PROFILPELAJAR.COM

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

· Scientific skepticism article
· Join the Project
· Main Discussion	(w)
· List of topics
· To do
· Project resources
· Article alerts
· Fringe theories noticeboard
· New articles	(l) (r)
· Article list
· Popular pages
· Needing attention (-1)
· Needing improvement
· Cleanup
· Did you know?
· Requested articles
· RFC

Assessment
· Project banner
· Statistics
· Log of changes

Articles by quality
· FA	23
· FL	2
· A	0
· GA	92
· B	590
· C	1254
· Start	1683
· Stub	133
· Unassessed	30

Articles by importance
· Top	64
· High	284
· Mid	809
· Low	2683
· Unknown	150

Related WikiProjects
· Science	talk
· Physics	talk
· Medicine	talk
· Philosophy	talk
· Epistemology	talk
· Logic	talk
· Philosophy of science	talk

Projects to monitor
· Alternative medicine	talk
· Alternative views	talk
· Astrology	talk
· Creationism	talk
· Cryptozoology	talk
· Homeopathy	talk
· Objectivism	talk
· Occult	talk
· Paranormal	talk
· Parapsychology	talk

Tools
· CatScan 2.0
· Red link recovery

Archives

Historical

This page has archives. Sections older than 64 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE

How to add an article to this WikiProject?

There is a new article Timeline of UFO investigations and public disclosure 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? Gronk Oz (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think (It's been awhile since I did it) just add the tag to the talk page of the article. Sgerbic (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to tackle the list of books about skepticism

This is a big project, but over the years people have been adding books to this list that are NOT Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reverted by someone who does not get it, but it does not matter. You can see in the old revsion [1] which books have an article about them and which do not, which was the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hob Gadling: I reverted your edit because first, you removed the italic markup from book titles. Book titles should always be italicized (see MOS:ITALICTITLE). Second, you created redlinks by linking the book titles with no Wikipedia articles. Redlinks shouldn't be used unless an article is likely to be created (see WP:NORED). —Bruce1ee ^talk 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my edit has fulfilled its goal even if you do not understand it. The revert does not matter. It's fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

great idea Hob. Sgerbic (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia pages. One immediate question I have is the following: Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Wikipedia 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)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Wikipedia page?" Only books that have Wikipedia 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. Sgerbic (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ronald H. Fritze. I'm sure I have others whose authors don't have their own articles. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list should contain only books that have Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Sgerbic (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic Why not also include those whose authors have articles. Note that my concern is the lack of books on pseudoarchaeology.. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article for, please let me know, I'm happy to write the article. Sgerbic (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past by Jeb Card has four reviews in the Wikipedia library plus this[2] 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 [3], [4][5]

Fantastic Archaeology by Stephen Williams (archaeologist) - 10 reviews in the Library. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracism" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8 § Conspiracism until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orgonite

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).[reply]