Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

Withdrawing this nomination. -- Selmo ^(talk) 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The project is all about editing from one POV. While it tries to be neutral, the word "alternative" is quoted while discussing non-mainstream medicine. When I last checked, putting quotation marks around a word is usually used to cast doubt on the subject. I don't see how the project can be neutral. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- the project is designed to keep articles about pseudoscience and superstition as objective as possible. The essence of WP:NPOV --ScienceApologist 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- Wikipedia's own definition says:

an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

How can a project be neutral if it focuses primarily on the skeptic's POV? How would the project deal with the following? (my own writing)

Fortune telling is the ability to predict the future. It is generally considered to be a psychic power. While scientific research has yet to yield positive results a recent survey suggests that 60% of those asked believe in the existence of fortune telling. <ref>some reliable source here</ref>

• Comment: People in the rational skepticism project probably (although I can only speak for myself with any certainty here) would be fine with your sentence, since it:

1. Clearly states that it "considered" to be a psychic power. That is, doesn't claim that it is a psychic power.
2. Clearly states that there is no scientific evidence for it.
3. Does not in any way argue that such powers exist, but states that many people believe they do.

However, if a member of the Rational Skepticism project were to find a page that argued that fortunte telling is a psychic power, argued that there either was no scientific evidence at all, or that scientists have simply ignored it, and argued that such abilites must, therefore exist(!) we would work to move it towards a more neutral POV, by adding just the sort of caveats you have already included. Since your statement is NPOV, we'd be fine with it. If anything, you should think of the project not as pushing a particular POV, but rather trying to make sure that pro-psi POVs are not uncritically presented on wikipedia. Edhubbard 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment. Your example inspired me to go look at the Fortune-telling entry, and I find that the current lead is better than the sentence you've offered here "Fortune-telling is the practice of seemingly predicting the future, usually of an individual, through seemingly mystical or supernatural means and often for commercial gain. It often conflates with the religious practice known as divination." I have no problem with this statement, as it is NPOV, and the rest of the entry discusses some of the scientific evaluation, including going into detail on the mechanisms whereby scientists argue that fortune telling seems to work. The entry could be better structured, but that's another matter entirely. Edhubbard 16:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- the project's goal is, as the project page says: "to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism". I see no problem with that. If you have a problem with the conduct of individual editors, take it up with them, rather than strive to delete a project of which they are a member. --BillC 10:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- While I sympathise with this nomination and do believe this project is more of a meeting place for sceptical activism, I am also aware that many projects have biases and underlying points of view, so I must support it being a continuing part of Wikipedia. - Solar 11:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This seems to be a bad faith nomination, since the complaint is that (in essence) the nom'er doesn't like the project. If the nom'er were consistent, he would also be tagging Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal and the user pages of every crank or self-proclaimed expert on wikipedia. The debate between paranormal and sceptical explanations on wikipedia is reflective of the wider debate where the edges of scientific understanding meet people's personal experiences and prior beliefs. Unless wikipedia is to ignore (and delete) every article that discusses unusual experiences, "paranormal" phenomena, and paranormal explanations, both sides of the ongoing debate need to be represented. In my own case, although I count myself as a member of the Rational Skepticism project, I have also had interesting and illuminating discussions with Solar on the Out-of-body experience talk page. Indeed the fact that someone like Solar, who is coming from the opposing viewpoint, supports the maintenance of this project page is, to me, clear evidence that a thoughtful, honest dialogue can be had between proponents of different viewpoints, as long as we keep to the basic principles of wikipedia (see also BillC's comment above, which I think captures the essence of the issue). This project page helps to coordinate users with those goals, and should therefore be kept. Edhubbard 12:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Suppression of opposing POV is very unwikipedian. Wikipedia is about presenting all significant POV, and attempts to limit the ability of editors to contribute or collaborate is a violation of the principles that govern Wikipedia. This is a very bad faith effort and should be stopped immediately and the proposer censored strongly. Many similar projects exist here for supporters of alternative medicine and pseudoscience. To be fair, should they also be deleted? I think not! The proposer needs to learn a bit about NPOV and collaborative editing. -- Fyslee 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Selmo writes: "I don't see how the project can be neutral." Well, since when does a project have to be neutral? This isn't about an article, so the NPOV policy doesn't apply to the project. The members of this project have the same goal as all other editors should have, which is to ensure that articles present all significant POV in an NPOV manner, which doesn't mean an article doesn't include POV, but that all POV are presented in such a manner as to avoid giving readers any appearance that the article is promoting or trying to sell a definite POV. If an article is about a definite POV, such as the Pseudoscience article, then the article should accurately describe that POV, as well as giving some place for opposing viewpoints about that POV. -- Fyslee 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Maprov 14:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep As per Edhubbard and others above. Badbilltucker 14:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep There is no rational reason for deleting it. Bubba73 (talk), 14:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

comment: I agree with the others above who think that this is nomination is in bad faith. The rational skepticism "POV" is that only things that are known to be true are stated as being true. What's wrong with that? Bubba73 (talk), 15:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

additional comment And to my way of thinking, that fits perfectly with the goals of an encyclopedia. Bubba73 (talk), 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.