Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Of possible interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 13:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden. Comment please. --ScienceApologist 00:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Umbrella of NPOV.

I am getting increasingly tired of the minority of people on Wikipedia who seem to feel that NPOV is an excuse to add any unsubstantiated claim to a Wikipedia article. Every single article that takes a skeptical POV has complaints about NPOV violation on the talk page.

This is no more apparent than on pages concerning individuals who claim paranormal powers such as Sylvia Browne, John Edward and Uri Geller. For example, every so often someone removes the term "self-proclaimed" from the introductory paragraph in the Browne article, which states "Sylvia Browne is a self-proclaimed psychic..."

On the one hand, I can understand the concern - "self-proclaimed" is a somewhat loaded term. But what is the alternative? We certainly can't leave it at "Sylvia Browne is a psychic..., which is just plain wrong.

So what are we to do? As I wrote a while back in the guidelines proposal, we know we are right, but they also know they are right and neither is willing to give an inch, so I think it is up to us to come up with a solution.

I propose that we start with a set of project guidelines for articles which fall into the WP:BLP category. Namely:

  • How should the opening paragraph be phrased?
  • How should paranormal claims be presented?
  • How should the skeptical/scientific view be presented?

Thoughts?

-- Qarnos 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know. She is a self-proclaimed psychic. That's an incontrovertible fact and therefore does not invoke POV, regardless of whether she is also a real psychic. What a lot of people fail to realize is that true skepticism involves taking a neutral point of view until empirical evidence demonstrates why we shouldn't. Doczilla 12:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand that, but unfortunately Wikipedia does not follow that ideal. Skepticism is severely handicapped by WP:NPOV and we need to stay within its limits. -- Qarnos 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Reliability and verifiability are your friends. The statement "Sylvia Browne is a psychic..." is not verifiable and obviously not based on a reliable source. So what you do is you find a reliable source that describes what Sylvia Browne is and attribute using a <ref>Reliable source</ref>. Don't let people who use NPOV to push their own POV get away with it. --ScienceApologist 14:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a sample fix for the lead. Why is Sylvia Browne notable for Wikipedia? It's not because she is a psychic or a medium. It's because she's a media darling and the author of bestselling books. So that's what Browne is: a talkshow guest and an author who describes herself as psychic. This is totally NPOV and is more accurate a portrayal anyway. When I first got to Wikipedia, I thought NPOV was ruining the encyclopedia too, but I was wrong. Skepticism does not need to be hampered because skeptical resources will always be able to parry the cranky sources through verifiability and reliability. As things get referenced it will become more and more clear that the cranky side will only be able to report on their ideas through limited sources of questionable repute and so will find their descriptions hampered by NPOV. Also, you might check-out the ongoing development of fringe guidelines. They will become more and more important if you continue in editting articles to include skeptical review. Keep your chin up and remember that attribution will keep Wikipedia honest. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I've gone ahead and created archives for 2006 in two seperate sections. Hopefully, that will make it easier to keep track of things on this page. All the discussions through December were ended so, if anyone wants to bring up those subjects again, please create a new topic here and leave the Archives in their current state. -- Kesh 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD of interest

Comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Juergens. --ScienceApologist 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles needing attention

I have happened upon a couple of articles which desperately need some rational attention from people with more experience in dealing with Wikipedia fights than I do:

  • Time travel is an obvious crank attractor, but at present dubiously describes such things as relativistic time dilation as a form of time travel into the future, which is not really a physical reading but more wishful thinking. Many other problems.
  • Prometheus Rising is supposed to be about a book by the same title, but is actually a platform for touting the 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, which includes such wisdom as "The Psycho-atomic Circuit allows access to the intergalactic consciousness that predates life in the universe (characterized as God, the Overmind or aliens), and lets humans operate outside of space-time and the constraints of relativity. This circuit is associated with Ketamine and DMT by Leary. (Called also by Leary The Neuro-Atomic Circuit or The Metaphysiological Circuit, Robert Anton Wilson called this circuit The Quantum Non-Local Circuit.)"

Advice for dealing with this insanity would be appreciated. Rosenkreuz 09:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. QuackWatch. A number of detractors of this website have set-up camp and established a rought ownership of the material, specifically they believe that Joel Kauffman's critique of the website is nigh-on inviolable. We need some help combating this POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I also notice a growing trend for Quackwatch detractors to remove links to it with the claim that it has been definitively agreed somewhere that it's not a RS. 82.25.232.121 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Electronic voice phenomenon--science is being referred to as "non-paranormal." The words "alleged" have been repeatedly removed from descriptions of EVP. Someone with a conflict of interest is editing the article. Very aggressive removal of NPOV and accuracy tags has taken place. An "audio example" of EVP that was published on an unreliable website is being included as credible evidence.-MsHyde 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello all. An article on Oscillococcinum is falling victim to reverts removing a science / balanced viewpoint on the treatment. Oscillococcinum is a homeopathic remedy, diluted to such a concentration that if a molecule of the active ingredient were present at the last step, it would be at a concentration of 1 molecule per 10^200 water molecules. The article often reads as an ad, explaining that four studies have found it effective, that the treatment is safe, and that the FDA approves of the manufacturing method. Would appreciate any contributions to the article / help with the reverting editor. Thanks. Akevin 09:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Demkina

The Natasha Demkina article, which appears to have been the cause of so many skeptics' burnouts, needs some skeptical attention again. After a peaceful and stable period, it has been the target of some substantial rewrites recently from editors trying to introduce some extraordinary claims of Demkina's success, as well as some dubious references. My pleas to take it slow and discuss contentious changes have been largely ignored. I need help. Nick Graves 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here

[edit] Criticism of parapsychology, etc.

Criticism of parapsychology seems to have been written purely to refute criticisms of parapsychology. The style of writing consists, or orginally consisted of weak one or two line skeptical arguments followed by large, cited refutations with backup quotes. It cites few critical sources, and leans heavily on one supporting author. Besides that, it's pretty poorly organized all around. I've attempted to fix it somewhat, but it needs a lot more. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That page seems to of been edited a lot by User:Martinphi and User:Dreadlocke. They seem to be dedicating a lot of time adding POV to articles relating to the paranormal. See their "Contributions" for a huge list of surely POV articles.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I just got here...

I just got here and I wanted to take basically put out a rally call for everyone to pay attention. A good majority of the paranormal articles are POV and bias and we need to gather and start spending some time working on this project.

  • We need to create a sub page for "Active members" because I will see to it that the list gets much larger.
  • Same for "inactive members".
  • We need to look over the "User boxes" and add some and erase others that are either dead or redundant.

And MOST of all...

  • We need to pay more attention to this project. We need to dedicate more time to it and watch it carefully for additions of articles that are POV and bias.

So everyone who is a member of this project, Please start focusing some time on it and also focus on looking out for other editors who might make good members.

Also, Anyone who thinks I might be missing something please chime in. Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, We need to get moving with the "collaboration effort" and pick one and start working on it.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone comment please.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I hear you. I've been busy lately, but I hear you. I'll get to work on creating subpages for the active/inactive members page. Smee 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Very good. I expanded the intro to that section. Tell me what you think.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. Smee 05:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What to do about anonymous edit warrior on Morgellons page

There is an anonymous editor, first at 80.140.101.111 and now at 80.140.82.184, that keeps changing the introduction to the Morgellons page. There was a cited quote from the journal Nature Medicine that stated "Most dermatologists do not think that the disease exists" - and this editor repeatedly changed "Most" to "Many" despite being informed that it was a quote. They also removed the rather significant statement in the opening sentence which indicates that Morgellons is a controversial subject, and has not yet been confirmed as a legitimate medical condition, thereby altering the sentence to imply that its existence is accepted as a fact ("Morgellons" or "Morgellons disease" is a medical condition). It is NOT confirmed that Morgellons *is* a medical condition, and it cannot be stated as such.

I am curious as to how I might deal with this if this editor maintains the edit war after two reverts. Or maybe some others here can back me up and help keep an eye on this page. Thanks. Dyanega 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can try. Those two IP addresses track to near Munich, like 134.171.28.83, so one might hazard a guess it's the same editor. The intro, BTW, is cut-and-pasted from the Mayo Clinic page [1] so that's reason enough to revert. Tearlach 20:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are correct - it looks like anonymous sock puppet editing. I suspect 134.171.28.83 is the true IP for this editor, who claimed to be a scientist (that IP belongs to the European Southern Observatory - hard to imagine anyone from outside having access to their computers); the edits from that IP stopped as soon as I observed where the edits were originating, and challenged the editor to post non-anonymously. I have the feeling we have a dedicated crank here, who may never be gotten rid of. Incidentally, the Mayo Clinic link is drawn primarily from Morgellons Research Foundation material, which is NOT an unbiased source of information. Someone else has already reverted that edit. Clearly, this is an editor with an agenda. Is this likely to require administrative intervention, then, and how does one go about invoking it? Dyanega 21:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backmasking

I've been working on Backmasking with the ultimate goal of an FA, and I could use some help with creating short samples of backmasked messages. Meanwhile, there's some controversy on the talk page about the section on Satanic messages, and further input from skeptics would be helpful. Λυδαcιτγ 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category proposed rename Category:Purported psychics to Category:Psychics

Since there has been canvassing amongst proponents of the paranormal, might as well post it here as well: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 18#Category:Purported psychics. --Minderbinder 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Voted for a keep.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal arbitration

I think that very soon an arbitration will go on regarding paranormal topics at Wikipedia, especially with regards to Electronic voice phenomenon. You can find discussion about this impending litigation here. Please advise. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)