative Trauma Therapy. "Their entries use a range of emotionally loaded and downright pejorative terms to describe Energy Psychology" Ptarmigander (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't many claims of that kind be within the scope of the James Randi Foundation million dollar prize? Why claim that Wikipedia is unbalanced when there is one million dollars waiting for the person who can show that energy healing really works? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tossing the Randi Challenge at the people that are pushing the Wikipedia We Have a Problem viewpoint will carry little or no weight in this issue. They feel they have tons of genuine sources in the form of valid studies and that skeptics are blocking them. Needless to say the instigators of these anti Wikipedia initiatives tend to have financial reasons for their actions. As stated above what is needed is highly competent and knowledgeable Wikipedia editors. As these pseudo-therapy/consciousness entrepreneurs organize public relations campaigns against Wikipedia and attempt to exploit the new age/ yoga/ meditation communities to their service more experienced editors (and possibly more and stronger administrative remedies) will be needed. IMHO. Ptarmigander (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be a policy statement that restricts editors that come from organized anti-wikipedia sites and initiatives -especially ones that are set up and run by previously banned and/or known sock-puppet abusers that now are making money by organizing against Wikipedia (and getting funding from New Age and pseudoscience authors and instructors who are unhappy with their Wikipedia pages). I would just nip that in the bud by creating a general rule before it becomes a huge pain in the rear and time waster for more honest and rational editors.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC).
 * You mean like WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS? 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. As long as they can be well applied to these anti- Wik initiatives and other editors are informed about said initiatives so they know to apply these and other existing remedies. I also support publicly addressing (yes, I know, re-adressing) the issue and doing it artfully. The response By JW in regard to the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology petition is direct and I think well stated .. but it also is used against Wikipedia because it is so terse and brief. JW asked for some help in this issue of the Harvard Energy Pysch Doc's complaint. Since this issue is not currently subsiding and may be part of growing more organized anti Wikipedia efforts I think a further expanded policy statement coming from the horse's mouth would be helpful. That is simply my suggestion.. that he do something further about it himself. In any case I am fine with watching the battle continue. I do feel some concern for people that generally have good intentions getting swept up in the frenzy of anti Wikipedia views in part because I think more could be done to clarify Wikipedia's position for the public.. I think it is good to have this discussion. (And not just here in the back-waters). So thank you for replying.Ptarmigander (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If, as I think you are indicating above, you are seeking some sort of clear policy statements, you might have more luck going to either the specific relevant policy page and requesting clarification of the policy or going to the Village pump (policy) and proposing policy changes there. At this point, Jimbo's role in determining content and conduct policies here is rather negligible, as he has repeatedly said that in most matters not relating specifically to legal concerns, the community is in the position to determine policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi John C. Long time. I am not proposing any policy changes. Don't think that is really needed. I am simply expanding some awareness and discussing the public relations aspects of Wikipedia in regard to The anti Wikipedia initiatives backed by ACEP, The Society for Psychical Research, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Craig Weiler, ISHAR - (which is Rome Viharo/ Tumbleman/ SAS81/ ASKAHRC / the Cap'n /who is ISHAR's Director of Archiving).
 * I guess a lot of hard working editors did not know that about "the Cap'n" when he was editing contributing and voting on Deepak's page.
 * I don't know if you still are swallowing that Archive-Library of Alexandria respectability stuff but regardless of that.. it seems nice to bump into you again. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you were making some specific policy proposals here:
 * "'My suggestion would be a policy statement that restricts editors that come from organized anti-wikipedia sites and initiatives -especially ones that are set up and run by previously banned and/or known sock-puppet abusers that now are making money by organizing against Wikipedia (and getting funding from New Age and pseudoscience authors and instructors who are unhappy with their Wikipedia pages). I would just nip that in the bud by creating a general rule before it becomes a huge pain in the rear and time waster for more honest and rational editors.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC).'"
 * I actually would myself probably support some such policy changes, if we could make it enforceable. Were there to be such changes, it would be really easy for such individuals to simply change their user name and say they aren't (whomever). I wouldn't necessarily oppose such a proposed policy change, if we could figure out a way to determine some reasonable limitations to it. So, for instance, a medical expert who happens to be a Christian and support the belief in some of the allegedly supernatural healings at Lourdes possibly shouldn't be automatically counted among such a group. Not saying that the alleged healings aren't "fringey," they are, but such a broad disqualification of experts would be problematic. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am concerned here with organized pseudoscience anti Wikipedia efforts coming in particular from bad faith (deceptive)past editors and disgruntled page holders. To that end I think raising awareness is the primary way to go. A general statement or editorial about the subject would not hurt. There seems to be plenty of good policy in place. I will give the whole issue some thought and get back. Ptarmigander (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a well written, well linked and sourced essay that could be pointed to would be helpful? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Something like that. Something to point to. Observing that Jimmy Wales' "You have to be kidding me" response to the ACEP/ Change.org petition has added weight to Wikipedia policy and to some degree informed the general public.. I was probably thinking possibly more could be done. Why continue to wrestle with the tail when you can more effectively take off the head. When Jimmy says "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals" This gives the alternative med and spirituality entrepreneurs and their supporters fuel because they think that there are plenty of studies in reputable journals and that there is plenty of public and professional acceptance of what they are pushing. When I see all the clamor against Wikipedia in this area I find myself wishing that there was more information available that further clarified this matter. Then there could be more satisfying ready responses when a bloatful Harvard doc making his living off of mixing pretend energy with psychology whines about Wikipedia unfairness to the media. At least people in the general public.. who are often duped in this area.. could better, and more easily, understand the wisdom of Wikipedia's stance. Ptarmigander (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's hard enough keeping up with all the pseudoscience edits to the namespace...
...and then this happens, followed by this. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 13:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those edits should probably be made invisible, in case that is some kind of prank on whoever's phone number that is. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I didn't even think of that. All I can think is that she found me because I patrol the List of exorcists page. I do psychology by day and come here to not do psychology. Which is why I brought it to this talk page. Anyone thinking of being an ass, please don't. But I don't have the energy at the end of the day to call the number. John Carter's response was right on, but I doubt there will be any follow up from her. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 06:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC notification
Hello everyone, there is an RFC that people from this project may be interested in commenting on: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. Thank you for your feedback. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lately I have removed
several pages from Category:Pseudoscience; on the grounds that ‘pseudoscience’ is a judgmental epithet; also it is, IMO, a very stigmatizing label, so it should be used sparingly. Spanish Wikipedia says it eloquently: “No olvide que para utilizar esta categoría debe de haber una referencia verificable, fiable en la materia y sólida que especifique que la disciplina categorizada es una pseudociencia.” Rough translation: “In order for a page to be placed in this category, there must be reliable sources specifying that said subject is pseudoscience.” I strongly support this policy; subjects should only be categorized as pseudoscience if a preponderance of reliable sources (as I pointed out, a source with a conflict of interest is not reliable) say they are such. In other words, the burden of proof should be on those who claim a subject is pseudoscience, not on those who claim it is not.

Some of the pages I removed: Continental drip, Steatopygia.

Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That category already includes the guideline that "Generally speaking, if an article belongs in this category, the article's lead will contain a well-sourced statement that the subject is considered pseudoscience." This looks quite similar to the Spanish quote you give, and I don't see any problem with removing the category from those two articles (although I have to wonder whether Continental drip is really notable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gronk Oz, I know the English Wikipedia Category page has the same notice, but Spanish Wikipedia, IMO, says it more clearly and forcefully.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gronk Oz, thank you for your comment.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Solomonfromfinland, not so fast. You're removing the meta-category for many things which are obvious pseudoscience (like astrology), and which are in subcategories of Pseudoscience (like Alternative medicine). It's best to leave them as they are. You risk being seen as a vandal. I suggest you do some fast backpedaling and undo a lot of what you're doing. Keep in mind that we don't care whether something is a pejorative or judgmental epithet, although with BLPs were are more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Vitalism = Pseudoscience....or not?
A rather aggressive editor has decided that the Vitalism article should no longer be included in Category:Pseudoscience. It's been there for a long time, until a few days ago when it was removed without regard to context or the sources in the article. I restored the status quo version and explained why to that editor. No problem.

Now another editor (who previously has defended pseudoscientific subjects) has aggressively undone my restoration and proclaimed that he and the other editor constitute a consensus, using very condescending language ("none of what you say makes sense to me, so I leave YOU out of the discussion"). There has been no discussion on the article's talk page.

He is also fighting a straw man in his comments and here. No one has tried to classify those scientists as pseudoscientists in that article, so he's tilting at windmills of his own creation.

It is still in the "Obsolete scientific theories" category. I suspect the best solution would be to have it in both categories (which has been the case for a long time), since they both apply. Without the PS category, which is backed up by sources in the article, we are ignoring vitalism's current status.

I am not edit warring and I'm not getting anywhere on his talk page, so more eyes and opinions need to be focused on the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Although now rejected by mainstream science," with a great reference right there in the introduction. Ya, that qualifies it for pseudoscience categorization. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 07:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy
This may be one of the waay way lesser known pseudosciences out there, but it's pretty rampant. Basically, to distill it down, a ton of these Waldorf schools are expanding across the US and elsewhere, and have become popular among progressive parents. But what isn't talked about often enough is the origin of Waldorf educaiton in the theory of Anthroposophy, which endorses belief in reincarnation cycles (which underlie the 7 year span of switching teachers), gnomes, ESP, and other pseudosciences. And the worst part, in my opinion, is that the lack of clarity about Anthroposophy is rampant. Parents send their kids to these schools thinking they sound awesome and progressive, but are unaware of the roots in pseudoscience. In fact, many schools in Europe and elsewhere, non american countries, advise openly against vaccination and allow bullying, due to it being a rehashing of karma and unresolved differences in past lives. The wikipedia entries on these topics are pretty much kept tightly biased by a few Waldorf teachers, and several of them have been banned from editing articles due to mediations, only to appeal and be reinstated. So I'd like to go through Waldorf Education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, etc. and clean them up and add appropriately sourced criticism in proportional amounts to praise. Anyone wanna help? -- Shibboleth ink ♔ ♕ 22:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lack of critical links on those pages is astounding. The "Scientific basis" section of the Anthroposophy article is particularity wanting as it hints at critique but apparently from supporters; and all around makes it sound like a new science breaking ground instead of the implausible pseudoscience that it is. I strongly encourage you to be bold with these pages. If you need your work reviewed or you get push back on adding valid citations, just holler for support. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Anthroposophy is a philosophy; how can a philosophy be pseudoscience?
 * The critique in the section you mention is from academic sources. Where would you prefer it be drawn from?
 * Nothing in that section implies that anthroposophy is a "new science breaking ground", except perhaps one section that explains that Steiner wished to apply the scientific method to inner experience.  HGilbert (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If "Steiner wished to apply the scientific method to inner experience," then Anthroposophy is definitely elgible to be a pseudoscience. Also, again, if a number of WP:RS say something is a pseudoscience, then it's a pseudoscience. It's inarguable, except to produce other WP:RS that contradict the former, and then we'd have to say, "X, Y, and Z publications say Anthroposophy is a pseudoscience. Several sources contradict this...." etc. There's a process to this.
 * From a wide variety of WP:RS that aren't published by Anthroposophists, and are from a wide variety of sources, News Orgs, high traffic fact checked websites etc. etc. Per ArbCom's decision, published sources written by Anthroposophists don't count in this case.
 * See point 1. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeaaaaah One of the longtime editors of Waldorf Education, a Waldorf teacher and widespread writer on the theory of education, User:Hgilbert, is continually reverting my well-sourced and NPOV style edits. He accused me of being a sockpuppet of an activist editor who was banned from the article a few years ago, etc. So I could use some help :(  Check out the Talk:Waldorf Education to see what I mean. Thanks!!!-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, education cannot be pseudoscience. Second, the claims made above are erroneous and show complete ignorance of anthroposophy, which does not assert that reincarnation is the basis for 7-year cycles of education, or that ESP exists, etc. Third, the sources that were in the article (before Shibboleth began changing it) were virtually all academic or other RS. He has added such excellent sources as Salon.com. HGilbert (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Education can indeed be /related/ to pseudoscience, if it is based upon pseudoscientific claims. I would see it as similar to the relationship between the practice of teaching creationism and the pseudoscience of intelligent design. One is a practice that relies on the other, which is a pseudoscience. Re: ESP, you're totally right, I was more referring to Steiner's belief that a Waldorf style education could allow students to communicate with the spirit world. Also, The BBC, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and the Atlantic are all very reputable sources. In fact, there were several uses of another Atlantic source already present in the article when I started. I also added sources from educational reviews and medical journals, and plan on adding sources from Free Inquiry, (purely as an Opinion RS though) and an academic thesis by Sarah Whedon. The Salon article was just an added bonus. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * HGilbert said: "education cannot be pseudoscience". I doubt you could defend that claim with WP:Reliable sources. In contrast, it took me all of two minutes to find wp:reliable sources that specifically referred to Waldorf schools as pseudoscience: Headline from the The Guardian/The Observer "Schools of pseudoscience pose a serious threat to education: Maharishi and Steiner schools are just as dangerous as creationist schools"; The Chicago Tribune quoting Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education: "Scott accuses the schools of teaching "pseudoscience," promoting Steiner's theories that white light does not consist of colors and that humans evolved through spiritual stages." And my favorite...an actual scientific paper assessing whether Waldorf school philosophies were scientific or not. Their conclusion: "As a first step Waldorf should disregard Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy as the source of accurate scientific concepts. The basis for this recommendation is that Steiner’s teachings do not pass the tests of empiricism (a,b,c and d), are not testable by anyone (e), have not changed much, if any, since Steiner introduced them (f), and rely on paranormal statements that cannot be verified (g)." We literally can't get a more WP:Reliable source than that to declare Waldorf's philosophies to be pseudoscience. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * may want to see if the GSoW team can help provide good sources and content. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

CFD of Interest
Just letting you all know a category of interest to us is up for discussion. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

New Sister
Please welcome our new sister: nl:Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Skepticisme. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Skeptical organisations in Europe
To anyone interested, I'm working with several other Wikipedians on pages about Skeptical organisations in Europe. The main goal is to give each one at least an article in their native language and in English. Do you know Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Hungarian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Slovak, Spanish and/or Swedish besides English? Please join us! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Nikola Tesla
An RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity? has been posted here. Interested editors are invited to comment.- MrX 20:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda RFC
A Request for Comments is now in progress at Talk:Ayurveda concerning whether should be added to the article on Ayurveda. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit
There is a disagreement at Penn and Teller: Bullshit! over whether to use quotation marks around the word "bullshit" alone. Since this article falls under this Wikiproject umbrella, you may want to weigh in on that Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology should not be a child of Category:Pseudoscience
Pseudoarchaeology is a fringe type of archaeology, not fringe science, as archaeology in English speaking countries is not taught as a science but as part of humanities or social sciences. I tried to change this but was reverted, and have started a discussion at Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a fringe subject area but not a pseudoscience. I'm traveling and can't contribute more. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC))


 * Why, if archaeology is not considered a science, does that imply that pseudoarchaeology is not a pseudoscience? There just isn't enough of a parallel between science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience just isn't restricted by precise scientific boundaries, or an implied logical conclusion like this (one that would barely stand up under a formal logic anyway). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for input at longevity-related articles
Hi there,

Apologies if this particular topic is outside of this project's scope, but I'm looking to get some input from scientific-minded editors who understand the need for evidence to support extraordinary claims at the World's Oldest People Project. To explain things as briefly as possible: many people who claim to be extremely old (over the age of 110) are in fact younger than they claim (see [here for more), and there are many fraudsters claiming to be older than they actually. This means that age verification (proving someone's age with documentation) is important for anyone wanting to create a list of the oldest people in the world. This is what the [[Gerontology Research Group|Gerontology Research Group (GRG)]] specialises in.

However, some editors want to give organisations like the GRG (widely recognised, scientific groups that specialise in this particular field) the same validity as other sources like newspapers, which potentially means that articles like List of oldest living people could be full of potential fraudsters.

If anyone is willing to voice their opinion here it would be most appreciated. Thank you -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This agecruft needs to be killed with fire. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ArbCom motion of some possible interest to members of this project
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Motions, which I believe in some substantial regards may have some parallels and overlaps with the field of sekpticism. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC
Request for comment: Is Faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Faith healing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Can you show me which source says faith-healing is a pseudo-science form? Or, should we have faith? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There are pseudoscience attempts to prove faith healing, but the practice itself is faith based as far as I'm aware. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Bigfoot POV
The Bigfoot article could use a look from somebody with more experience of writing about cryptids: an enthusiastic editor has added about 80k of "Reported descriptions" to the article, using books by Bigfoot researchers to produce something that reads awkwardly like a field guide description of a real creature which has been liberally sprinkled with "supposedly" and "reportedly" to achieve "balance". I'm not sure of the best way to clean it up. There's a discussion on the talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkout WP:ALLEGED to see "Words that may introduce bias". Then remove any such words, such as "supposedly" and "reportedly". The add a Disputed-inline with the correct link after all the statements linking to the section. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire three-page section is nothing but a string of "Bigfoot is reportedly a large creature, Bigfoot supposedly smells like a skunk" quotes from researchers. It would seem unhelpfully WP:POINTy to replace every single statement with "Bigfoot is a large creature that smells like a skunk" and then inline-tag it as disputed. --McGeddon (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's that bad drop Disputed instead of a bunch of inlines. If something is really egregious put an inline next to it too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But I'm not disputing any of the claims (which are all just "someone wrote in a book that Bigfoot smelled like a skunk", which I'm sure is true). The tone just seems awkward, to have a lengthy section that reads like a description of a real creature which has had "reportedly" and "described as" hammered into every sentence as an afterthought. --McGeddon (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This raises the question. Do you want me to truly get involved on this? I tried finding cryptid enthusiasts, but found none. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked in at WikiProject Cryptozoology before I came here, but it seemed inactive; this seemed the second-best option among the talk page's Wikiproject list, given that the last 1200 edits (!) seem to have come out of books written by optimistic Bigfoot spotters. I'm not sure what the ideal way to write this kind of article would be, so would appreciate any thoughts you have on it. --McGeddon (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * McGeddon, I encourage you to Be bold and remove to offending materiel. You have ever right to dive in and defend this humble encyclopedia from the onslaught of that editor's assumptions and hearsay. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 05:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Climate change skeptics

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_6

The category Climate change skeptics has been proposed to be moved to "Climate change deniers." Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brahma Kumaris
I am asking for your participation in Talk:Brahma Kumaris Supdiop ( T 🔹 C ) 16:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To save other editors a click; that RFC has since been withdrawn by the editor, who has also been blocked. --McGeddon (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And now he's back Supdiop ( T 🔹 C )

List of pseudoscientific organizations
There is a discussion now taking place at Talk:List of pseudoscientific organizations that may be relevant to this project. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Created new article on book - Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand
I've created a new article on the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

Input and suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice work, . I have added this to the List of books about skepticism. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, most appreciated! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative-->Genesis creation myth
For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative. Keahapana (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy. Thanks. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for your next project? How about a book.
If you're looking for something skeptic-related to get you back into the swing of things in the new year, you might like to take a look at the List of books about skepticism. People have been busy adding books to the list, but quite a number of them are currently redlinks and need editors to write the article. Something to think about... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Call for discussion: Adopt interrobang as symbol for skepticism
Merged content to File_talk:WP_RationalSkepticism_Logo.PNG Kyle(talk) 04:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry
I was clicking around and found myself on the Anti-psychiatry page and... it's a mess. I didn't know much of anything about antipsychiatry, but the blatant character attacks and POV pushing were red huge flags, so I started checking sources and none that I've checked so far have anything to do with antipsychiatry. I got the sense from the talkpage that there's a lot of poorly sourced information backing up ideas about psychiatry that stem from Scientology. Their beliefs do have a place in the article... but with proper sourcing and NPOV. There are other POVs being pushed as well. Apparently it's a very contentious topic. Now that I've read up a bit about it, it's actually quite interesting. But cleaning up the article will be a lot to tackle... so I'm posting this on the relevant wikiprojects in the hopes that others might find it interesting too and want to help. :) I've started a discussion about it at Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8. Thanks! Permstrump (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Psychic powers in fiction
Category talk:Psychic powers in fiction is tagged as part of this wikiproject, but I'm not sure how much fictional topics have to do with scientific skepticism. Fictional works aren't necessarily claiming anything about whether or not their plot elements exist in the real world. I suppose some of them could be, but most of them probably aren't. If Psychic powers in fiction belongs to this wikiproject, then categories such as Category:Telepathy in fiction and Category:Telekinesis in fiction should also, so I'd like to know if they do or not. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 23:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD and removed it because it was added at the same time as bunch of the other "related" projects (including WP:Psychology, which you already removed), and I can't imagine it was ever something specifically of interest to this project. PermStrump (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Henry
The article on Tyler Henry, the "Hollywood Medium" with a 2016 cable reality show, is stetching credulity with the recent (coordinated?) edits of a couple red-lined editors who are promoting his book and who have deleted the "Criticism" as well as any links to sources which cast doubt on his powers. This article deserves to be watchlisted and monitored by more users of a skeptical bent. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Water fluoridation
Hi folks! They could sure use a few eyes over at Water fluoridation. Please have a quick look at the history and please drop by Talk:Water fluoridation to share your thoughts. Many, many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

UFO's
There are lots of articles about UFO's that need attention. Some of these are Project Sign, Project Grudge, Estimate of the Situation, and many others. It would take a while to clean up all of them, so I'm hoping that people will help with cleaning the articles up, and eventually rewriting them. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD Notice
There is a discussion currently at Articles for deletion/Scientific dissent that may be of relevance to this project. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Wireless power transfer
The article Wireless power transfer has been a battleground for years due to persistent attempts to introduce an alternate view that around 1900 Nikola Tesla transmitted wireless power around the Earth using something called a Zenneck wave. Need electronically inclined editors to take a look at the current discussion and give your opinion. Would be very helpful to have editors who would watchlist this page and participate in the future (as this debate will certainly continue). -- Chetvorno TALK 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Input sought for a GAR re use of sources
Hi, posting re Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1. This seems to be an appropriate venue as the discussion deals with German World War II "mythology" -- a POV presentation of a military biography.

The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable for military biographies. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1.

Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Isles International University"
There's recently been some bowdlerizing activity in the article on the degree mill "Isles International University". A couple more disinterested people would be welcome to keep an eye on this article. -- Hoary (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar
There is an RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar concerning the use of the term pseudomedicine. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)