Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Rational Skepticism page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

WikiProject Rational Skepticism

(Rated Project-Class)

Philosophy of science portal

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

This page was nominated for deletion on October 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
January 2006 – July 2006 August 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – March 2007 April 2007 — August 2007 September 2007 — October 2008 November 2008 — May 2009 Old version of Main Page

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:36, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Section title violated WP:CIVIL editor warned twice

I have no objection to rational skepticism but when skeptics rule things out without evidence or use the same distortion tactics that pseudo scientists use this is pseudo skepticism. When a member of the skeptic community does this they give some people the wrong impression. There seems to be at least one over eager member of this project who fits that criterion. User:Simonm223 has a history of deleting information without doing the research or following the proper discussion procedures. Doing this is counterproductive. When people see the inappropriate procedures some people including him use it makes all truly rational skeptics look bad. This could give the appearance of a pseudo skeptic purge which will only backfire. I suggest other rational skeptics take a look at his history and let him know if you think he is going to far at times. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you refactor that to remove the pseudoskeptic nonsense and so it doesn't come across as a personal attack? WP:AGF etc? Verbal chat 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) is probably referring to my recent AfD of a Stanley Krippner, an academic with some involvement in fringey matters whose page includes not one WP:RS. He may also be smarting from the fact that I, and several other active participants in Wikipedia, successfully turned an article about a fringe theory regarding that over-blown incident at fatima into a redirect to the appropriate page. This user tends to dance dangerously close to WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR violations as he appears not to realize that calling somebody a "pseudo-skeptic" because they express an opinion on a talk page stating that nothing supernatural happened at fatima is not necessarily kosher. Go ahead, look at my edits, I play by the rules. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not retract anything. I have made a valid statement. I have no doubt that a thorough look at his history will back it up. Simonm seems to be making it easy by changing the headline to a personal attack acusation. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously accusing me of "pseudo skepticism" is a violation of WP:CIVIL and will be treated as such. I have warned you about this twice now today. If other editors want to review my edits i have already said they are welcome to do so however I will not brook petty little insults. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Warn me again and report me if you like it wont change the fact that you are acting like a pseudo skeptic. If you report me they may also look into whether you check your work before deleting things. They may also not that you have changed my edit twice to make this seem like a personal dispute. here and here. I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chip Coffey

Interested parties might want to look at this AfD

[edit] Electronic water conditioning

Electronic water conditioning might need a hand to get out of the POV! --Stone (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On it. Simonm223 (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the references cited in this article indicate that anything other than magnetic fields are being used by "electronic water conditioning". And there is already an article on magnetic water treatment. Perhaps there is a distinction between the use of alternating magnetic fields generated electronically and static magnetic fields generated with permanent magnets; but in the brief time I spent searching and reading, I don't recall noticing any significant distinction being made between these two methods by the sources covering the topic. If there is a distinction between the use of alternating and fixed magnetic fields which warrants the presence of two articles, it should be noted in each article. If "electronic water conditioning" actually refers to treatment distinctly different from magnetic water treatment, then references should be provided which support this distinction. And if there is no distinction at all, then I would think that this article should be nominated for deletion, or made into a redirect to Magnetic water treatment. The magnetic water treatment article could use some work — it appears to be little more than a stub, and appears biased in comparison to some of the available references (such as this one), which give the topic a fair and impartial overview. Wildbear (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be bold and redirect one to the other. I just want to figure which is better sourced before deciding which way to go. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've just been told not to interfere by an employee of a manufacturer. I am directing them here. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. We can review their case here and see if it has merit. Wildbear (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics of reciprocity

I made these edits but Slp1 thinks my source was unreliable. Is it unreliable and if it is can anyone find a better source? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought a bit, since no one humanist speaks for all humanists the quote isn’t entirely representative, I took that into account and edited again, let’s see what they make of this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation bias now a GA

Having been rewritten since August of this year, Confirmation bias (mid-importance for this project) has now been reviewed as a Good Article. Thanks to User:Neramesh for being such a patient and informed reviewer. I intend to take it on towards FA status, and plan to use material from the article to improve adjacent articles such as Illusory correlation and Attitude polarization. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rom Houben

Rom Houben currently a subject of controversy. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents