Talk:Australian Skeptics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Australian Skeptics is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I am skeptical about the information in this article. How can the jornaul of an organisation that has existed for only 24 years have been published for 25 years?

the same way that someone can press the 5 key instead of the four key. (that is, it may just have been a typo)--202.161.1.167 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The latest volume of "The Skeptic" is Volume 26. I'll sort this out tomorrow and get the history right. --Bduke 12:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the foundation dates for both the Society and the Journal and sourced them. --Bduke 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Claims

Does the list of disputed claims really add anything to the page? The Australian Skeptics are sceptical of all paranormal and amazing claims. The list could easily be 10 or 100 times longer. Putting a list of topics is rather whimsical. Readers of the page could easily get bogged down on the list and never see any details that appear after the list. I'd suggest we remove the list from Wikipedia and just make a link to the list on the Australian Skeptics website. I'd make the change immediately but I'd like to get feedback on the idea. Zuytdorp Survivor 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me! That way the AS are responsible for keeping the list up to date. Gillyweed 01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am deleting from the article. It's ugly and uninformative (under TLDR). --ZayZayEM 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What is TLDR? Gillyweed 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read and it is NOT a policy or a guideline. It is just an essay, so it not a reason for removing this list. However, I do think the list was not inclusive and I am happy it is gone. --Bduke 23:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even know it was an essay. TLDR is a general term that applies to any form of information media intended for an audience. The list is unencyclopedic indiscriminate, incomplete information that contributes nothing substantial to the article. It would be like if Greenpeace had a list for every environmental activity they involve themselves in. They do a sensible thing and list the verifiable priorities ([1])--ZayZayEM 02:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Merge of No Answers in Genesis

It has been proposed by User:ZayZayEM that No Answers in Genesis be merged here. Please give your views below. --Bduke (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Support merge. This organisation is linked to the Australian Skeptics and it is unlikley that the artcile will ever become more than a stub, so it should be become a section in Australian Skeptics. --Bduke (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Support merge. I agree, even the Answers in Genesis entry is for the organisation, not the website. Rbreen (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, it seems to be a branch of this organisation rather than an organisation of its own. Terraxos (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done the merge as there seems to be no objection. I have also altered some redirects to the page merged. --Bduke (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no clue as to the chosen spelling, when they know how to spell it. http://www.skeptics.com.au/about/skeptics/overview.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.221.27 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)