| Revision as of 10:29, 22 November 2021 editFormalDude (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,511 edits →Merge proposal Cognitive elite→The Bell Curve: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:32, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,295,546 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 11) (bot |
| (540 intermediate revisions by 86 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
⚫ |
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive nav}} |
|
⚫ |
|maxarchivesize = 256K |
|
⚫ |
|counter = 11 |
|
⚫ |
|algo = old(64d) |
|
⚫ |
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
⚫ |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{oldmfd|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism|date=], ]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{oldmfd|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism|date=], ]}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{Shortcut|WT:SKEPTICISM|WT:SKEPTIC}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Skepticism/Nav}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Skepticism/Nav}} |
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{Shortcut|WT:SKEPTICISM|WT:SKEPTIC}} |
|
|
{{archive box| |
|
{{archive box| |
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
| Line 14: |
Line 25: |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
;Historical |
|
;Historical |
|
*] |
|
*] |
| Line 24: |
Line 36: |
|
|search=yes |
|
|search=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| ⚫ |
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive nav}} |
|
| ⚫ |
|maxarchivesize = 256K |
|
| ⚫ |
|counter = 10 |
|
| ⚫ |
|algo = old(64d) |
|
| ⚫ |
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
| ⚫ |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Did you know nomination== |
|
|
{{Did you know nominations/The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re-rate ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello. In your project, ] is rated C-class but the article has been expended vastly in the last 6 months. What about re-evaluating its class? --] (]) 20:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Evidence of absence == |
|
|
|
|
|
] needs work, esp. Proving a negative. I flagged the section, including adding CNs, and added it to this project. I also made a section on its Talk to discuss this. I found it because I got into an argument on Zoom about proving a negative (re god) due to absence of evidence - and the person points me at this WP article as proof you CAN prove such a negative... (So if you cannot prove god doesn't exist, he does). ] (]) 01:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have this arguments, they are just a giant circle. How bad is the article Evidence of absence, can we just say that there is no evidence that the page is bad so therefore the page must be in good shape? ] (]) 06:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:That person is just mistaken in their interpretation of the article. See also ] and ]. Another editor once disingenuously made the argument that because of a lack of evidence, we can state in Wikivoice that supernatural things "do not exist". This is also a mistaken interpretation of these concepts, as both positive claims and negative claims are both ''claims'', and as such, both require evidence to be logical. ] (]) 12:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Logic fail there, but anyway Misplaced Pages follows sources and if they say things don't exist (like ]), Misplaced Pages neutrally follows. ] (]) 13:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yeah, I'm not going to bring back the qi discussion because everyone talked until blue in the face. We didn't agree on what the sources said, and we didn't agree on which of us is failing at logic, and the consensus was to change your "does not exist" text to something less bad. ] (]) 13:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think the point was we ''did'' agree (that "neither qi nor meridians exist as observable phenomena"), and I made a nice improvement to the text accordingly. Things (like The ]) can "exist" as fiction. So for ]. Consensus is a great force. ] (]) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Come off your high horse, Alex. You lost that discussion and the only reason the wording didn't go further against your favor is because you won through sheer frustration of everyone involved. ] (]) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Danth's Law strikes again. If in doubt, return to ] for a reality check, although personally I wouldn't recommend it when the consensus text is good. ] (]) 13:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Please see ] and ]. We're all in this together. There does not need to be winners and losers. ] (]) 13:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Havana Syndrome == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Skeptical folks... as years pass and and no indisputable evidence is uncovered proving the ] is the result of proposed but undiscovered sci-fi weapons, the likelihood that it is all due to mass psychogenic illness, the hypothesis put forward by the expert ], seems to be growing. YET, the Misplaced Pages page IMHO does not reflect this. And editors have kept this hypothesis totally out of the lead. What are we to do? ] (]) 01:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:In connection with this, the topic is being discussed on ] (]) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::And now it has sparked discussions in several other locations, including: , and ] (]) 06:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Havana Syndrome RfC == |
|
|
I have opened an RfC on the Havana Syndrome talk page. ]] (]) 03:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:2px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] |
|
|
Hello,<br>Please note that ''']''', which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the ''']'''. The article is ] to appear on Misplaced Pages's ] in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! <!-- Substituted from Template:AFI project notice --><br /> |
|
|
<sub>Delivered by <!-- mbsig --><span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <b>] <sup>]</sup></b></span><!-- mbdate --> 00:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team</sub> |
|
|
|- |
|
| ⚫ |
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE == |
|
== BLP noticeboard discussion re: ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== How to add an article to this WikiProject? == |
|
An article related to this project, ], is being discussed at ]. ] (]) 22:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a new article ] which seems to be right in your wheelhouse. I have looked through the content here, and I can't see how to add this article for the WikiProject. Can somebody please tell me how to add it? ] (]) 11:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Inside Job == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think (It's been awhile since I did it) just add the tag to the talk page of the article. ] (]) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Conspiracy theories seem to be hot now, so it's nice to see a show that treats them with the "respect" they deserve. I'm talking about the new Netflix animated series: ''].'' It pokes fun at every fringe claim and conspiracy theory out there. takes a unique look at the show from a skeptical movement perspective. If anyone thinks it makes sense to add it to the Reception section, have at it. ] (]) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== It's time to tackle the list of books about skepticism == |
|
== Proposed redirect of ] to ]. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a big project, but over the years people have been adding books to this list that are NOT Misplaced Pages notable. I suggest that people take it in turns to cut this list by about 3/4's - if the book does not have a Misplaced Pages article, then it needs to go. Double check that there is no article before you remove it from this list, as they might not have been hyperlinked in this list. ] Good luck! ] (]) 07:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{Discussing}} {{slink|Talk:Somatic experiencing|Proposed merge: Peter A. Levine → Somatic experiencing}} ––] {{emoji|1F427|size=17}} <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">]</span></sup> 04:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:In a first step, I automatically replaced the italic titles by wikilinks. Now we can easily tell the redlinked ones apart from the bluelinked ones. --] (]) 07:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It has been reverted by someone who does not get it, but it does not matter. You can see in the old revsion which books have an article about them and which do not, which was the point. --] (]) 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@]: I because first, you removed the italic markup from book titles. Book titles should always be italicized (see ]). Second, you created redlinks by linking the book titles with no Misplaced Pages articles. Redlinks shouldn't be used unless an article is likely to be created (see ]). —]] 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As I said, my edit has fulfilled its goal even if you do not understand it. The revert does not matter. It's fine. --] (]) 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::great idea Hob. ] (]) 16:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
Hey, gang - I've started working on this project. As I understand it, I'll be removing books from the list in question that do not have their Misplaced Pages pages. One immediate question I have is the following: Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page? The first one I came across goes to an image file. I will go ahead and edit the links to go to the relevant page. ] (]) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not sure what you mean by the "Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page?" Only books that have Misplaced Pages articles should remain on this list. Everything else should go. If people write new articles for books, then they can add them to the list. I'm expecting when this is done there will be a quarter of the list left. It's been added to for so long without following the rules. ] (]) 18:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Rfc on Falsifiability == |
|
|
|
::I don't really understand this. I have a number of books that are very clearly reliable sources on psuedoarchaeology which don't have their own articles. Great sources, but not on the list. Eg see ]. I'm sure I have others whose authors don't have their own articles. ] ] 14:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The list should contain only books that have Misplaced Pages articles, notable on their own. It does not mean that a book can't be a reliable source, but we need to pair this down otherwise it just becomes a list of every book on the subject of scientific skepticism and I see inclusion of pure science creeping in. We don't want this to become another list like a UFO "notable" events, who decides what is notable. Many of these books being removed, I have in my own library and find them useful but they probably shouldn't be on the list. I would love to see our community buckle down and write articles for the books that are notable enough to pass the strict standards of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Why not also include those whose authors have articles. Note that my concern is the lack of books on pseudoarchaeology.. ] ] 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's just opening a can of worms, anything by the author? You can still use the book as a reliable source if it does not have a Misplaced Pages article, that won't change. This list is just for books that are notable on their own. If you have a book that you know has the citations that we can build a Misplaced Pages article for, please let me know, I'm happy to write the article. ] (]) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::''Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past'' by Jeb Card has four reviews in the Misplaced Pages library plus this which in the past has been considered a reliable source. |
|
|
::::::''Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public'' has one in the Library plus , |
|
|
::::::''Fantastic Archaeology'' by ] - 10 reviews in the Library. ] ] 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
Your comments will be appreciated at ]. ] (]) 18:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> to the article ] has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8#Conspiracism}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merge proposal ]→] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
A discussion that may interest members of this project is occurring at {{slink|Talk:The Bell Curve|Merger proposal}}. ––] ] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">]</span></sup> 10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This seems to be a flourishing pseudoscience. Currently the page is a redirect to ], the concept from which it sprung. It's all about negative and positive energy and most of the people selling "orgonites" are happy to make all sorts of medical claims, as well as physical, psychological, social and spiritual. It is linked, at least in the commercial aspect, to just about everything from reiki to chakras, from auras to EMF to 5G, from frequencies to crystals to phases of the moon. It maybe that there is not enough RS for an article, but if there is I think it might be very useful for some readers. All the best: ''] ]''<small> 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC).</small><br /> |
This is a big project, but over the years people have been adding books to this list that are NOT Misplaced Pages notable. I suggest that people take it in turns to cut this list by about 3/4's - if the book does not have a Misplaced Pages article, then it needs to go. Double check that there is no article before you remove it from this list, as they might not have been hyperlinked in this list. List of books about skepticism Good luck! Sgerbic (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey, gang - I've started working on this project. As I understand it, I'll be removing books from the list in question that do not have their Misplaced Pages pages. One immediate question I have is the following: Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page? The first one I came across goes to an image file. I will go ahead and edit the links to go to the relevant page. Drobertpowell (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be a flourishing pseudoscience. Currently the page is a redirect to orgone, the concept from which it sprung. It's all about negative and positive energy and most of the people selling "orgonites" are happy to make all sorts of medical claims, as well as physical, psychological, social and spiritual. It is linked, at least in the commercial aspect, to just about everything from reiki to chakras, from auras to EMF to 5G, from frequencies to crystals to phases of the moon. It maybe that there is not enough RS for an article, but if there is I think it might be very useful for some readers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC).
The redirect Conspiracism to the article Conspiracy theory#Conspiracism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8 § Conspiracism until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)