Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗


RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE

Requested move at Talk:List of Scientologists#Requested move 29 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Scientologists#Requested move 29 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 07:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion/merger discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town

The article Cryptid town has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town. An editor has suggested partial merger of content from Cryptid town into Cryptozoology as an alternative to deletion. Please join the discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town to weigh in. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Farmingdale Statue

This article was just created by a new editor who has a direct conflict of interest- they claim they are the statue's custodian. If this is real, it is an extremely rare and important object that would be the center of any museum exhibition on early American life. I would appreciate a good look over by members of this project. Best, Thriley (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be mostly sourced to a book, probably a book they wrote? I have zero expertize in this subject so not one to help with knowing if it okay or not. I suggest you take this post to other areas that might have editors who have more expertize than the skeptic project. Now if they claimed that the object came from Alpha Centauri or a bigfoot carved it, then you are in the right place. Wish I could be of help. Sgerbic (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
It is either an extremely special object that survived in the ground for 300 years before being discovered or a hoax. I thought members of this project might like a look. Thriley (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
That is true, I am skeptical. But how do we evaluate that claim if we don't have the book? Sgerbic (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Start off with going to RSNB and trying to determine whether Black Art: An International Quarterly is a RS on archaeology, a RS on art only, or unreliable? That single source is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
In particular, the claim "Radiocarbon dating of the wood established a date of around A.D. 1630, with a margin of error of 115 years, making it one of the oldest surviving African wood carvings known to researchers." is suspicious. Dated by what lab? Give me a few bucks and I can hire someone to forge some African art out of 400-year-old wood. Forgery experts have ways of dealing with this. Wood that was carved when it was green looks different than wood that was carved much later. Sometimes there is ancient pollen in the cracks that can be dated. You can date the oil finish separately from the wood.
Speaking of which, the article says "...clear, waxy matter identified by the Chemistry Department of the State University of New York at Stony Brook as animal fat or oil". Is there any evidence from SUNY that can be used to verify this? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Relict hominid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relict hominid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relict hominid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of François de Loys for redirecting to De Loys's ape

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François de Loys is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be redirected to De Loys's ape.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François de Loys until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Marian apparitions of Querrien#Requested move 22 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Marian apparitions of Querrien#Requested move 22 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley ∨ {\displaystyle \lor } {\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ 06:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Limbic imprint

Please add reliable sources. Almost every single section could use 1 or 2 more. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Could not find any WP:MEDRS sources. Listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limbic imprint. If anyone can find any reasons to believe that limbic imprinting is real or is a notable Fringe theory, please post them there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
...and it's gone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limbic imprint. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Request Posting of Article on Flexer and His Report

I published an article in Physician Outlook entitled "Flexner’s 1910 Report: Modern Academic Medicine Redefines a Hero into its Favorite Scapegoat" that counters the recently contrived history that Abraham Flexner was a "racist and sexist." His 1910 Report on some 150 medical schools helped advance science-based medicine. For decades, alternative practitioners have complained about Flexner; now organizations such as the AAMC and AMA are throwing Flexner under the bus, apparently to deflect from their shameful histories. It is considered a conflict of interest if I post reference to my article in the Wikipedia pages on "Abraham Flexner" and another on the "Flexner Report." I hope someone here will do so. Gorilla Wikipedian Susan Gerbic will vouch for me. Linda Rosa (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is a link:
Related:
I also did a search for sources critical of Flexer, just to see what the complaints are. I did not evaluate the reliability or bias of the following source, and it contains a statistic that appears to contradict its conclusion: "The report’s recommendations ultimately led to the closure of about 75% of U.S. medical schools, including five of the then seven Black medical colleges." That's 71%, slightly less than the overall rate but not statistically significant.
Key quote: "The Flexner Report is a book-length document that assessed the state of medical education in the country. It was written in 1910 by this guy Abraham Flexner, for the Carnegie Foundation and supported by the American Medical Association. The basic consequences of the report that you need to know are that it led to a major overhaul of medical education for everyone. It meant higher standards, more stringent science, and the closure of any schools that didn’t make the cut."
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)