Template talk:RationalSkepticismCollaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Current Collaboration

[edit] Future Collaborations

Please nominate and vote for Collaboration Efforts here.

  • Chiroquackery needs to be opposed. Right now there is an editing war going on. -- Fyslee 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Neutral. I'm not too interested getting the entire project involved in an edit war just as we're starting up. Possibly later on. at all. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • M. Lamar Keene would be an interesting topic. A "reformed psychic" from previous century. Doesn't exist yet even in stub form, but is linked to by True-believer syndrome. Qarnos 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Nothing like good old research and starting an article from scratch. Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Hitchhiker89talk 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong supportLjstg 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Support (I am a reformed true believer.) Andries 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I started the article, based on what little information I could find. I've ordered his book. Bubba73 (talk), 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Soul may need some expansion. As usual, the bias is tending in favor of the subject of the article. The "Philosophical views" section only contains Plato's, Socrates' and Aristotle's views of the soul and use of the word. What about Hume, Hobbes, Russell, etc? We should expand it with philosophical criticisms. Robert Todd Carroll's article on it is a good place to start. http://skepdic.com/soul.html Maprov
    • SupportLjstg 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong support. Excellent and highly noteworthy topic to sink our teeth into, and one of the most prone to bias on Wikipedia. (Wikipedians who don't believe that they have a human soul are vastly less common than humans who don't believe in God, for example.) -Silence 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sathya Sai Baba, may be somebody could add some skeptic information from the Indian Skeptic by Basava Premanand. The current article is blocked from editing due to an edit war and is under mediation between me and two other users. Feel free to editUser:Andries/Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Green Fireballs This is a small article, but very one-sided. There aren't many good references/sources for it. Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Philip J. Klass The bulk of this article is criticism of Klass by extreme pro-UFO people. The criticism is very POV. Bubba73 (talk), 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • paranormal simply links to Anomalous phenomenon. I think there should be a seperate article about paranormal. Compare and contrast to pseudoscience, etc. Four months ago I started on such an article (off-line) but didn't get it in good enough shape to make a new article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Instead of creating a new article, which could turn into a POV fork in time, why not just expand the existing article with more information about the paranormal? The only difference between "anomalous phenomenon" and "paranormal" is a terminological and connotational one, and thus determining what topics to cover in one or the other would violate WP:NOR and[ [WP:NPOV]]. For example, if we covered Bigfoot in "paranormal" and Ghosts in "anomalous phenomena", it would clearly demonstrate a bias, or at least an arbitrary and useless distinction. -Silence 20:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Astral Projection This article is fairly one-sided and could use some skeptic love. I added a few links for criticism but it really needs a lot more. Jredwards 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Seance Before I got to it, the article was a blatent endorsement. Could use major changes.
  • Dowsing is a mess and has been tagged NPOV since forever. If anyone has the time, take a look and see if there is any possible fix to remove the tag. SuMadre 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
SupportWikidudeman (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Parapsychology This article is nothing more than a POV bias rant. It has no detailed criticism. It's sources are very unreliable and one sided. It's overall tone is very POV. It needs massive work.Wikidudeman (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy has had numerous statements suggest that unproven treatments are effective despite evidence to the contrary. They both contain large critiques of the scientific process used to evaluate their field and are very selective in the evidence that is included. Specifically, evidence that makes either of these related disciplines look bad is excluded.JamesStewart7 10:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Leonard Horowitz is an article about a quack and AIDS conspiracy theorist that currently reads like it was written by the man itself. It's in desperate need of a NPOV work-over. Please do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CronoDAS (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Collaborations

[edit] Proposed Future collaboration: Scientific skepticism

Its a bad, bad muddled article. Needs a lot of re-writing. --Havermayer 22:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opportunity for Inter-project Collaboration

WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology have proposed a collaboration to improve Placebo, an article that is supported by this WikiProject. If this topic interests you, and you would like to help (in large ways or small) improve this article through collaborative editing, please go to the WPMED project's collaboration page and sign your name (~~~~) to show your support. The next collaboration will be chosen in about five days, and the article with the most votes from potential collaborators is chosen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)