| Revision as of 15:13, 22 December 2024 editRich Farmbrough (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,725,420 edits →[]← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:32, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,789 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 11) (bot |
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 37: |
Line 37: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== David Dees article == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey folks! I'm currently working on a draft for an article about David Dees, the conspiracy theory artist. Before I dedicate a lot of time to writing it, I wanted to gauge if people felt like he meets ], as well as get feedback on my prospective list of sources (and perhaps see if you all have additional sources I could use). |
|
|
|
|
|
My plan is to build off of the (sadly somewhat thin) ], as well as perhaps using the (not-particularly-encyclopedic) for some supplementary ideas. In terms of sources, I was planning on using Brad Abraham's short documentary , the ]'s , and ]'s . The German article has additional sources listed, but I think an editor who's fluent in German or French would be necessary to most accurately cite those. |
|
|
|
|
|
Any feedback that people could provide would be greatly appreciated! ] (]) 17:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Here's the (very preliminary) draft so far: ]. ] (]) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well that is a beginning. I would think he is notable, even I've heard of him before. I'm curious why you are using Draft and not your Sandbox for work? ] (]) 22:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hey, apologies for the late reply! Thanks for the feedback—I'll keep working with my existing sources and I think I can produce something that's at least serviceable |
|
|
:::To be honest, the only reason I'm using Draft is because I'm new to making articles, and Draft was the option that popped up when I used the Article Creation Wizard. I imagine the drawback is that it's editable by others, unlike a sandbox? ] (]) 04:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We can edit each other's sandbox, but we shouldn't. I don't know why it looks odd to use Draft, I suppose there is nothing wrong with it, it just looks odd to me. I think that a sandbox is usually for something you are working on and intend to fuss over for awhile. But draft is something complete that you are hoping for feedback on, like a final product. Anyway, find the at least three really best citations that prove notability. Start there - otherwise you will spend a lot of time on something that will get deleted. Those three citations should be easy to locate - if you are having trouble then he probably isn't going to pass notability. I'm happy to have a look as you need help - ping me. ] (]) 04:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::In terms of sources that prove notability, I have the , a in a very similar vein, the , and a about the controversial use of one of his illustrations in a textbook. Think that's enough? I want the general thrust of the article w/r/t his significance to be about how his art has been widely-spread, both as an object of mockery/fascination by non-believers and as a legitimate method of spreading conspiracy rhetoric. |
|
|
:::::I also have some questions about ], ], and ]. When looking for biographical details, the main sources I've found about his life come from , an interview appearance on , and . The documentary is fairly obviously an independent source, but all of the biographical information within comes from direct interviews with Dees—should details sourced like that simply be presented at face value, or should I still preface them as being ''claimed'' by Dees. For the other two sources, I think it's fairly obvious that they're not exactly independent, being published by a fellow conspiracy personality and Dees himself respectively, but they also seem to verifiably come straight from the horse's mouth and to contain details of his life that don't seem to be found anywhere else. I'm not sure Dees would have any ''reason'' to lie about going to Emory to a random podcast host, but I can concede they're crappy sources, and so am very conflicted about including them. ] (]) 05:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's okay to use interviews to document mundane details about themselves, such as where they grew up, what sparked their interest in that field, etc. Anything that actually related to notability - awards, employment, claims to fame - should come with an independant source. ] (]) 13:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Hey, Ithink -- did you make any progress with this? When I do a Misplaced Pages search on Dees, I find your page. Was that your intent?] (]) 20:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE == |
|
== RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE == |
|
|
|
|
== ] has an ]== |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. (Note: from continuation of ongoing discussion at Village Pump (policy).) ] (]) 00:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== How to add an article to this WikiProject? == |
|
== How to add an article to this WikiProject? == |
| Line 93: |
Line 71: |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
==]== |
|
This seems to be a flourishing pseudoscience. Currently the page is a redirect to ] rom which it is 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 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)