Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Did you know
Categories for discussion
Good article nominees
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article on Jordan Peterson is clearly written by cultish fans intent on burying his numerous positions which conflict with reality, including his overt climate denial, his promotion of anti-vax ideas, his pro-Putin, pro-Russia stance, his right-wing talking points, and his continuing struggle with mental illness and drug addition. Strangely, none of this is found in the lead section. Viriditas ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Which reads as though he was real. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Kodiak Blackjack has been heavily editing this article. Their latest edit is here [1] and changed "Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American film producer, and internet personality. [1] [2] He is best known for his Hidden Colors film series, as well as his commentary and promotion of conspiracy theories on social media.
tp:
Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American
filmmaker,
anti-racism activist, and
media personality.
[3]
[2] He is best known for his
Hidden Colors film series, as well as his controversial views and commentary on
race relations in the United States,
institutional racism, and
dating.
[4]
plus other changes. Do we use newsone.com? I also see some old sources marked unreliable by Headbomb's script , eg YouTube, a tweet, etc.
{{
ref kust}}
Doug Weller
talk 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Career
and Views and reception
into appropriate subheaders. I added a section to Personal life about his swatting in 2018, a subsection about his YouTube channel to his infobox (a la
Jake Paul), and I did change the lede as you mentioned. I understand that when looking at diffs from before and after, the changes to the article seem pretty substantial, but I think you'll find that the majority of the prose is exactly the same as it was, but maybe just in a different place in the article.
There are fringe issues here, for sure.
There are also WP:BLP issues
"when a political or media figure publicly demonizes a person or group in a way that inspires supporters of the figure to commit a violent act against the target of the communication. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric."
and unreliable source issues
and due weight issues
Some of these changes were, as Kodiak Blackjack says, non-controversial, but this probably isn't the place to go into detail about which work and which don't.
Briefly, Nasheed is both a conspiracy theorist (per sources)
and commonly a target of other conspiracy theorists
Figuring out how to summarize this is difficult, but downplaying it by removing it from the lead won't work.
and due weight issues"
mea culpaNo! You did the right thing, posting a notice. That is what this board is for. After that, if people move discussion from the article talk page to here, that is out of your control. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.This article has two contentious article headers on its talk page, and it's a BLP, so I figured it'd probably be better to lean on the safe side. As I said over on the talk page, I'm fine with keeping conspiracy theorist in the lede, I just think we ought to have an in-line citation after it. — Kodiak Blackjack ( talk) • ( contribs) 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
References
A dietary supplement for vegan pets. Concerns have been raised that the article contains fringe content, WP:OR and lacks independent sourcing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Both Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost describe ghosts and entirely rely on primary and questionable sources. Both articles focus on supposed "sightings" and largely do not discuss anything else. ― Susmuffin Talk 18:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
If interested the latest from these peeps is now out. I only watched the first few minutes and they have a stick and aren't letting it go. Possibly they will be making more trouble for the editors they feel are targeting the UFO/UAP disclosure they so want to happen. The interviewee for this specific show says he has a list of editors and their real life names and professions and apparently is planning on exposing them. Oh and @ LuckyLouie is Mick West, of course he is. I went on this YouTube channel last month and tried to explain and have a discussion with them, it was a 3-hour interview and they removed over an hour of content. I would say it was a waste of my time, except I'm always interested in trying to help people understand, plus it was fascinating to get a peek into their mindset. You can find it on their channel if you are interested along with their other nonsense about how Wikipedia works, when it is obvious they have no clue how it works. I only raise this issue as of course I know we are attacked all the time, but this seems to be at least for a few people to be escalating. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W1lohseihc]. Sgerbic ( talk) 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
[2] The early history section here makes some religious claims in wikivoice. 107.116.165.24 ( talk) 22:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't edit fringe medical topics often but recent edits, particularly about a BBC Radio 4 piece ( [7]), seem very egregious and would appreciate somebody with more experience of this sort of thing to have a look. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe this is the wrong noticeboard, but what is TRIZ? The lead is very promo-y and this article cites lots and lots of self-published stuff. Zanahary ( talk) 06:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
About two months ago, there was an apparent consensus that this is a fringe topic, without sufficient sourcing to keep in mainspace, and it was draftified. An IP editor has been repeatedly attempting to reintroduce it to mainspace without fixing the problems. Based on a talk page comment, I tried to change it from a draft, to a "redirect with history" ( [8]), but the IP keeps reverting it back into mainspace.
I'd like to get some more opinions about what to do with this page. If it seems unlikely that the content can be appropriately sourced, perhaps it should either be made into a semi-protected redirect, or be taken to a deletion discussion and WP:SALTed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY sources assembled to showcase selected memos and documents discussing details of a classified system used to look for UFOs [10]. I could be mistaken, but unless WP:SECONDARY sources have commented on this, such a lavishly detailed assembly is WP:OR. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Alina Chan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Note that the latest entry into "The New York Times focuses on fringe and ignores the mainstream" seems to be extremely well-represented on this WP:FRINGEBLP. I am not sure how much emphasis we are supposed to be placing on Chan's Lab Leak claims (and some of the ones mentioned are exceedingly misleading and others are demonstrably incorrect). There is no attempt to find WP:SECONDARY sources which identify Chan's ideas as being prominent or worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Instead, it is all sourced solely to her OpEd. jps ( talk) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
On Lara Logan material language was added that looks like trying to soften reporting of fringe material like "Despite some media fuss around the original" and "Fauci's unquestioning support for the experimental vaccine" despite not being in the sources (and also took part of reference name for no reason) 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:2973:401E:A175:B587 ( talk) 02:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Did you know
Categories for discussion
Good article nominees
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article on Jordan Peterson is clearly written by cultish fans intent on burying his numerous positions which conflict with reality, including his overt climate denial, his promotion of anti-vax ideas, his pro-Putin, pro-Russia stance, his right-wing talking points, and his continuing struggle with mental illness and drug addition. Strangely, none of this is found in the lead section. Viriditas ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Which reads as though he was real. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Kodiak Blackjack has been heavily editing this article. Their latest edit is here [1] and changed "Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American film producer, and internet personality. [1] [2] He is best known for his Hidden Colors film series, as well as his commentary and promotion of conspiracy theories on social media.
tp:
Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American
filmmaker,
anti-racism activist, and
media personality.
[3]
[2] He is best known for his
Hidden Colors film series, as well as his controversial views and commentary on
race relations in the United States,
institutional racism, and
dating.
[4]
plus other changes. Do we use newsone.com? I also see some old sources marked unreliable by Headbomb's script , eg YouTube, a tweet, etc.
{{
ref kust}}
Doug Weller
talk 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Career
and Views and reception
into appropriate subheaders. I added a section to Personal life about his swatting in 2018, a subsection about his YouTube channel to his infobox (a la
Jake Paul), and I did change the lede as you mentioned. I understand that when looking at diffs from before and after, the changes to the article seem pretty substantial, but I think you'll find that the majority of the prose is exactly the same as it was, but maybe just in a different place in the article.
There are fringe issues here, for sure.
There are also WP:BLP issues
"when a political or media figure publicly demonizes a person or group in a way that inspires supporters of the figure to commit a violent act against the target of the communication. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric."
and unreliable source issues
and due weight issues
Some of these changes were, as Kodiak Blackjack says, non-controversial, but this probably isn't the place to go into detail about which work and which don't.
Briefly, Nasheed is both a conspiracy theorist (per sources)
and commonly a target of other conspiracy theorists
Figuring out how to summarize this is difficult, but downplaying it by removing it from the lead won't work.
and due weight issues"
mea culpaNo! You did the right thing, posting a notice. That is what this board is for. After that, if people move discussion from the article talk page to here, that is out of your control. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.This article has two contentious article headers on its talk page, and it's a BLP, so I figured it'd probably be better to lean on the safe side. As I said over on the talk page, I'm fine with keeping conspiracy theorist in the lede, I just think we ought to have an in-line citation after it. — Kodiak Blackjack ( talk) • ( contribs) 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
References
A dietary supplement for vegan pets. Concerns have been raised that the article contains fringe content, WP:OR and lacks independent sourcing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Both Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost describe ghosts and entirely rely on primary and questionable sources. Both articles focus on supposed "sightings" and largely do not discuss anything else. ― Susmuffin Talk 18:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
If interested the latest from these peeps is now out. I only watched the first few minutes and they have a stick and aren't letting it go. Possibly they will be making more trouble for the editors they feel are targeting the UFO/UAP disclosure they so want to happen. The interviewee for this specific show says he has a list of editors and their real life names and professions and apparently is planning on exposing them. Oh and @ LuckyLouie is Mick West, of course he is. I went on this YouTube channel last month and tried to explain and have a discussion with them, it was a 3-hour interview and they removed over an hour of content. I would say it was a waste of my time, except I'm always interested in trying to help people understand, plus it was fascinating to get a peek into their mindset. You can find it on their channel if you are interested along with their other nonsense about how Wikipedia works, when it is obvious they have no clue how it works. I only raise this issue as of course I know we are attacked all the time, but this seems to be at least for a few people to be escalating. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W1lohseihc]. Sgerbic ( talk) 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
[2] The early history section here makes some religious claims in wikivoice. 107.116.165.24 ( talk) 22:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't edit fringe medical topics often but recent edits, particularly about a BBC Radio 4 piece ( [7]), seem very egregious and would appreciate somebody with more experience of this sort of thing to have a look. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe this is the wrong noticeboard, but what is TRIZ? The lead is very promo-y and this article cites lots and lots of self-published stuff. Zanahary ( talk) 06:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
About two months ago, there was an apparent consensus that this is a fringe topic, without sufficient sourcing to keep in mainspace, and it was draftified. An IP editor has been repeatedly attempting to reintroduce it to mainspace without fixing the problems. Based on a talk page comment, I tried to change it from a draft, to a "redirect with history" ( [8]), but the IP keeps reverting it back into mainspace.
I'd like to get some more opinions about what to do with this page. If it seems unlikely that the content can be appropriately sourced, perhaps it should either be made into a semi-protected redirect, or be taken to a deletion discussion and WP:SALTed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY sources assembled to showcase selected memos and documents discussing details of a classified system used to look for UFOs [10]. I could be mistaken, but unless WP:SECONDARY sources have commented on this, such a lavishly detailed assembly is WP:OR. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Alina Chan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Note that the latest entry into "The New York Times focuses on fringe and ignores the mainstream" seems to be extremely well-represented on this WP:FRINGEBLP. I am not sure how much emphasis we are supposed to be placing on Chan's Lab Leak claims (and some of the ones mentioned are exceedingly misleading and others are demonstrably incorrect). There is no attempt to find WP:SECONDARY sources which identify Chan's ideas as being prominent or worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Instead, it is all sourced solely to her OpEd. jps ( talk) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
On Lara Logan material language was added that looks like trying to soften reporting of fringe material like "Despite some media fuss around the original" and "Fauci's unquestioning support for the experimental vaccine" despite not being in the sources (and also took part of reference name for no reason) 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:2973:401E:A175:B587 ( talk) 02:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)