Talk:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904200903/http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/ to http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428163349/http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/practices.htm to http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/practices.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Rawlins "resigned" form CSICOP?

The article writes that Rawlins resigned from CSICOP, when the cited source (sTARBABY) clearly disagrees (at least if that means resigned from the council). He resigned from the editorial board of the skeptical inquirer, so maybe these two things have been confused. Regardless of what is meant here, I think readers would get the wrong impression, and this should be improved to be more accurate. 194.126.175.154 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

When was the resignation suppose to have happened? I for one, was warned by one of the "Founders" not to join because the organisation constantly moves the "goal post". (This happened to me while I was still in college) MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, if I had read closer (Hard to do while trying to endure the advert atmosphere of this article) I would had seen the date. MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Fellows list

The fellows list was badly out of date and missing several people. Using the online reference from CSI (their current on-line fellows list) I added these people in. More importantly, the original list here included past and present members, but the CSI reference only has current folks. To address this problem, I split the list into two: current fellows (which uses the CSI current on-line fellows list as a reference), and former fellows. Problem is right now there is no obvious citation for these former folks, so I have marked them all CN. I presume back issues of the print magazine may eventually be found and used as reference to verify each of these people was a CSI fellow. Also, I spot checked some of these people using their Wiki bios, and in many cases no reference for the CSI fellowship appears there either, (and it may not even be mentioned) although in some cases the person was assigned to the category 'Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.' I will also point out that the same (or worse) problem holds for the next section: List of scientific and technical consultants (current and former), but I have not investigated this further. RobP (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I shouldn't even have to say this, but this article reads like a major advert for CSICOP. Thus I question its neutrality entirely. Why? Because in sounding like an Advert, it also sounds (to me) like Wikipedia has become Csicop's own personal Cheer Leaders. I for one do not want to be a cheer leader of an (Pseudo-skeptical) organisation who's own former founders claim that (CSICOP) continually moves the goal post in so-called scientific test. MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you any specific NPOV violations in mind? Without that, and especially given your lack of good faith, you may not get far. Doug Weller talk 21:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No I just wanted someone to know that this CSICOP article reads like a recruitment Brochure. I hope to not have to place any NPOV on it, that the article will be cleaned up with-out having to place NPOV on it. However, I will put NPOV IF it appears no work is done on this. Thank you. MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You have your own perspective on the world, and others have theirs. What may look obvious POV to you will look perfectly OK to others. (From your other contributions above, it is clear that you are very much against CSICOP.) Therefore you will have to be concrete. Quote specific sentences, then a discussion can start. Otherwise, your contribution is useless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@MagnummSerpentinee you must not tag before bring specific examples of NPOV violations. That's said in the template. And with only 5 edits I doubt that you understand NPOV. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I have worked on Wikipedia off and on for 15 or so years. I understand neutrality totally. I oppose the Notability of an article to be included in Wikipedia. I also remember when that did not count and you had all kinds of wonderful articles. With that said, I suspect that there are better people out there who could whip this article into shape than I could. If I were to work on it, I would probably get a NPOV strike because I oppose just about everything that CSICOP does (In relation to them proving a thing exist or is real with thing (The word Thing that is) Being a stand in for some hocus-pocus nonsense etc)MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A little clarification. When I say I oppose Notability, I am referring to the concept as used by Wikipedia, not this article about CSICOP. MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think this article isn't notable there is no point in discussing it here, got to WP:AfD and start a deletion request. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

And this contribution is also useless for article improvement purposes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

No sir.

I oppose the term Notability because I have seen a great many good articles die because of it. I do not oppose the Article. It just needs a bit of work. (I actually got an account this time so I can download PDFS and put them in my Software that enlarges words so I can read articles from Wikipedia better, I had not planned to edit a thing. My NPOV was a suggestion thats all) Thank you. I actually got fed up around 2012-2015 with Wikipedia and "Retired" As I said I got this current account so I could Download PDF files so I can enlarge them with special software so I can read them better. Sorry for the confusion. MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:TALK. If you do not want to improve this article, then go elsewhere. This page is only for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I beg your pardon! I WILL inform you when I feel an article is purposefully being biased. Neutral in content, neutral in belief, neutral in sources, I always say. Please fix the glaring bias errors & Double check the facts. MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Which are specifically? We allow biased sources, we aren’t neutral on evolution, etc. Doug Weller talk 22:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This section does not belong here. It is a waste of time and should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson

He's listed as a "current fellow" despite having died in 2021. Should he be removed from that list? Partofthemachine (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)