Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism

The article is full of bold claims by the adepts of socionics; in fact, it is mostly based on WP:PRIMARY. An expert in dealing with "Pseudo-profound bullshit" is required. --Altenmann >talk 07:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I know zero about the subject, but agree it needs a rewrite. Give it a try. Sgerbic (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I did some, and I am asking for help. --Altenmann >talk 20:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Criss Angel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farmingdale Statue --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 06:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)