619:
sufficient evidence. Scientists are good examples of these. We can also use the word "skeptic" to mean "skeptic-activist;" those people who make it their business to expose scam artists and dishonest religous promotors, and who teach the public the basics of rational thinking via authoring books and giving lectures. Good examples of the second type of skeptic are the many members of groups like JREF and CSICOP. There is some overlap between the two meanings of "skeptic" of course. Some scientists are debunkers. And most (but not all) debunkers are faithful practitioners of
Scientific Skepticism. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientific skepticism practitioners never spend time engaging creationists in public debates, or trying to expose the tricks that scam artists use to take money from the gullible. --
1677:. It's a fine painting. I would guess that the argument is between two ship captains, about the best route to bring a ship into a harbor, under some particular condition of tides or storms; or maybe there was a shipwreck and a lawyer is trying to understand what arguments could be raised in court, regarding the loss from that shipwreck. I recognize that beliefs exist among sailors, and perhaps some scholar has shown that the captains are arguing about something that isn't easily proven one way or the other. Can someone verify that this particular painting was about "debunking"?
1519:
not the case when someone "just happens to render invalid" some claim by doing the actual research (for example Joe
Nickell and his paranormal investigations). It simply can't be the case that every person just happening to have different conclusion is automatically a "debunker" if he says that conclusion to the public. For example Nickell is not a fraud exposer, he merely states humans have limitations. "Sham: To trick; to cheat; to deceive or delude with false pretenses".
298:
319:
424:
399:
488:
470:
34:
267:
1295:, there is only medicine and claptrap. If something actually works beyond the well known placebo effect it gets adopted as a medical procedure, compound, or process and it is scientifically studied. "Alternative" beliefs, notions, occultism, superstition, and wishful thinking are not medicine, ergo harboring an article classification as "Alternative Medicine" is a major flaw in Knowledge.
542:
1012:"I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant." Wrong. You may not believe the thing to be false until you have debunked it. MartinPHI is also wrong, "purported psychic" isn't redundant, according to his own argument ("Whereas...." which isn't even a complete sentence.
660:"debunking" is not always justified or done in good faith. In some circles the term "skeptibunker" is used to deride so-called skeptics and debunkers who do not stick to facts and objectivity but use every political trick in the book to try to discredit ideas they find inconvenient. Definitely don't merge.
1317:
Half the body of the article concerns so-called "backfire effects" as written about in the
Debunking Handbook. So what is this handbook? Well, it doesn't appear on Amazon, at all. The link is a free PDF file which contains all of 7 numbered pages. (Is it a book or a pamphlet?) In an article where the
1518:
So "debunking" can mean anything from "exposing the falseness of" to "exposing a sham". According to
Merriam-Webster online dictionary: ""Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham"". So that means there is the accusation of being a "fraud exposer" but that is
1220:
The entire Wiki entry needs major work. The dictionary description of contemporary usage says that debunking is "esp. by ridicule" which is wrong, modern debunking of an organized sense specifically refrains from ridicule. Indeed, the
Skeptics Society chaired by Mr. Michael Shermer the Professor of
1037:
or scientific sense.", as in the context of academy you don't "debunk", you either proof (confirm) or you disproof something, similar for science. Also, the disproofing in an academical or scientific sense uses to be by publishing papers, while debunking can use more pedestrian means like suddenly
618:
They certainly are different. Two separate definitions of the word "skeptic" are in widespread general use, and the terms "scientific skeptic" and "debunker" are shorthand for these two definitions. We can use the word "skeptic" to refer to people who only adopt beliefs which are supported by
659:
Worse than that. Some debunkers have a POV that is not scientific or objective, and have often been accused of insincerity or ulterior motives, e.g. financial ones. I think "sock puppets" is the term used here on
Knowledge for such people. Don't merge; in fact the article should note that
1234:
proclaiming "debunking" as being specifically unscientific because it presumes claims to be false which is what prompted me to see what
Knowledge suggests. This claim by the uneducated, uninformed individual who sent the email (which I will post to my web site with a suitable response)
1340:
I'm very troubled by this section. It is longer than the rest of the article, yet covers a minor, arguably tangential aspect of debunking. Looks like someone trying promote the
Debunkers Handbook. I'm not sure it could be justified as a See Also link, much less a major section of this
968:
a "purported psychic" because it is redundant, I insist that we do not say debunkers only debunk things they "believe to be false" as that is redundant. By definition, a true debunker is one who debunks false claims. If a debunker debunks true claims they aren't debunking. QED.
984:
That's fine. But we have to characterise what they debunk somehow. The way you would have it, it's as if the claims debunked are always "false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious" in fact. Whereas a psychic is a cultural artefact, not necessarily one who has powers.
1008:
Jesus effing Christ on a bicyclye, it's "artifact" not "artefact". Just say "a true debunker is one who _attempts_ to debunk false claims." You could say "attempts to debunk claims" but it wouldn't sound as good. If he fails, the claim wasn't provably false.
1261:
adam savage and jamie hyneman are listed as physics majors but i cannot find a source that confirms this and their approach to the shows is more indicative of a special effects background rather than that of an academic and exhaustive experimenter
1056:
Also in the same contentious spirit that is displayed in the above entries, may I add a much-belated note that "artefact" is a well-respected variant of "artifact"; it would be good if we checked the dictionary before going all effing on
Knowledge.
1102:"? That he published a paper on a scientific journal disproving X? That he published a paper on a journal specialized on skepticism? That he published it on his web page? That the "debunked person" recognized his/her mistake?
1195:
for fun, but because you were introducing a mistake (debunker is not a pejorative term or at least the majority of uses are not pejorative), and the reference you were citing didn't support your change. (Also, are you
1164:
who stated "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is." (Hynek, Josef Allen (April 1953). "Unusual Aerial
Phenomena". Journal of the Optical Society of America 43 (4):
213:
1672:
But this is accompanied by a painting. The painting is about an argument, but I doubt that the issue in that argument is among the issues that debunkers focus on. The painting is "A Nautical Argument" by
1667:
warn that a failed debunking can actually worsen misconceptions. They recommend simple, positive, and emotionally sensitive education (e.g., bolstering the learner's ego, or avoiding threatening words).
1200:
that Woodward was using it as a pejorative in his book? I just ordered the book from Amazon so I can check that) I should have left an edit summary explaining the reversion, like Connolley did later
1715:
1038:
switching on the lights on the middle of a spiritism session, and might be done by people who are neither scholar nor academics. Surely the sentence intended to mean "generally using the
839:
But almost all pseudoskeptics call themselves skeptics. No one calls themself a pseudoskeptic. A pseudoskeptic is defined by their actions and beliefs, not by what they call themselves.
1318:
focus should be on such great names as Sagan, Randi and Houdini we find this material - pseudo-science itself! - invented by a couple of present day tourists. This is a travesty.
1737:
1147:
I've removed the verb "derides" which was recently added to the lead. The essence of a debunker's function is to expose poor thinking. Derision isn't part of that function. --
1757:
1033:
The definition at dictionary.com does not include "unscientific". The list of debunkes includes photographers, magicians, medicians, etc. I also removed "generally in an
504:
207:
1601:
1597:
1583:
1460:
1456:
1442:
1408:
1095:", and not just and attempted (sometimes self-published) disproving, that may be recognized in the some groups while still refuted (or even ignored) in others.
1361:
to backfire effect would be balanced out. (Note, the reference would not be a "See also" which means see other articles in WP. I bet you were thinking of an
1747:
381:
371:
495:
475:
139:
1752:
1742:
552:
1156:
I absolutely agree. However, I have seen more than a few cases where a debunker takes advantage of the 'giggle factor' and uses subtle or blatant
347:
145:
1288:
I see that Knowledge contains a classification for articles which is "Alternative Medicine" which the talk page notes this article carries.
430:
404:
1269:
1019:
912:
855:
1719:
1579:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1325:
893:
Yes he is a reliable source, and highly credible too. As proof, he has many third party references, professional and personal, at
667:
326:
303:
104:
997:
944:
824:
159:
90:
1409:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111125205446/http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au:80/Users%20web%20pages/cogscience/Stephan_Lewandowsky.htm
1534:
164:
80:
1221:
History out of CalTech specifically notes David Hume skepticism which does not employ ridicule, only cool logic and science.
134:
1569:
1644:
1503:
278:
795:, appears to be trying to debunk or discredit scientific skepticism, not pseudo-skepticism. Should this link be kept?
228:
125:
59:
195:
1412:
974:
878:
589:
503:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
346:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
548:
63:
1600:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1459:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
246:
800:
266:
1357:
The Handbook itself doesn't present a problem, but the article certainly can use expansion. In doing so, the
908:
851:
1635:
1561:
1494:
1400:
1273:
1023:
169:
1329:
726:
Wise decision. All debunkers are skeptics, but not all skeptics are debunkers. Debunkers are activists. --
1714:
Milo Rossi (YouTuber/tiktoker) should be added to this list for his work in debunking pseudo archaeology.
1557:
1170:
1148:
1134:
671:
189:
636:
Good point. You can be a scientific skeptic without being a debunker. A debunker takes an active role.
1619:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1607:
1530:
1478:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1466:
1208:
1047:
970:
904:
874:
847:
763:
as well debunkers stop people from taking money from people by exploiting dreams and hopes and beliefs--
567:
284:
1560:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1399:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1682:
1522:
1433:
1370:
1347:
1321:
1300:
1265:
1244:
1239:
indicate that some believers in occult or superstitious nonsense consider the word to be derogatory.
1015:
932:
900:
843:
796:
663:
577:
500:
435:
409:
185:
541:
1674:
1526:
1129:
I've taken a lot of weird stuff out of the article and stubbed it down. Please try to expand with
993:
940:
820:
221:
115:
67:
1377:
PS: My previous edit also did a reassessment on the quality scales.20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1062:
251:
130:
1604:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1463:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
235:
1620:
1479:
1166:
1039:
701:
640:
605:
111:
1686:
1204:
1185:
1043:
735:
318:
297:
248:
42:
1627:
1486:
1105:
What's the difference between debunking something and claiming to have debunked something?
1678:
1366:
1358:
1342:
1296:
1240:
1113:
978:
768:
1586:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1445:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1161:
987:
936:
814:
585:
1626:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1570:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080406173424/http://www.bartleby.com/61/46/D0064600.html
1485:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
201:
1731:
1087:", there's a lot o debunking claims. As this article currently defines debunking as "
1058:
965:
339:
335:
33:
1701:
1362:
870:
698:
637:
620:
602:
1659:
In the section "Backfire effects." At present, the illustration's heading reads:
1593:
1452:
1413:
http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/Users%20web%20pages/cogscience/Stephan_Lewandowsky.htm
792:
728:
487:
469:
423:
398:
1700:
be added as a debunker, for is work in the Navy UAP videos and other things?
1592:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1573:
1451:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1157:
894:
764:
343:
1697:
581:
58:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
1553:
1392:
1109:
1034:
84:
1042:" or "using methods that follow the spirit of the scientific method"? --
1108:
Without this answers, I'm worried about the future of the (POV-titled)
331:
573:
both articles have half same content, this one has a bad namespace.
250:
1723:
1704:
1649:
1538:
1508:
1374:
1352:
1333:
1304:
1277:
1248:
1212:
1174:
1151:
1137:
1119:
1066:
1051:
1027:
1003:
882:
830:
804:
772:
740:
705:
675:
644:
623:
609:
536:
260:
252:
75:
28:
15:
1291:
This is part of the problem facing scientists and educators.
1230:
I received a lengthy, disjointed, highly illiterate email at
1418:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
601:
Some people seem to consider them to be different, though.
1564:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1403:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
928:
You'll find that under "parity of sources" in WP:FRINGE
1396:
1201:
1192:
1186:
Talk:Cold_fusion#There_is_no_.22most_vs_small_group.22
220:
499:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
330:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1655:
Illustration that isn't necessarily about debunking
1596:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1455:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1313:Inclusion of Lewandowsky/Cook, Debunking Handbook
433:, a project which is currently considered to be
93:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1160:statements in their argument. I believe it was
1582:This message was posted before February 2018.
1441:This message was posted before February 2018.
1293:There is no such thing as alternative medicine
1089:the act of disproving a proposal or hypothesis
812:He's definitely debunking pseudoskepticism. ——
793:http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm
234:
8:
1738:Knowledge articles that use American English
964:Since MartinPhi insistst that we don't call
1654:
1574:http://www.bartleby.com/61/46/D0064600.html
895:http://www.happierabroad.com/References.htm
264:
1552:I have just modified one external link on
1520:
1391:I have just modified one external link on
513:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative medicine
464:
393:
292:
46:, which has its own spelling conventions (
1758:Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
516:Template:WikiProject Alternative medicine
959:
551:on 4 November 2008 (UTC). The result of
1716:2001:8003:F345:2D00:7983:73E6:6010:24C4
466:
395:
294:
1514:Fraud exposer or not a fraud exposer?
1430:to let others know (documentation at
66:, this should not be changed without
7:
1091:", I assume by debunking we mean a "
960:Martinphi's apparent double standard
493:This article is within the scope of
445:Knowledge:WikiProject Parapsychology
429:This article is within the scope of
324:This article is within the scope of
1284:Alternative Medicine Does Not Exist
869:No. The person writing it is not a
448:Template:WikiProject Parapsychology
283:It is of interest to the following
83:for discussing improvements to the
1748:Top-importance Skepticism articles
14:
1556:. Please take a moment to review
1395:. Please take a moment to review
1098:What's our criteria for saying "
540:
496:WikiProject Alternative medicine
486:
468:
422:
397:
356:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism
317:
296:
265:
105:Click here to start a new topic.
32:
1753:WikiProject Skepticism articles
1743:Start-Class Skepticism articles
547:This article was nominated for
376:This article has been rated as
359:Template:WikiProject Skepticism
1724:21:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
1687:22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
1375:20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1353:19:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1334:03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
1650:14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
1305:22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
1249:22:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
1213:11:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
1175:22:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
519:Alternative medicine articles
507:and see a list of open tasks.
350:and see a list of open tasks.
102:Put new text under old text.
1539:08:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
1509:21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
1278:01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1257:non-existent physics degrees
1152:13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
1120:20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
1067:19:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
1052:16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
787:Inappropriate External Link?
773:07:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
706:04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
645:03:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
624:03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
1138:15:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
610:22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
110:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1774:
1613:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1549:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1472:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1388:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1180:Usage as a pejorative term
883:14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
831:08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
805:08:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
676:16:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
431:WikiProject Parapsychology
382:project's importance scale
1028:15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1004:23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
979:22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
791:The author of this link,
481:
417:
375:
312:
291:
140:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
1705:04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
1079:Criteria for "Debunking"
741:18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
21:
1545:External links modified
1384:External links modified
1100:Mr. M debunked Theory X
451:Parapsychology articles
1670:
327:WikiProject Skepticism
273:This article is rated
135:avoid personal attacks
1661:
1093:successful disproving
947:) 07:01, 5 April 2008
568:scientific scepticism
160:Neutral point of view
1594:regular verification
1453:regular verification
1110:Well-known debunkers
915:) 20:51, 20 May 2011
858:) 20:51, 20 May 2011
510:Alternative medicine
501:Alternative medicine
476:Alternative medicine
165:No original research
64:relevant style guide
60:varieties of English
1663:The authors of the
1584:After February 2018
1443:After February 2018
1422:parameter below to
362:Skepticism articles
62:. According to the
1665:Debunking Handbook
1638:InternetArchiveBot
1589:InternetArchiveBot
1497:InternetArchiveBot
1448:InternetArchiveBot
279:content assessment
146:dispute resolution
107:
1710:Adding Milo Rossi
1614:
1541:
1525:comment added by
1473:
1324:comment added by
1268:comment added by
1117:
1040:scientific method
1030:
1018:comment added by
949:
935:comment added by
917:
903:comment added by
860:
846:comment added by
666:comment added by
594:
580:comment added by
563:
562:
535:
534:
531:
530:
527:
526:
463:
462:
459:
458:
392:
391:
388:
387:
259:
258:
126:Assume good faith
103:
74:
73:
27:
26:
1765:
1648:
1639:
1612:
1611:
1590:
1507:
1498:
1471:
1470:
1449:
1437:
1350:
1345:
1336:
1280:
1232:The Skeptic Tank
1193:revert your edit
1131:reliably sourced
1115:
1083:In the list of "
1013:
1002:
990:
971:ScienceApologist
948:
929:
916:
897:
875:ScienceApologist
859:
840:
829:
817:
678:
593:
574:
544:
537:
521:
520:
517:
514:
511:
490:
483:
482:
472:
465:
453:
452:
449:
446:
443:
426:
419:
418:
413:
401:
394:
364:
363:
360:
357:
354:
321:
314:
313:
308:
300:
293:
276:
270:
269:
261:
253:
239:
238:
224:
155:Article policies
76:
43:American English
39:This article is
36:
29:
16:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1728:
1727:
1712:
1694:
1657:
1642:
1637:
1605:
1598:have permission
1588:
1562:this simple FaQ
1547:
1516:
1501:
1496:
1464:
1457:have permission
1447:
1431:
1401:this simple FaQ
1386:
1348:
1343:
1319:
1315:
1286:
1263:
1259:
1203:, my bad.... --
1182:
1145:
1127:
1081:
1000:
988:
962:
930:
898:
871:reliable source
841:
827:
815:
797:Giantrobotbrawl
789:
661:
575:
571:
518:
515:
512:
509:
508:
450:
447:
444:
441:
440:
407:
361:
358:
355:
352:
351:
306:
277:on Knowledge's
274:
255:
254:
249:
181:
176:
175:
174:
151:
121:
68:broad consensus
12:
11:
5:
1771:
1769:
1761:
1760:
1755:
1750:
1745:
1740:
1730:
1729:
1711:
1708:
1693:
1692:Add Mick West?
1690:
1656:
1653:
1632:
1631:
1624:
1577:
1576:
1568:Added archive
1546:
1543:
1515:
1512:
1491:
1490:
1483:
1416:
1415:
1407:Added archive
1385:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1285:
1282:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1181:
1178:
1162:J. Allen Hynek
1144:
1141:
1126:
1123:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1054:
961:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
919:
918:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
862:
861:
836:
835:
834:
833:
788:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
629:
628:
627:
626:
613:
612:
570:
564:
561:
560:
553:the discussion
545:
533:
532:
529:
528:
525:
524:
522:
505:the discussion
491:
479:
478:
473:
461:
460:
457:
456:
454:
442:Parapsychology
427:
415:
414:
405:Parapsychology
402:
390:
389:
386:
385:
378:Top-importance
374:
368:
367:
365:
348:the discussion
322:
310:
309:
307:Top‑importance
301:
289:
288:
282:
271:
257:
256:
247:
245:
244:
241:
240:
178:
177:
173:
172:
167:
162:
153:
152:
150:
149:
142:
137:
128:
122:
120:
119:
108:
99:
98:
95:
94:
88:
72:
71:
37:
25:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1770:
1759:
1756:
1754:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1744:
1741:
1739:
1736:
1735:
1733:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1709:
1707:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1691:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1669:
1666:
1660:
1652:
1651:
1646:
1641:
1640:
1629:
1625:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1609:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1585:
1580:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1550:
1544:
1542:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1513:
1511:
1510:
1505:
1500:
1499:
1488:
1484:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1468:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1444:
1439:
1435:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1383:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1346:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1283:
1281:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1270:131.104.242.4
1267:
1256:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1194:
1189:
1187:
1179:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1142:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1133:material. --
1132:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1111:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1078:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:68.163.65.143
1017:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
999:
995:
992:
991:
983:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
967:
966:Sylvia Browne
946:
942:
938:
934:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
914:
910:
906:
905:111.125.66.47
902:
896:
892:
891:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
857:
853:
849:
848:111.125.66.47
845:
838:
837:
832:
826:
822:
819:
818:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
794:
786:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
742:
739:
738:
733:
732:
731:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
707:
703:
700:
696:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
677:
673:
669:
665:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
646:
642:
639:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
625:
622:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
607:
604:
600:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
569:
565:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
539:
538:
523:
506:
502:
498:
497:
492:
489:
485:
484:
480:
477:
474:
471:
467:
455:
438:
437:
432:
428:
425:
421:
420:
416:
411:
406:
403:
400:
396:
383:
379:
373:
370:
369:
366:
349:
345:
341:
340:pseudohistory
337:
336:pseudoscience
333:
329:
328:
323:
320:
316:
315:
311:
305:
302:
299:
295:
290:
286:
280:
272:
268:
263:
262:
243:
242:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
180:
179:
171:
170:Verifiability
168:
166:
163:
161:
158:
157:
156:
147:
143:
141:
138:
136:
132:
129:
127:
124:
123:
117:
113:
112:Learn to edit
109:
106:
101:
100:
97:
96:
92:
86:
82:
78:
77:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
44:
38:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
1713:
1695:
1671:
1664:
1662:
1658:
1636:
1633:
1608:source check
1587:
1581:
1578:
1551:
1548:
1521:— Preceding
1517:
1495:
1492:
1467:source check
1446:
1440:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1417:
1390:
1387:
1320:— Preceding
1316:
1308:
1292:
1290:
1287:
1260:
1236:
1231:
1197:
1190:
1183:
1167:Tonybaldacci
1155:
1146:
1130:
1128:
1125:Stubbed down
1107:
1104:
1099:
1097:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1082:
986:
963:
813:
790:
736:
729:
727:
695:Dont't merge
694:
598:
572:
556:
494:
434:
377:
325:
285:WikiProjects
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
154:
79:This is the
55:
51:
47:
40:
1434:Sourcecheck
1365:section.)--
1326:121.91.6.91
1264:—Preceding
1205:Enric Naval
1184:Moved from
1112:section. --
1044:Enric Naval
1014:—Preceding
931:—Preceding
899:—Preceding
842:—Preceding
693:Therefore,
662:—Preceding
576:—Preceding
566:merge with
275:Start-class
208:free images
91:not a forum
41:written in
1732:Categories
1679:Oaklandguy
1645:Report bug
1504:Report bug
1344:SPhilbrick
1341:article.--
1297:Damotclese
1241:Damotclese
1158:ad hominem
668:96.237.0.4
353:Skepticism
344:skepticism
304:Skepticism
1698:Mick West
1628:this tool
1621:this tool
1487:this tool
1480:this tool
1191:I didn't
1165:311–314.)
1143:"derides"
1085:debunkers
1057:Thanks!--
937:Martinphi
148:if needed
131:Be polite
81:talk page
1634:Cheers.—
1554:Debunker
1535:contribs
1527:Beoldhin
1523:unsigned
1493:Cheers.—
1393:Debunker
1359:WP:UNDUE
1322:unsigned
1266:unsigned
1059:Spray787
1035:academic
1016:unsigned
945:contribs
933:unsigned
913:contribs
901:unsigned
856:contribs
844:unsigned
664:unsigned
590:contribs
578:unsigned
549:deletion
436:inactive
410:inactive
116:get help
89:This is
87:article.
85:Debunker
56:traveled
1702:Bubba73
1558:my edit
1420:checked
1397:my edit
1367:S. Rich
1114:Damiens
699:Bubba73
638:Bubba73
621:Wjbeaty
603:Bubba73
380:on the
332:science
214:WP refs
202:scholar
52:defense
1428:failed
1349:(Talk)
989:Martin
816:Martin
730:Fyslee
702:(talk)
641:(talk)
606:(talk)
599:Maybe.
281:scale.
186:Google
1363:WP:EL
765:Kr4ft
229:JSTOR
190:books
144:Seek
48:color
1720:talk
1696:Can
1683:talk
1675:Hemy
1531:talk
1424:true
1371:talk
1330:talk
1301:talk
1274:talk
1245:talk
1237:does
1209:talk
1198:sure
1171:talk
1063:talk
1048:talk
1024:talk
975:talk
941:talk
909:talk
879:talk
852:talk
801:talk
769:talk
737:talk
672:talk
586:talk
582:Ollj
557:keep
555:was
342:and
222:FENS
196:news
133:and
1602:RfC
1572:to
1461:RfC
1438:).
1426:or
1411:to
1116:.rf
697:.
372:Top
236:TWL
1734::
1722:)
1685:)
1615:.
1610:}}
1606:{{
1537:)
1533:•
1474:.
1469:}}
1465:{{
1436:}}
1432:{{
1373:)
1332:)
1303:)
1276:)
1247:)
1211:)
1188:.
1173:)
1149:TS
1135:TS
1065:)
1050:)
1026:)
1001:——
996:Ψ
985:——
977:)
943:•
911:•
881:)
873:.
854:•
828:——
823:Ψ
803:)
771:)
704:,
674:)
643:,
608:,
592:)
588:•
338:,
334:,
216:)
114:;
54:,
50:,
1718:(
1681:(
1647:)
1643:(
1630:.
1623:.
1529:(
1506:)
1502:(
1489:.
1482:.
1369:(
1328:(
1299:(
1272:(
1243:(
1207:(
1169:(
1061:(
1046:(
1022:(
998:Φ
994:☎
973:(
939:(
907:(
877:(
850:(
825:Φ
821:☎
799:(
767:(
734:/
670:(
584:(
559:.
439:.
412:)
408:(
384:.
287::
232:·
226:·
218:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
118:.
70:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
