This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the 5G wireless power page were merged into 5G on March 31, 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hello everyone. I think this article should be split because there is a great deal of specific implementation, rollout, regulatory, etc information about the US. That's not bad it's just good enough for WP:SPLIT. Invasive Spices ( talk) 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The redirect 5G conspiracies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 3 § 5G conspiracies until a consensus is reached. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The edit that was reverted was an effort to improve the citations for that section. Can you share more context on the revert? @ McSly [1] Tonymetz 💬 01:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Which is “not carcinogenic”Wrong. It is "we know nothing about whether it is carcinogenic or not." "Not carcinogenic" is logically impossible to prove, and there is no such substance. See IARC group 3. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
. They center on fringe claims that non-ionizing radiation poses dangers to human health... "exposure to intense, direct amounts of non-ionizing radiation may result in damage to tissue due to heat.
Bon courage How is my "weird editorializing"? You claimed this in your revert. I inserted the name of the source publication, which is indeed non-medical (i.e. non- WP:MEDRS), and summarized the key claim in the article that the misinformation was related primarily to COVID. The title is "COVID-19, 5G conspiracies and infrastructural futures" and the first line of the abstract is "This article examines the emergence of conspiracy theories linking COVID-19 with 5G, with a focus on Australia, the United States and United Kingdom." Aren't we supposed to summarize what is in the article rather than cherry-pick out pieces?
Since this section is titled "Health", shouldn't we be relying on WP:MEDRS rather than a publication from the field of media studies by writers who have not stated that they have a solid background in medicine, cancer research, or epidemiology? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
5G 2409:40C1:302A:F0FE:49DF:FC44:BADA:95F1 ( talk) 11:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the 5G wireless power page were merged into 5G on March 31, 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hello everyone. I think this article should be split because there is a great deal of specific implementation, rollout, regulatory, etc information about the US. That's not bad it's just good enough for WP:SPLIT. Invasive Spices ( talk) 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The redirect 5G conspiracies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 3 § 5G conspiracies until a consensus is reached. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The edit that was reverted was an effort to improve the citations for that section. Can you share more context on the revert? @ McSly [1] Tonymetz 💬 01:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Which is “not carcinogenic”Wrong. It is "we know nothing about whether it is carcinogenic or not." "Not carcinogenic" is logically impossible to prove, and there is no such substance. See IARC group 3. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
. They center on fringe claims that non-ionizing radiation poses dangers to human health... "exposure to intense, direct amounts of non-ionizing radiation may result in damage to tissue due to heat.
Bon courage How is my "weird editorializing"? You claimed this in your revert. I inserted the name of the source publication, which is indeed non-medical (i.e. non- WP:MEDRS), and summarized the key claim in the article that the misinformation was related primarily to COVID. The title is "COVID-19, 5G conspiracies and infrastructural futures" and the first line of the abstract is "This article examines the emergence of conspiracy theories linking COVID-19 with 5G, with a focus on Australia, the United States and United Kingdom." Aren't we supposed to summarize what is in the article rather than cherry-pick out pieces?
Since this section is titled "Health", shouldn't we be relying on WP:MEDRS rather than a publication from the field of media studies by writers who have not stated that they have a solid background in medicine, cancer research, or epidemiology? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
5G 2409:40C1:302A:F0FE:49DF:FC44:BADA:95F1 ( talk) 11:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)