Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:47, 11 September 2024

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Susan Gerbic received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is currently undergoing a peer review. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Slovenia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Slovenia to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do (watch): Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl) Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 Expand: Education in Slovenia Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band) Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture Help assess the quality of 37 unassessed articles Take/Add requested photographs

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Sgerbic (talk · contribs)

NPOV dispute - no section specified - WP:DRIVEBY

This article has been tagged NPOV dispute without a section specified, nor the talk page annotation. I am creating the section because the tagger did not, in order to spur conversation and improvement to the article. In addition, cited material has been removed without talk page comment. It would be appropriate to review Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material and Misplaced Pages:NPOV_dispute#How to initiate an NPOV debate. Please "Be active and bold in improving the article" without removing cited content. Per WP:DRIVEBY tags should be added as a last resort. The talk page is a good starting point for constructive action. Kyle 22:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV template per WP:NPOVD#Adding a tag to a page. There was no reason stated why the neutrality was disputed; the user did not respond to two calls for clarification on this talk page and their own talk page (where the message was removed without comment). Failing to clarify one's motive in placing such a template means 'any editor may remove this tag at any time'; it's been two days with no response, so I removed it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Frequent Speaker?

"a frequent speaker at skeptic conferences such as The Amazing Meet!ng (TAM)"

Source please

Hello there unsigned person. The citation is provided in the article, citation 6. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hats.

Why is there a section about her wearing Hats? Is that really noteworthy? Lots of people wear hats. And this -Everybody thought that she would have to have a lot of time off but Gerbic decided to work through this challenge, because of the passion that she has. this reads like it was written by a Fan. 2601:483:101:9BDD:F86A:2FB6:5D42:28C0 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no such section, so if there ever was such a thing, it seems to have been deleted. RobP (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Dunning

Gerbic has been one of Dunning's strongest supporters (I hesitate to say apologist) during his fraud trial as can be seen in the talk section for his page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Brian_Dunning_%28author%29). She has yet to speak to things since his plea bargain and it would be nice to see a section on her page about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.209.137 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do people leave comments like this? Feel free to add one! RobP (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ref format

This article is using two different styles of reference formatting. I am transitioning them all into a single style (collected under References). RobP (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns

I'm concerned that this article, especially as a BLP, is far too heavily sourced by questionably reliable or primary sources. To give some examples:

Gerbic and Mark Edward came up with the name "Guerrilla Skepticism on Misplaced Pages" (GSoW) to describe skeptical activism that is "more underground, more grass-roots, more mole-like".:(0:02:00) The idea for an organized effort came from Tim Farley after Gerbic was frustrated by typical WikiProjects, finding them either dormant or not user-friendly, especially for new editors. Instead, she started communicating and training other Misplaced Pages editors directly on Facebook or using email. She stated that the formal beginning of GSoW is May 2010, yet its birthday is celebrated in June.

In the above paragraph, most of the content is coming directly from Youtube videos, uploaded by the subject. Another ref is to a podcast with her as a guest. The following sentence:

Interest in the project grew after Gerbic made presentations at SkeptiCalcon, did a Sunday paper presentation at The Amaz!ng Meeting, and also created a blog on the subject.

again cites a self-published video, as well as a an interview (again, the sources are all coming from Gerbic.) There's huge chunks of this article that are ultimately only being cited to primary sources, suggesting a severe undue weight problem. In addition, we've got sources such as The Messianic Drew, Data Skeptic, Escepticos, Patheos, and more. I suggest that this article be cut down and focus on what content is given from sources like the New York Times and Wired. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2021)

Per discussion at WP:BLPN jp×g 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the tag twice now. That discussion does not justify such a tag. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

13% authorship has "I proudly support the work of Guerrilla Skepticism on Misplaced Pages" on their userpage. At least one other major contributor is connected as well, although I'm not sure about disclosure on wiki. Definitely covers having the tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No coi has been demonstrated. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You've reverted multiple editors over the tag, and are ignoring multiple editors on BLPN stating they see an issue. I don't believe you're the final arbiter of if something has been demonstrated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Evidence on wikipedia is provided in the form of Diffs. I dont see any evidence. Has anybody got any, or are you all being spiteful? BTW, I proudly support the work of Guerrilla Skepticism on Misplaced Pages too. they do a fantastic job. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the contributors, you'll see the connection. Also, the article is written as hagiography. SarahSV 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Re the Wired article: "Today, the Guerrilla Skepticism on Misplaced Pages project has more than 120 volunteer editors from around the world, each of whom Gerbic has recruited and trained herself. They’re collectively responsible for some of the site’s most heavily trafficked articles on topics like scientology, UFOs, and vaccines." The editor responsible for much of one of those topics has nothing to do with Gerbic. Does this group really exist as described? SarahSV 20:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Since the group is organized off wiki we're in a position where we don't know if a particular editor is associated unless they disclose on wiki. It's an unfortunate circumstance where we have to go with sources despite what we may know. I believe wired is generally regarded as a decently reliable source as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

But Wired's source is presumably Gerbic. SarahSV 00:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations

Does anyone mind if I change the list-defined references to ref name= within the text? SarahSV 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I sure don't, although I'm not a primary author. I wanted to apologise again if it came across that I was putting you forward to do a rewrite, it wasn't my intention. I just used it as an example since you're putting a lot of good work into the article. Thanks for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That's okay. Just be warned that I reserve the right to lose interest suddenly. SarahSV 00:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've started changing the refs. If someone strongly objects, I'm willing to change them back, but I can't work with list-defined refs, so it's change them or stop working on it. SarahSV 05:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Change them. No problem. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, done, thanks. SarahSV 05:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for setting such a good example here. Really, thx. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome. SarahSV 21:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Marriage

Thanks to SlimVirgin for the rewrite - I think it looks great. I notice that the Personal life section mentions Gerbic's marriage to Robert Forsyth but does not mention that they were divorced in 2003, nor that she is currently in a domestic partnership with Mark Edward. I am concerned that a reader might come away with the mis-understanding they are still married. 49.180.243.9 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. It's a question of finding sources. I've added that the marriage ended in 2002; I did it before I saw this, so I'll now look for a source for 2003 and for Mark Edward. Thanks again, SarahSV 06:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! (Sorry my previous comment wasn't logged in - I used the app on my phone and assumed it would keep me logged in. Wrong.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This article must be permanently tagged w COI tags

There are over 140 editors with close connections to the subject, whose names are not public, and who are part of an online coordinated group. I am not passing judgement on them, and I support all work on dispelling pseudoscience and unscientific content on Misplaced Pages. However, it still remains that this article has a very high chance of being edited overwhelmingly by editors biased in favor of the subject (as can be partially seen by the proportion of Skeptic Inquirer or other Skeptic* sources used in the article). Thus, this article must be tagged w COI both in the talk page and in the main page, and especially so until the usernames of all associated editors are known to the rest of the project. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This is just terminally boring. We have been over this many times. Read the yellow stuff at the top of this page, and the page archives. Thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please Roxy the dog there's no need to be so abrasive in your response. Other editors below have been much more patient with someone like me that is unfamiliar with the "many times" this has been gone over. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles do not carry a tag unless a defined problem has been explained. What major contributor with a close connection has recently edited this article? I don't see any. What cleanup is needed? What content policy is being violated? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq as the list of members of the Guerilla Skeptics is completely unknown to the public, there is no way to say for certain if any contribution to this article is affected by COI. If, as she claims, the subject has taught over 140 editors how to contribute to Misplaced Pages (extra word my own), the possibility of this happening is notably high. Major contributors @Rp2006, Jerodlycett, SlimVirgin, Nederlandse Leeuw, Wyatt Tyrone Smith, Allecher, DolyaIskrina, Robincantin, Macam14, Gronk Oz, I have a big foot, Anglo Pyramidologist, and Akumiszcza: all have strong interests in Skepticism. Khamar publicly supports Guerrila Skeptics. Some editors, such as AusCyberman have only edited this article.I am not claiming any of these editors are disruptive, negative, or doing anything wrong. However, one could argue that due to the large size of the Guerilla group (about two-thirds the size of WikiProject Skepticism) there is a high probability editors that have interacted extensively with Gerbic have edited this article and participated in relevant discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Recently SlimVirgin did a complete rewrite of the article, and I am confident in saying that she did not have a COI and was one of our best editors. While it is likely that there was a problem before that, the rewrite would have addressed any concerns. - Bilby (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So basically this is a conspiracy theory about a cabal controlling Misplaced Pages. I can affirm that I do not personally know any of the participants, but that I understand WP's position in relation to its presentation of science and fringe topics. I don't have the time right now but could eventually review this article. —PaleoNeonate – 18:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Bilby. The article has been stable since the rewrite and doesn't appear to be an issue now. Are there any specific concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the COI tag should not be applied unless there is a specific, articulatable problem with something in the article, caused by a COI editor. Additionally, no specific editor has been confirmed or accused of having COI on this article. I don't currently see an argument for keeping the COI tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed not. Removed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Permanent tagging" is a strange idea that I oppose. The purpose of tags is to identify a specific problem so that it can be solved. Once solved, the tag should be removed. We do not place a tag of shame on articles forever. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Appreciate all the community replies to my proposal :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

BLPs are not my forte but I looked at the article. The Awards and honors are a common problem in BLPs and stands out, but the article overall doesn't seem like a hagiography to me. Most sources are secondary, although a number are within the skeptic community (however some are not and those appear enough to show BLPN). To prevent future promotional editing (or vandalism) the best way is to watchlist the article. Also, there's material supported by non-skeptic independent sources (ideal sources in this case) but that is short, perhaps it'd be possible to expand using the same sources, or where possible substitute other citations by these if they cover some of the same material (i.e. the NYTimes magazine)... —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly all the SI cites are somewhat problematic seeing how she is a very regular contributor, so I definitely agree there. Additionally, seeing how she personally has led efforts to reference an issue of SI as much as possible in the project one should place additional scrutiny on citing that fits that pattern. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Clear of cancer

@My very best wishes: I am perplexed by this change, where you removed the information that the subject is now clear of cancer. At the time you gave the summary "I think this is a very bad taste (speaking of a cancer survivor); we should be more conservative in describing personal lives of people on BLP pages".

I really don't see how it is acceptable to describe the diagnosis and treatment, but not the clear test at the end - especially when the subject herself has been so open about it. It's certainly not a matter of privacy; the subject uploaded the photo herself.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, I thought that info was there. But I now made a change to make it more clear. As about the subject uploading the photo by herself... I insist that placing such photo by her (I only mean the image itself) was profoundly distasteful, although probably not against any policy. And I do not think it was funny. This is an atrocious disease, and a lot of other people did not survive it. OK, I self-reverted. Do not see a problem here, except that the image makes a mockery of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• C-Class biography articles
• Requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Women writers articles
• Low-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• C-Class California articles
• Unknown-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• C-Class Slovenia articles
• Low-importance Slovenia articles
• All WikiProject Slovenia pages
• Articles with connected contributors