Talk:Skeptical Science

Doesn't this need a criticism section?

After all that 97% study is widely regarded as a statistical crock. Greglocock (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it impossible to believe that this is the complete, unedited talk page. Cook is a controversial climate activist and the SkS web site has drawn many complaints about its blog policy from which comments are deleted and even modified without informing the person who wrote the original comment. Perhaps something along those lines is going on here in this talk section. DrDelos (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the wikipedia hive-mind is so deeply enamoured of the chicken little stories that it is impossible to get any sensible criticism of the warministi and their funny ideas into the articles. That's OK, both AGW and wiki have rather lost momentum in the past 5 years, I don't think either really matters (that is has much impact on people's lives or habits) in the real world any more. Greglocock (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that Cook et al.'s study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you have a study that was also published in a peer-reviewed journal, as opposed to, I don't know some random post on Populartechnology.net or Climate Depot, which demonstrates that Cook et al.'s paper was in fact "a statistical crock," feel free to bring it up here. Jinkinson talk to me 01:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer reviewed is a bit of a low bar these days, given the reviewer stuffing that has been going on. However... %0 Journal Article %D 2013 %@ 0926-7220 %J Science & Education %R 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 %T Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 %I Springer Netherlands %8 2013-08-30 %A Legates, DavidR. %A Soon, Willie %A Briggs, WilliamM. %A Monckton of Brenchley, Christopher %P 1-20 %G English

I won't bother trying to defeat the hive mind by editing the article Greglocock (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added a tag. As it stands, this article violates WP:NPOV. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? Your vague argument fails WP:WEIGHT: you're welcome to propose additions with sources. Tags aren't for misuse as a badge of shame. As for a criticism section, these are discouraged, any good quality critical sources can be used for additions to the Reception and motivation section. . dave souza, talk 03:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dave: as you are perhaps aware, Skeptical Science is one of the most controversial of the climate-change activist blogs. Do you really think this article presents a balanced, NPOV picture of its activities and reputation? Perhaps you could help improve it? Restored tag. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware that Skeptical Science is a reputable mainstream blog, and of course as such it is disputed by fringe elements and contrarians. NPOV requires due weight to the mainstream. However, any properly sourced commentary can be added if you find something suitable: an unsourced fringe viewpoint doesn't count. Your edit warring to put in an unsupported tag is fringe POV pushing, please desist . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dave, I believe you've violated the WP:1RR with your last revert. Please self-revert. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems the list of 3RR exceptions does not include tag removal (other than tags done in bad faith/vandalism); on the other hand, Template:POV says tags should be removed "whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Having read this thread, all I see is that some people don't like the site but that makes this thread WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM, not quite what the POV template documentation had in mind, methinks. Seems like 3RR needs another exception to deal with driveby badge of shame POV tagging. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• No real improvements noted, and the refs cited are mostly primary, to the website itself or its personnel (Cook et al.) Pretty clearly a seriously one-sided article here. Seriously needs some balance. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Declaring a lack of balance, without putting forward specifics and quality sources, does not justify a tag. — TPX 20:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful to actually improve this sad, boosterish article, rather than contually reverting the tags which might bring other's attention to the need for improvement. You might start by reading this section. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Article is as bad as ever. You'd think no one had ever criticized SkS or Cook. Sigh. On my list --- or YOU can help! Folks, this article makes the project look bad, and biased. NPOV, anyone? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view it is irrelevant if Cook or SkS was criticized from "somebody". What counts is criticism from relevant people or organisations which one can trust.

Or do you want to read in the article: "lobby groups around the fossil fuel industry don't agree with the content of the SkS blog" ?

I guess this would not be a surprising news for anyone and is therefore not worth to mention. --Hg6996 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well as I said we'll never get balance in the article due to the hive mind, Connolley etc. Here's some commentary by a real climate scientist http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/ Greglocock (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the core question is wheather a statement comes from a "real climate scientist" or not. Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are also "real climate scientists" but I have no other explanation for their weird statements other than that they were "facilitated" by some money from the fossil fuel lobby groups.

In the article you are citing it is written: "Nuccitelli’s survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends."

And this is exactly the point. Lobby groups which want to stopp political action to take action against climate change want to spread doubt. They are merchants of doubt. Therefore Nuccitelli and Cook clearly want to frame the question for political ends! The "average person from the street" does not overlook which parts of climate science are "virtually certain" and about which parts there is a ongoing debate. Same applies btw. for a lot of sciences, like medicine. Therefore I find the paper from Cook at al extremely helpful. It tells about the points in climate science which are undisputed even by climate change deniers.

My opinion is: I find Judith Currys article is not very well written. It is in fact badly written. She writes "the consensus can mean whatever the likes of Davey and Nuccitelli want it to mean". This might be right for what Davey and Nuccitelli wrote in some article. But here in Wikipedia, the topic is not "some article written by Nuccitelli and Davey" but the peer reviewed paper by Cook at al. So your cited article focusses on the wrong topic.

I see Judith Currys article as a mingle mangle of different arguments in different directions. If she has better ideas for a survey she should launch her own survey and publish it. --Hg6996 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, so now Greglocock wants to quote a blog making allegations about the reputation of living people. Amusing first line in the blog: "Isn’t everyone in the 97%? I am. – Andrew Montford". N.B. Montford isn't a scientist, he's a blogger pretending to be a hill, and you'd have thought after the 2010 debacle Judy would have thought about the damage citing him can do to her reputation for fact checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? Are you saying curry's inconvenient blog shouldn't be used? why is montford's blog even been mentioned, or is reposting articles forbidden by the hive mind? Yes, Most so-called deniers would vaguely agree with some of cook's badly selected and applied crteria. Greglocock (talk)

When I first wrote the article I included a section of criticism, even though my personal opinion of SkS is quite positive. I think it was wrong that it was removed, as it was relevant and had a concrete citation. Even with the original criticism, John Cook himself told me that he thought more criticism should be added. Just sayin... Dawei20 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Why has my criticism of Skeptical Science, made in the entry, been censored with no apparent mention of the censorship? I expected someone to remove my edit but that person should've made it clear why they removed the edit. Skeptical Science claim to promote science but they deny the findings of international energy bodies w.r.t. the CO2 emissions of nuclear power. In particular: IPCC, IAEA, IEA. They are hypocrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkPawelek (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it was ranty, WP:OR and unreffed, would be good reasons. It was also unaligned with the hivemind's position on AGW. You may decide on the real reason. As I said above, I have given up trying to get balance in wiki articles connected to AGW. You will be held to a much higher standard than the hivemind (which admittedly doesn't take much). Unfortunately the shear statistical power of the hivemind, in terms of reverts, guarantees that you'll never be able to make a sensible edit stick. Frustrating, but there's not much we can do about it. Greglocock (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the lead to reflect the reality. It is a liberal blog that promotes theories of future man made global warming. It is not prestigious or a reliable source of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.3.122 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please take the necessary time to read and digest WP:RS. Thankyou. — TPX 18:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

---

I added a link to a negative review of this website from the blog (https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/). The link to the article was removed. If https://www.masterresource.org is an unreliable source, why is SkS not unreliable too? There is no balance in this article, when there is no space for negative reviews of this website SkS. DTMGO (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Simple. Skeptical Science is praised by scientists and recognized as a reliable source by reliable sources, as you can see from the article. Master Resource, on the other hand, written by Robert L. Bradley Jr., is just some guy without a science background, with an anti-science ideology and with connections to denialist organizations. Comparing those two is like comparing the National Center for Science Education and the Institute for Creation Research: a pro-science organization and one of the anti-science organizations whose propaganda is countered by it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. More than two hundred authors have contributed to MasterResource. Furthemore, the author is not Robert L. Bradley Jr. There continues to be no content in this article for negative reviews of this website SkS. Isn't a core editorial policy in Wikipedia to have a neutral point of view? There are tens of thousands of scientists in the United States alone that subscribe to positions that challenge the theory of anthropogenic global warming AGW. Climate science is not an exact science. To illustrate the obvious, John Cook, the founder of SkS is a PHD in cognitive science, is no climate scientist, not even a scientist in the natural sciences. He obtained his unrelated scientific credentials after he founded the website. But this is irrelevant. As it is irrelevant who is the author of an article that reviews the website. What matters is what is being said.DTMGO (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this one.

Regarding neutral point of view, please read WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, [8WP:FRINGE]] and WP:LUNATIC.

"More than two hundred", "thousands": Science is not done by voting. It is done by making studies that are good enough to pass peer review. When a scientist "subscribes to a position", that is just an opinion, and opinions of scientists are no source of truth, but a source of bias that is routinely prevented from influencing the results of studies by scientific methodology.

For Wikipedia, it doe not just matter "what is being said", but mainly the editorial process that checks whether "what is being said" holds water. MasterResource does not seem to have any such thing, so it fails to be a WP:RS. You have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works and about how science works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Severe NPOV/COI violations and purposeful vandalism/attacks on editors, major edit proposals

Feel free to skip down to proposals to help, otherwise, read lengthy rationale below.

This article violates nearly every WP standard for an article, and has editors with possible agendas or COI who are intentionally removing (and passive aggressively harassing) anyone who attempts to remove these violations or clear up the article. It currently violates WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION,WP:CITE, WP:RS, and likely WP:SOCKPUPPET (which alludes to but doesn't explicitly violate WP:OR). Unfortunately, in both the edit comments and on this talk page (and it's edits), most of these (particularly RS) have been quoted at others. By extension. in editing and talk, also violates WP:WL.

There is no standard at all set here. It begins in the lede and doesn't let up. Favorable op/eds and site material have been replaced, reverted back in, and continually added by generally the same core of people, while any attempts at proper edits have had RS thrown back at them. Unfavorable op/eds with similar or better scrutiny have been removed, for "RS" or "vandalism".

Out of 28 sources, 15+ are Cook's words or own site. 7+ are favorable reviews of the site, some which don't include Wiki article assertions. The remaining are the only acceptable sources, because they specifically note origins, policy, and/or creation of the site. This giant, waving, red promotional banner is unacceptable.

There is a massive amount of vague wording, "primarily", "mostly", "may be", "mainly", et al. These are all subjective comments and are rife in the article. One or two would be understandable to describe the site. These quantifiers are being used to describe everything from the creation, application, function, development, use and content.

In addition, another conflict occurs with "trained as a solar physicist", when Cook has had no formal training, education or employment other than a "year of study" post graduation (https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/) for physics alone, and he did not receive any degree or certification. This claim is dubious, since according to Postgraduate_education#Australia, twelve months would grant an additional certification of some sort, so if it's a year, would it not then have given him something tangible rather than "a year's study"? (Honest question, as I'm unfamiliar with Australian education system and can only refer to internet sourcing and this needs proper attribution and addressing in the article.) In addition, he never worked in this field (same source), let alone research in it. While his specific path should be part of this article, then it should be clarified that his degree is ONLY in physics, no additional branches, and is an undergraduate degree with no employer, study, or scientific research was completed by him in this field. To prevent confusion due to this murky situation, it should be clarified his recent doctorate is in psychology, not physics or other climatology related fields, since the ordering and description in the current article is confusing in this situation (intent by editors is obviously unclear, but I believe this jumbled chronology is intentional, in looking in past edits/reverts). Also, it should be added to his information, any various other positions he holds and where, such as https://communication.gmu.edu/people/jcook20 and https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/peoplepartners/. This will clarify his standing and list achievements and associations for his work. Ironically, the lede refers to the founding to his current employment site, but then shifts to SS to source claims of the sites purpose, systems, etc.

How has this been a years long effort and there is not looks into the editing process of this page for removal of talk entries repeatedly, without just cause, removal of valid sources per Wiki policy and turned this article into an advertisement which IS against policy. Many of the edits of existing sources directly link back to the Skeptic Science website. This is against Wiki promo standards for an entry. Because removals of sources back to Skeptical Science are consistently handled nearly immediately, and reverted with various false claims in the history, this article should be subject to WP:COI discussions. These reverts have continuously been done by a handful of editors with talk pages full of criticisms for incorrectly reading data, beginning pages that were not allowed, repeated edit wars on specific climate change/related topics. The specific WP:POV needs to be challenged. These flagrant and continuous removals without proper archive, removing discussions of community votes and falsely attributing "vandalism" tags to various scientific papers, notable scientists, etc. has completely nullified this entry. I'm particularly concerned by the attributions directly to Skeptical Science, as well as really vague comments like one word "flaws" being biased, but sources to the site referenced, "The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers." from a purely promotional piece that made no such assertion, "praised for its straightforwardness" (without mentioning detractors, including from scientists whose work Cook has used to promote a particular article openly stating he incorrectly attributed or falsely made claims that their papers did not), sourced strictly to an op/ed. In citation violations, the Guardian article (which, normally, an RS) links right back to an article written by.... John Cook. Most of this entry is lifted directly from his personal attributions.

Lastly, the consistent removal of criticisms/controversies, removals and deletions (a few rare times, attempted to be hidden under the "minor edit" option) is a problem. Both in application doing it, and in it not existing. For example, there is very well sourced contradiction, from a doctor in Psychology, beating Cook by just 8 months. Quite literally, John Cook's education qualification equal as well as their education path (some school, then into IT, and back around to psychology). http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97 If he is not a peer, then nothing and no one is.

The sheer length of my own particular comment, detailing the many, many problems with this article (and the incredibly aggressive pro-editing) is astounding. I will not make any edits at this time, to hopefully discuss this with other editors to a preferred outcome that comes in compliance and doesn't violate NPOV for either "side". Otherwise, this article will require massive clean-up which may leave it as a stub. I prefer not to do this, as no one wins in such a case, but as the article stands, a good 85% of it is in non-compliance (in whole or in part) with Wiki standards.

---

In summary, here are my proposed changes to keep the article and why:

• create a new section, specifically related to it's founder, this can organize and clarify Cook's beginnings of the ideas, his education and his various positions (Origins or Founder header)
• remove all assertions or citations but crucial information such as founding, that use SS/Cook as it's citation (promotional)
• remove all citations which are specifically interviews or pieces written by Cook himself (clearly promotional)
• either; a) remove all positive reviews/connections/op for SS; or b) allow dissent, opposition or negative reviews (non-bias)
• create a standardized section regarding specific scientific and/or scholarly approaches and evaluations to criticisms of the site. Wiki allows for such when it has been a continued topic.(I can provide thousands of examples if need be.) In fact, the ONLY topic apparently disallowed for proper Wiki standards (in English version at least) seems to be Climate Change and/or Global Warming.

In summary, here are my proposed page moves to delete the article:

• Due to promotion/personal information for Cook, rename page to John Cook, and list SS as one of his achievements.
• Due to lack of information (competitive and consensus) from RS, merge the page with existing AGW pages as a source for information/content.

---

Please supply feedback to improve, properly edit and source the article. If no one else is willing to take this on, alone or in tandem, I will create a sandbox and display it to get consensus, considering the massive overhaul this article needs. Otherwise, the only other proposition is to merge this with another page that encompasses various research organizations within the AGW discussion itself, instead of a hollowed stub or a longer advertisement. Persons/editors with agendas, COI or OR need not apply. This needs to get to encyclopedic standards, not a "my side is more righter than your side's wronger". Just the facts, ma'am. Seola (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

---

There's no shortage of credible sources critical of Skeptical Science and John Cook and his work.

• Here is a peer-reviewed paper that rebuts Cook's work: Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

• Here's a Forbes article that discusses various failings and problems with both Skeptical Science and John Cook's work

• Here's a Popular Technology article that interviewed a bunch of scientists who said that Cook misrepresented their work:

• Here's Congressional testimony from IPCC coordinating lead author Richard Tol discussing Cook's 2013 paper:

Quote: "I had a close look at what this study really did and as far as I know, as far as I can see, this estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the paper are supported by any data that's actually in the paper, so unfortunately...ehh, I mean, it's pretty clear that most of the science agrees that climate change is real and mostly likely human-made, but this 97% is essentially pulled from thin air. It's not based on any credible research whatsoever."

• Here's a Guardian article discussing how Cook's work does not stand up to scrutiny:

• Here's a National Review article saying his claims are unsupported

Regarding his sketchy credentials, checking web archive, he himself specifically disavowed being a scientist and claimed to be a cartoonist on his own website: "This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade."

But then look at the next archived entry and suddenly he goes from from being a cartoonist to being an "ex-physicist.": "Skeptical Science was created by John Cook, an ex-physicist"

2601:600:877F:B570:6539:8086:51A7:18CF (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Issues?

@Yae4: You mention some problems in your edit summaries. Could you specify them? The comment above from a year ago seems insufficient. It references sources deemed unreliable as well as sources that make no mention of Skeptical Science. Coming from an IP user with no history, and with no attached discussion from that time, request for a more specific statement seems reasonable.

Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement and primary sources tags

See above for long lists of issues. Of about 28 sources, it has ~16 self-published, primary sources; 6 blog or re-publish of blog sources; 2 broken links fails verification; Leaves about 3 OK sources. Complaints against it exist, but are not included in the article. It's an advert. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The page is not an advert and the attempted impeachments are so irrelevant or absurd as to not deserve comment. I will be reverting your tagging now. Either be specific as to which of the above complaints you think are valid or drop the issue, but since I can see many of these complaints are groundless, it is impossible to know what you actually think needs to be done. jps (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Why this should be tagged Primary Sources and Advert; list of primary and or questionable sources:

• 4. GMU Cook page - Understood to be written by Cook.
• 5. by Cook (primary)
• 6. by SKS (primary)

.

• 8. Shine worked with/for SKS (primary)
• 9. Redirects to an irrelevant webpage
• 10. TreeHugger is a blog
• 11. by Cook (primary)
• 12. by Cook (primary)
• 13. SKS (primary)
• 14. By Cook (primary)
• 15. Altmetric may be OK, but seems like Original Research, not reliable publication source.
• 16. SKS (primary)
• 17. Cook (primary)
• 18. angrygoats.net looks like an old blog site
• 19. SKS (primary)
• 20. SKS/4hiroshimas (primary)
• 21. Edx (primary) and Youtube link (!)
• 22. BLOG at NY Times
• 23. SKS (primary)
• 24. BLOG at Wash Post

.

• 26. BLOG at guardian
• 27. OK, but the paragraph is about Cook's religious beliefs; not about the Article topic.
• 28. by Cook (primary)

Multiple statements of "praise" are not attributed. Reception has not a single word of criticism, but criticism does exist; without searching, just taking from statements above...[1][2] See quote by Richard Tol above. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for expanding your statements. A few thoughts on a per-source basis:

22. Dot Earth was on the news side at time, and is quite well-regarded (it moved to opinion in April).

15. Why do you think Altmetric is WP:OR? I might suggest looking at the wikipage. I don't think that applies here.

10. Consider looking at WP:RSN for Treehugger. Mixed results, but not a simple blog. Has editorial control, is part of a larger network. Might be worth finding a stronger source, but not worth throwing out offhand.

Anyway, will look into this later. Jlevi (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jlevi:

• 15. Altmetric: WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Is that "source" related to the topic of this article, SKS? (No) Who is the author? (None) The Altmetric source is a list. The "consensus" paper is one of 100 others listed there, and one must synthesize the meaning of being #11 in that list. Does it say "most discussed" somewhere? (No) In fact, if you click deeper, it seems social media mentions may be counted equally with other "mentions." If the paper being #11 most whatever in 2013 was of encyclopedic significance, then you should be able to find real articles (not a list), on the subject of SKS and that article, with authors, saying so. Otherwise, I think the sentence being "supported" is insignificant and should be deleted.

• 22. NY Times dot earth: We agree it's an Opinion piece, I think. It's also a blog source. See quote from the sidebar of the link: "The blog moved to the Opinion side of The Times in 2010." Andrew Revkin seems to be a reputable journalist, but can you actually verify his blog post says anything similar to "praise for straightforwardness" like the article does? (I'm not seeing it).

• 10. TreeHugger: (Stub article, with two? independent sources of 7...) Source Author Mat McDermott is both an editor and writer[3] at the blog, and his background ... well, read for yourself.

-- Yae4 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there are some issues with these characterizations. Mind taking a look at WP:SYNTH to see whether you really feel that this applies? Jlevi (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are 4,5, and 6 problematic? They are sourcing uncontroversial content. Further 8) is sourcing pretty anodyne partnership content. Is that really in dispute? 9 is just a victim of linkrot. You can see the original article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20110102205035/http://news.discovery.com/earth/for-new-years-resolution-climate-change-perspective.html I'll stop there because I am not sure that this list is all that carefully considered. jps (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Note, changed "and" to "or" atop the list. 4-6 are "primary" (and 5-6 are self-published) as are the "vast majority" of sources used here. Yeah, linkrot indicates a need for updates too, but 2 tags are enough for now. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, it doesn't seem like you're responding to our points. I'm not convinced at all that tags are justified from what you've posted here. jps (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

What percentage of primary sources should be allowed before it's too many primary sources? Currently, the article has about 50%+ primary sources, and that seems like far too many. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy that says what the percentage should be in any given article. This is an editorial decision. If primary sources are being used to source controversial or arguable content, that's a problem. But the primary sources here are being used to source either straightforward attributed remarks or uncontroversial points. While Wikipedia editorial policy always prefers secondary sources, unless there is a specific problem with a primary source/article content identified, it does not seem reasonable to tag the article. Simply listing how many sources are primary sources is not what was intended for that particular cleanup tag. jps (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Insecure website

When I click the link in the infobox (from my Chromebook) I get:

http://88.255.216.16/landpage?op=1&ms=http://skepticalscience.com/ and a blank page

If I go directly I get:

This site can’t provide a secure connection www.skepticalscience.com sent an invalid response. Try running Connectivity Diagnostics. ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR

Not sure Wikipedia should be linking to an insecure website Chidgk1 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird! I just tried myself, and I did not get that response (I got the homepage from the link here). Based upon the readout you posted, perhaps it's blocked on your wifi network? Jlevi (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The site is not insecure. The issue is the protocol. I imagine your Chromebook doesn't have the automatic SSL redirect set-up. I changed the URL so it should work. jps (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My iphone (on wifi and 4G) gives a message "safari cannot open the page because it could not establish a secure connection to the server" so I suspect the website has been accidentally blocked from Turkey by the ISPs or government. Anyway I don't need it so will not investigate further. If anyone from the site is reading this I think it will be unblocked if you ask https://www.btk.gov.tr/iletisim as websites on this subject are not normally blocked. Thanks for your help.Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Works ok for me on iPhone in the UK, so this problem appears to be country specific. It shows a lock in the address bar, so a secure site. . . dave souza, talk 08:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of a self-published source / non-RS

I removed a citation to the website "mediabiasfactcheck.com" for two reasons:

• First, this has been previous discussed: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published." (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources).
• Second, this website is cited for statements that are, for the most part, already reflected elsewhere in the article cited to better sources (i.e., "Skeptical Science has become a resource about climate change, and praised for its straightforwardness," cited to the New York Times).

--Neutrality^talk 13:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this decision.Jlevi (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested updates to add more recent information about Skeptical Science

As a member of the Skeptical Science team, I'd like to suggest some edits to the page as quite a lot has happened since the last dated activities mentioned in the article. Some is small stuff, some is more involved. I'm obviously not going to make updates myself but I thought I could suggest them here and leave it to you to decide what - if anything! - is worth including.

Small stuff I noticed

• Reference #25 should point to https://4hiroshimas.info (we unfortunately lost the .com version)
• The smartphone apps mentioned in the article are currently not available, although we are working on "resurrecting" at least the iPhone version right now. Please see the note added to the software page on SkS.

Other suggested updates

• In 2016 we received the National Center of Science Education's (NCSE) "Friend of the planet" award.
• Many more scientists have endorsed Skeptical Science
• Not sure if public/recorded talks given by members of the team are relevant for the page? If they are, a list is available here.
• In early 2021 SkS became a non-profit science education organization registered as a 501(c)(3) in the U.S.
• Since May 2021, SkS founder John Cook is at Monash University's Climate Change Communication Research Hub

Other sources of information

• Some of the information on the recently updated About Us page may also be relevant.
• We also publish a year in review article to summarize what all happened during a given year: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020

Please let me know if you have any comments and/or questions! BaerbelW (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)