| Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
| ||||
Articles for deletion
- 22 Jul 2024 – Family Constellations ( talk · · hist) was AfDed by ජපස ( t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
Categories for discussion
- 02 Jul 2024 – Category:Hijacked journals ( talk · · hist) was CfDed by Fgnievinski ( t · c); see discussion
- 19 Jul 2024 – Category:Fictional characters who use magic ( talk · · hist) CfDed by AHI-3000 ( t · c) was closed; see discussion
Redirects for discussion
- 23 Jul 2024 – Wolf man ( talk · · hist) → Werewolf was RfDed by Steel1943 ( t · c); see discussion
- 23 Jul 2024 – Wolf-man ( talk · · hist) → Werewolf was RfDed by Steel1943 ( t · c); see discussion
Featured article candidates
- 27 Jul 2024 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome ( talk · · hist) was FA nominated by Femke ( t · c); see discussion
- 15 Jun 2024 – Ethics ( talk · · hist) was FA nominated by Phlsph7 ( t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 10 Mar 2024 – Roswell incident ( talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer ( t · c); start discussion
Good article reassessments
- 27 Jul 2024 – The CIA and September 11 ( talk · · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Spinixster ( t · c); see discussion
Requests for comments
- 26 Jul 2024 – Hallwang Clinic ( talk · · hist) has an RfC by Glane23 ( t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain ( t · c); see discussion
- 03 Jun 2024 – There was no such thing as Palestinians ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Golda Meir by TarnishedPath ( t · c); see discussion
- 23 May 2024 – Thirteenth floor ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Triskaidekaphobia by Awesome Aasim ( t · c); see discussion
- 03 Mar 2024 – Superstitions in Muslim societies ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Islam and magic by VenusFeuerFalle ( t · c); see discussion
- 27 Jan 2024 – Barber and Calverley ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Theodore X. Barber by Animalparty ( t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions ( talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing ( t · c); see discussion
- 30 Dec 2023 – Scholarly approaches to mysticism ( talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise ( t · c); see discussion
- 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft ( talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise ( t · c); see discussion
|
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. |
Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [1] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kanazawa is a red flag for sure. That section does a very poor job of explaining 'social exchange theory'. It also cites economist Thomas Sowell for claims that are (being extremely generous) way, way too simplistic. This should use reliable WP:IS to summarize instead of dancing around primary sources of wildly varying quality. Grayfell ( talk) 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Erie Stone ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Does this need WP:MEDRS sources? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would say no, this is a historical article. Also it would be hard to find MEDRS sources about an unknown substance. HansVonStuttgart ( talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Only if it ventures biomedical/health claims. I have to wonder though WTF the category "traditional knowledge" is, that this article belongs to!
Bon courage (
talk)
12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Traditional knowledge.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there's much danger from "There's a substance, we're not sure what, that Native Americans used in traditional medicine." It's just not imitable, unlike, say, black salve. If someone wants to claim that a specific substance that might be Erie stone might have specific properties, then we have something we may need to deal with. Compare and contrast the much more discussed and robust Silphium.
- Basically, I think MEDRS kind of requires a risk that someone will take the article as something they should try. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 08:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Traditional knowledge.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN#Inclusion of medical evidence review at Feldenkrais Method. MrOllie ( talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now
WP:RSN#Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Decided to rewrite the lede myself a bit. Kept it short and punchy, we'll see how this goes. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rajiv Dixit ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Efforts are being made for a long time now to whitewash this article about a crank mainly known for spreading disinformation and unscientific health-related claims. Take a look at the talk page discussion too. [2] Thanks Orientls ( talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Following the post of a rather odd video by someone titled "Archaeologist John Hoopes Corrupts Wikipedia" Graham Hancock tweeted the video to his almost 500,000 followers saying "University of Kansas Professor John Hoopes contributes ZERO to science in his own work but spends much time pouring scorn on the work of others. By weaponising his editor role at Wikipedia to push his own agenda he brings archaeology into disrepute:" This may involve a number of articles. I've already seen one on Hancock's talk page. Note that Hoopes is an editor here. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which articles might this affect? ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Something that may be of interest to this noticeboard is the topic of the reliability of Canada's National Post on the subject of climate change. It came to my attention that in a recent journal analysis of the publication it came out worse even than the likes of the Daily Mail on the topic, with ~30% of its output assessed as wayward of the scientific consensus on the subject. See this thread for more details on the potentially relevant issue. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Family Constellations ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [3] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about [4]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal. Thank you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Could someone look at these changes for Phoenix Lights please
[5] I don't think they are right but I'd like another opinion, and am trying to deal with a complicated CU right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just took a look -- the flares are absolutely discussed in the cited source. Removed the newly added tags. Feoffer ( talk) 09:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Not a
WP:FRINGE matter, discuss it on the relevant article Talk page(s).
|
|---|
|
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of concern regarding the terminology used in an Arabic article related to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising here in wikipedia. Recently, I a Wikipedia editor made an edit eich says the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is refrenced as "intifada" in an Arabic. However, historically, the event has been described in Arabic as "tamrrod." For instance, in an article from Yad Vashem, the event is referred to as "تمرّد (tamrrod)," where it is stated that "أصبح تمرّد غيتو وارسو رمزا لمقاومة اليهود للنازيين," translating to "The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion became a symbol of Jewish resistance to the Nazis." https://www.yadvashem.org/ar/holocaust/about/third-stage-the-final-solution/warsaw-ghetto-fate.html The reason for my inquiry stems from the concern that this terminology choice may lead to misinterpretations or politically charged comparisons. I recently encountered an individual who used this article to draw parallels between the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust and the Palestinian experience under occupation. This comparison, as articulated by British novelist Howard Jacobson, can be seen as a distortion of historical events and a form of moral manipulation. I would appreciate it if you could provide insight into the decision to hide the political context behind calling that event "انتفاضة" (intifada) instead of "تمرد" (tamrrod) in the article regarding the word intifada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.58.30 ( talk) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
Jinn ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
User inputs and comments are requested at:
- Jordan Peterson ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
A guy who denies that there is such a thing as climate, and still there are users who think he is not a climate denier. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Three users all arguing that a known far-right personality is a centrist? Looks more like a matter for AE. 208.87.236.180 ( talk) 19:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
There's edit warring at Dosha. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The wording of the first sentence does not seem to be as concerning as the entire Principles section, based on a book that "reveals to us the secret powers of the body, breath, senses, mind and chakras". Recon rabbit 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to describing what that pseudoscience entails—we just do not pass it for valid. tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone knowledgeable with medical research, mercury and autism care to review Renee Dufault? Aside from some questionable promotional edits, there's some fringe stuff being pushed here. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Baishideng Publishing Group, publisher of the immediately suspicious World Journal of Psychiatry (cited twice in the article), is on Beall's list. Square One Publishers, who published Dufault's book Unsafe at Any Meal, also published a book called Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. There are so many red-flag sources in this article I don't even know where to begin. I'm busy with other things at the moment but someone really should take a hatchet to any section of this article sourced to these or other suspicious sources. I'll do what I can, when I can. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, there seems to have been quite a bit of input from accounts now blocked for sockpuppetry or promotional editing. Brunton ( talk) 07:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Bringing attention to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(3rd_nomination)
Apparently its gone through 3 (or maybe 6... or maybe 9 depending on how you count it) AfDs.
Current deletion discussion is favoring deleting it altogether, but it keeps getting relisted. Would like more eyes on this. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jewish deicide ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Described in the lede as a "notion". The whole lede has a "some-say-this-some-say-that" tenor. "Maybe they are all god-killers and we should slaughter them, or maybe not. Who knows? Let the reader decide" seems to be the motto.
Jewish deicide is pretty clearly an antisemitic canard. Are there any non-Jewish sources for that? It seems that "Jewish advocacy sources" have a conflict of interest on the question of whether they should be all slaughtered or not, so they cannot be used. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see anything there about anyone slaughtering anyone. Can you point it out?
Zero
talk
05:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The accusation that the Jews were Christ-killers fed Christian antisemitism[5] and spurred on acts of violence
, directly after the "some-say-this-some-say-that" first paragraph. -- Hob Gadling ( talk)- Afterthought: I hope you will not stop reading after the word "violence". --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That paragraph is a true statement; why are you objecting to it? Neither the first paragraph, nor the lead as a whole, has the nature you claim. It is a fact that over history some people believed that rubbish and some didn't. If we don't report that, we aren't doing our job. Zero talk 06:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Afterthought: I hope you will not stop reading after the word "violence". --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've made
some edits which I hope will address these issues, including adding what I believe will be
a less contentious source.
Generalrelative (
talk)
06:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why raise this beef here? Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. It lay at the (dead)heart of a religious worldview. It died out in Western states (though not in Eastern Europe), and for centuries their Christian populations probably never heard much about it, and only then did it become what one could call a 'fringe' idea. One cannot tinker with historical articles thinking that there is only one thing worth keeping a sharp eye out for, traditional Christian enmity for Jews, and calling everything relevant to that trend, an antisemitic canard. Linguistically, a 'canard' is 'a false or unfounded report or story'. Both St. Augustine and the greatest Jewish medieval philosopher
Maimonides subscribed to the belief that Jesus was killed by Jews, and they founded their belief on an interpretation of (a) ancient documents which lent support for the notion. Of course, 'Jews' did not kill Jesus anymore than 'Americans' committed genocide in Cambodia or 'Russians' committed the
Holodomor. A belief, however stupid or inane or false, often has its roots in reports or misreports, which supply the foundational 'evidence'. One despairs when encyclopedic articles are tweaked by a browsing which itself appears to draw on a general principle or idea that ignores the complexities of history, and which assumes generic clichés and tired boilerplate keywords (which ring an emotional bell) can somehow serve an explanatory function that allows us to dispense with the hard yakka of actually examining the weight of scholarship to ensure we get things nuanced to capture, as here, a transition from infra-Jewish polemics (all those non-Romans present at the crucifixion, Christ included, were Jews, (b) those who wrote the gospels did so within a Jewish cultural milieu and (c) the gentilization of what was a Jewish reform movement and competitiveness with traditional Jewish communities, transformed these polemics over time into an accusation of Jewish (not 'Judean' as earlier) responsibility for Jesus's death. Maimonides, as said, endorsed this as what he, like Christian theologians for a millenia and a half, as a fact, which it wasn't. But this is a long way from modern dumbed-down dismissals of a lethally powerful idea as an antisemitic canard from the very outset.
Nishidani (
talk)
08:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with Nishidani. It's a theological viewpoint (i.e not an objective factual statement, and thus not a "canard") that had wide currency in Christian thought for over a millennium. The fact that it is widely viewed as antisemitic can be discussed in the lead without being heavy-handed in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 08:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why raise this beef here? Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. It lay at the (dead)heart of a religious worldview. It died out in Western states (though not in Eastern Europe), and for centuries their Christian populations probably never heard much about it, and only then did it become what one could call a 'fringe' idea. One cannot tinker with historical articles thinking that there is only one thing worth keeping a sharp eye out for, traditional Christian enmity for Jews, and calling everything relevant to that trend, an antisemitic canard. Linguistically, a 'canard' is 'a false or unfounded report or story'. Both St. Augustine and the greatest Jewish medieval philosopher
Maimonides subscribed to the belief that Jesus was killed by Jews, and they founded their belief on an interpretation of (a) ancient documents which lent support for the notion. Of course, 'Jews' did not kill Jesus anymore than 'Americans' committed genocide in Cambodia or 'Russians' committed the
Holodomor. A belief, however stupid or inane or false, often has its roots in reports or misreports, which supply the foundational 'evidence'. One despairs when encyclopedic articles are tweaked by a browsing which itself appears to draw on a general principle or idea that ignores the complexities of history, and which assumes generic clichés and tired boilerplate keywords (which ring an emotional bell) can somehow serve an explanatory function that allows us to dispense with the hard yakka of actually examining the weight of scholarship to ensure we get things nuanced to capture, as here, a transition from infra-Jewish polemics (all those non-Romans present at the crucifixion, Christ included, were Jews, (b) those who wrote the gospels did so within a Jewish cultural milieu and (c) the gentilization of what was a Jewish reform movement and competitiveness with traditional Jewish communities, transformed these polemics over time into an accusation of Jewish (not 'Judean' as earlier) responsibility for Jesus's death. Maimonides, as said, endorsed this as what he, like Christian theologians for a millenia and a half, as a fact, which it wasn't. But this is a long way from modern dumbed-down dismissals of a lethally powerful idea as an antisemitic canard from the very outset.
Nishidani (
talk)
08:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about [6]. Please chime in. I don't think they edit in bad faith, but they have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia is about.
Are they kidding me that my edits aren't the view of Judaism? Just count how many rabbis I have WP:CITED at [7].
But: they are not the rabbis from this editor's sect. To be sure, my edits are not the POV of their sect of Judaism. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I gotta say, your edit is full of typos and awkward phrasings, and also many of the sources seem kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. What the Bible says and what Judaism says are two different things. Judaism is a living religion that did not stop evolving several thousand years ago when the Tanakh was written.
- If you want a broader view than just Orthodox Judaism, you need to cite modern Reform and Conservative Jews, not a millenia old book that is famously open to interpretation. Loki ( talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have
WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean:
[8]
Loki (
talk)
16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ LokiTheLiar: Much better, but Orthodox Judaism believes that the Bible Outlaws premarital sex ( Deuteronomy 23:18)( Maimonides, Hilkhot Ishut, 1:4 sorry, I only found a hebrew edition Maimonides...) It's true that it is not as explicit as most other forbidden relationships.
- The part about lesbians was almost accurate; it is only an outcome of the commandment "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do" ( Leviticus 18:3)( Maimonides, Hilkhot Issurei Biah, 21:8). ZucherBundlech ( talk) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is true, but what they say about Rabbinic Judaism isn't true.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary
WP:RS.
MrOllie (
talk)
16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ MrOllie: I can source what I'm saying.
- Please read
Halakha.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There should be enough * University Press
WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to
WP:CITE centuries old texts.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your
user talk page
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't based upon
first-hand material
, but upon WP:SECONDARY sources. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- @ Tgeorgescu: "first hand material" refers to the editors own research. Sorry... ZucherBundlech ( talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what we say about
WP:PRIMARY and
WP:SECONDARY sources; as a rule we prefer the latter. Primary sources are important for research, but that isn’t what we do on Wikipedia. Repeated failure to recognize that this is part of our
no original research policy is going to result in a loss of editing privileges if continued. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's some potentially useful sources:
- Traditional Jewish Sex Guidance: A History, Brill, seems like it would be an ideal source for the topic of Jewish attitudes towards sex as a whole.
- Women in Modern Judaism, Cambridge
- Observance of the Laws of Family Purity in Modern–Orthodox Judaism, Springer (which does appear to refer specifically to the Modern Orthodox movement and not those who are Orthodox today in the "modern" day, so a bit less useful maybe)
- signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where are those quotes coming from?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Check the editors Talk Page ZucherBundlech ( talk) 21:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where are those quotes coming from?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Rosguill: Thanks. I'm aware that source do exist, and I will quote them; however, I prefere sources in the Jewish Orthodox world itself, which I have found to be more accurate.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
18:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- What kind of source are you thinking of, exactly? By definition, sources that contradict the majority of reliable sources on a topic will be considered WP:FRINGE at best. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's some potentially useful sources:
- Yup, search for WP:IS, i.e. third-party observers. See emic and etic. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Rosguill: I'm sorry, I just reread my post. It is quit misleading. I apologize for that. ZucherBundlech ( talk) 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't based upon
- I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your
user talk page
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There should be enough * University Press
WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to
WP:CITE centuries old texts.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary
WP:RS.
MrOllie (
talk)
16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean:
[8]
Loki (
talk)
16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have
WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:09, 29 July 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:
| ||||
Articles for deletion
- 22 Jul 2024 – Family Constellations ( talk · · hist) was AfDed by ජපස ( t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
Categories for discussion
- 02 Jul 2024 – Category:Hijacked journals ( talk · · hist) was CfDed by Fgnievinski ( t · c); see discussion
- 19 Jul 2024 – Category:Fictional characters who use magic ( talk · · hist) CfDed by AHI-3000 ( t · c) was closed; see discussion
Redirects for discussion
- 23 Jul 2024 – Wolf man ( talk · · hist) → Werewolf was RfDed by Steel1943 ( t · c); see discussion
- 23 Jul 2024 – Wolf-man ( talk · · hist) → Werewolf was RfDed by Steel1943 ( t · c); see discussion
Featured article candidates
- 27 Jul 2024 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome ( talk · · hist) was FA nominated by Femke ( t · c); see discussion
- 15 Jun 2024 – Ethics ( talk · · hist) was FA nominated by Phlsph7 ( t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 10 Mar 2024 – Roswell incident ( talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer ( t · c); start discussion
Good article reassessments
- 27 Jul 2024 – The CIA and September 11 ( talk · · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Spinixster ( t · c); see discussion
Requests for comments
- 26 Jul 2024 – Hallwang Clinic ( talk · · hist) has an RfC by Glane23 ( t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 13 Jul 2024 – Peter A. Levine ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Somatic experiencing by Klbrain ( t · c); see discussion
- 03 Jun 2024 – There was no such thing as Palestinians ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Golda Meir by TarnishedPath ( t · c); see discussion
- 23 May 2024 – Thirteenth floor ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Triskaidekaphobia by Awesome Aasim ( t · c); see discussion
- 03 Mar 2024 – Superstitions in Muslim societies ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Islam and magic by VenusFeuerFalle ( t · c); see discussion
- 27 Jan 2024 – Barber and Calverley ( talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Theodore X. Barber by Animalparty ( t · c); see discussion
Articles to be split
- 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions ( talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing ( t · c); see discussion
- 30 Dec 2023 – Scholarly approaches to mysticism ( talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise ( t · c); see discussion
- 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft ( talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise ( t · c); see discussion
|
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. |
Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [1] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kanazawa is a red flag for sure. That section does a very poor job of explaining 'social exchange theory'. It also cites economist Thomas Sowell for claims that are (being extremely generous) way, way too simplistic. This should use reliable WP:IS to summarize instead of dancing around primary sources of wildly varying quality. Grayfell ( talk) 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Erie Stone ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Does this need WP:MEDRS sources? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would say no, this is a historical article. Also it would be hard to find MEDRS sources about an unknown substance. HansVonStuttgart ( talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Only if it ventures biomedical/health claims. I have to wonder though WTF the category "traditional knowledge" is, that this article belongs to!
Bon courage (
talk)
12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Traditional knowledge.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there's much danger from "There's a substance, we're not sure what, that Native Americans used in traditional medicine." It's just not imitable, unlike, say, black salve. If someone wants to claim that a specific substance that might be Erie stone might have specific properties, then we have something we may need to deal with. Compare and contrast the much more discussed and robust Silphium.
- Basically, I think MEDRS kind of requires a risk that someone will take the article as something they should try. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 08:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Traditional knowledge.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN#Inclusion of medical evidence review at Feldenkrais Method. MrOllie ( talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now
WP:RSN#Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Decided to rewrite the lede myself a bit. Kept it short and punchy, we'll see how this goes. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rajiv Dixit ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Efforts are being made for a long time now to whitewash this article about a crank mainly known for spreading disinformation and unscientific health-related claims. Take a look at the talk page discussion too. [2] Thanks Orientls ( talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Following the post of a rather odd video by someone titled "Archaeologist John Hoopes Corrupts Wikipedia" Graham Hancock tweeted the video to his almost 500,000 followers saying "University of Kansas Professor John Hoopes contributes ZERO to science in his own work but spends much time pouring scorn on the work of others. By weaponising his editor role at Wikipedia to push his own agenda he brings archaeology into disrepute:" This may involve a number of articles. I've already seen one on Hancock's talk page. Note that Hoopes is an editor here. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which articles might this affect? ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Something that may be of interest to this noticeboard is the topic of the reliability of Canada's National Post on the subject of climate change. It came to my attention that in a recent journal analysis of the publication it came out worse even than the likes of the Daily Mail on the topic, with ~30% of its output assessed as wayward of the scientific consensus on the subject. See this thread for more details on the potentially relevant issue. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Family Constellations ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! [3] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about [4]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal. Thank you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Could someone look at these changes for Phoenix Lights please
[5] I don't think they are right but I'd like another opinion, and am trying to deal with a complicated CU right now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just took a look -- the flares are absolutely discussed in the cited source. Removed the newly added tags. Feoffer ( talk) 09:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Not a
WP:FRINGE matter, discuss it on the relevant article Talk page(s).
|
|---|
|
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of concern regarding the terminology used in an Arabic article related to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising here in wikipedia. Recently, I a Wikipedia editor made an edit eich says the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is refrenced as "intifada" in an Arabic. However, historically, the event has been described in Arabic as "tamrrod." For instance, in an article from Yad Vashem, the event is referred to as "تمرّد (tamrrod)," where it is stated that "أصبح تمرّد غيتو وارسو رمزا لمقاومة اليهود للنازيين," translating to "The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion became a symbol of Jewish resistance to the Nazis." https://www.yadvashem.org/ar/holocaust/about/third-stage-the-final-solution/warsaw-ghetto-fate.html The reason for my inquiry stems from the concern that this terminology choice may lead to misinterpretations or politically charged comparisons. I recently encountered an individual who used this article to draw parallels between the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust and the Palestinian experience under occupation. This comparison, as articulated by British novelist Howard Jacobson, can be seen as a distortion of historical events and a form of moral manipulation. I would appreciate it if you could provide insight into the decision to hide the political context behind calling that event "انتفاضة" (intifada) instead of "تمرد" (tamrrod) in the article regarding the word intifada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.58.30 ( talk) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
Jinn ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
User inputs and comments are requested at:
- Jordan Peterson ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
A guy who denies that there is such a thing as climate, and still there are users who think he is not a climate denier. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Three users all arguing that a known far-right personality is a centrist? Looks more like a matter for AE. 208.87.236.180 ( talk) 19:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
There's edit warring at Dosha. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The wording of the first sentence does not seem to be as concerning as the entire Principles section, based on a book that "reveals to us the secret powers of the body, breath, senses, mind and chakras". Recon rabbit 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to describing what that pseudoscience entails—we just do not pass it for valid. tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone knowledgeable with medical research, mercury and autism care to review Renee Dufault? Aside from some questionable promotional edits, there's some fringe stuff being pushed here. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Baishideng Publishing Group, publisher of the immediately suspicious World Journal of Psychiatry (cited twice in the article), is on Beall's list. Square One Publishers, who published Dufault's book Unsafe at Any Meal, also published a book called Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. There are so many red-flag sources in this article I don't even know where to begin. I'm busy with other things at the moment but someone really should take a hatchet to any section of this article sourced to these or other suspicious sources. I'll do what I can, when I can. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, there seems to have been quite a bit of input from accounts now blocked for sockpuppetry or promotional editing. Brunton ( talk) 07:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Bringing attention to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(3rd_nomination)
Apparently its gone through 3 (or maybe 6... or maybe 9 depending on how you count it) AfDs.
Current deletion discussion is favoring deleting it altogether, but it keeps getting relisted. Would like more eyes on this. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jewish deicide ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Described in the lede as a "notion". The whole lede has a "some-say-this-some-say-that" tenor. "Maybe they are all god-killers and we should slaughter them, or maybe not. Who knows? Let the reader decide" seems to be the motto.
Jewish deicide is pretty clearly an antisemitic canard. Are there any non-Jewish sources for that? It seems that "Jewish advocacy sources" have a conflict of interest on the question of whether they should be all slaughtered or not, so they cannot be used. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see anything there about anyone slaughtering anyone. Can you point it out?
Zero
talk
05:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The accusation that the Jews were Christ-killers fed Christian antisemitism[5] and spurred on acts of violence
, directly after the "some-say-this-some-say-that" first paragraph. -- Hob Gadling ( talk)- Afterthought: I hope you will not stop reading after the word "violence". --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That paragraph is a true statement; why are you objecting to it? Neither the first paragraph, nor the lead as a whole, has the nature you claim. It is a fact that over history some people believed that rubbish and some didn't. If we don't report that, we aren't doing our job. Zero talk 06:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Afterthought: I hope you will not stop reading after the word "violence". --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
06:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've made
some edits which I hope will address these issues, including adding what I believe will be
a less contentious source.
Generalrelative (
talk)
06:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why raise this beef here? Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. It lay at the (dead)heart of a religious worldview. It died out in Western states (though not in Eastern Europe), and for centuries their Christian populations probably never heard much about it, and only then did it become what one could call a 'fringe' idea. One cannot tinker with historical articles thinking that there is only one thing worth keeping a sharp eye out for, traditional Christian enmity for Jews, and calling everything relevant to that trend, an antisemitic canard. Linguistically, a 'canard' is 'a false or unfounded report or story'. Both St. Augustine and the greatest Jewish medieval philosopher
Maimonides subscribed to the belief that Jesus was killed by Jews, and they founded their belief on an interpretation of (a) ancient documents which lent support for the notion. Of course, 'Jews' did not kill Jesus anymore than 'Americans' committed genocide in Cambodia or 'Russians' committed the
Holodomor. A belief, however stupid or inane or false, often has its roots in reports or misreports, which supply the foundational 'evidence'. One despairs when encyclopedic articles are tweaked by a browsing which itself appears to draw on a general principle or idea that ignores the complexities of history, and which assumes generic clichés and tired boilerplate keywords (which ring an emotional bell) can somehow serve an explanatory function that allows us to dispense with the hard yakka of actually examining the weight of scholarship to ensure we get things nuanced to capture, as here, a transition from infra-Jewish polemics (all those non-Romans present at the crucifixion, Christ included, were Jews, (b) those who wrote the gospels did so within a Jewish cultural milieu and (c) the gentilization of what was a Jewish reform movement and competitiveness with traditional Jewish communities, transformed these polemics over time into an accusation of Jewish (not 'Judean' as earlier) responsibility for Jesus's death. Maimonides, as said, endorsed this as what he, like Christian theologians for a millenia and a half, as a fact, which it wasn't. But this is a long way from modern dumbed-down dismissals of a lethally powerful idea as an antisemitic canard from the very outset.
Nishidani (
talk)
08:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with Nishidani. It's a theological viewpoint (i.e not an objective factual statement, and thus not a "canard") that had wide currency in Christian thought for over a millennium. The fact that it is widely viewed as antisemitic can be discussed in the lead without being heavy-handed in the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 08:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why raise this beef here? Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. It lay at the (dead)heart of a religious worldview. It died out in Western states (though not in Eastern Europe), and for centuries their Christian populations probably never heard much about it, and only then did it become what one could call a 'fringe' idea. One cannot tinker with historical articles thinking that there is only one thing worth keeping a sharp eye out for, traditional Christian enmity for Jews, and calling everything relevant to that trend, an antisemitic canard. Linguistically, a 'canard' is 'a false or unfounded report or story'. Both St. Augustine and the greatest Jewish medieval philosopher
Maimonides subscribed to the belief that Jesus was killed by Jews, and they founded their belief on an interpretation of (a) ancient documents which lent support for the notion. Of course, 'Jews' did not kill Jesus anymore than 'Americans' committed genocide in Cambodia or 'Russians' committed the
Holodomor. A belief, however stupid or inane or false, often has its roots in reports or misreports, which supply the foundational 'evidence'. One despairs when encyclopedic articles are tweaked by a browsing which itself appears to draw on a general principle or idea that ignores the complexities of history, and which assumes generic clichés and tired boilerplate keywords (which ring an emotional bell) can somehow serve an explanatory function that allows us to dispense with the hard yakka of actually examining the weight of scholarship to ensure we get things nuanced to capture, as here, a transition from infra-Jewish polemics (all those non-Romans present at the crucifixion, Christ included, were Jews, (b) those who wrote the gospels did so within a Jewish cultural milieu and (c) the gentilization of what was a Jewish reform movement and competitiveness with traditional Jewish communities, transformed these polemics over time into an accusation of Jewish (not 'Judean' as earlier) responsibility for Jesus's death. Maimonides, as said, endorsed this as what he, like Christian theologians for a millenia and a half, as a fact, which it wasn't. But this is a long way from modern dumbed-down dismissals of a lethally powerful idea as an antisemitic canard from the very outset.
Nishidani (
talk)
08:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about [6]. Please chime in. I don't think they edit in bad faith, but they have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia is about.
Are they kidding me that my edits aren't the view of Judaism? Just count how many rabbis I have WP:CITED at [7].
But: they are not the rabbis from this editor's sect. To be sure, my edits are not the POV of their sect of Judaism. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I gotta say, your edit is full of typos and awkward phrasings, and also many of the sources seem kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. What the Bible says and what Judaism says are two different things. Judaism is a living religion that did not stop evolving several thousand years ago when the Tanakh was written.
- If you want a broader view than just Orthodox Judaism, you need to cite modern Reform and Conservative Jews, not a millenia old book that is famously open to interpretation. Loki ( talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have
WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean:
[8]
Loki (
talk)
16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ LokiTheLiar: Much better, but Orthodox Judaism believes that the Bible Outlaws premarital sex ( Deuteronomy 23:18)( Maimonides, Hilkhot Ishut, 1:4 sorry, I only found a hebrew edition Maimonides...) It's true that it is not as explicit as most other forbidden relationships.
- The part about lesbians was almost accurate; it is only an outcome of the commandment "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do" ( Leviticus 18:3)( Maimonides, Hilkhot Issurei Biah, 21:8). ZucherBundlech ( talk) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is true, but what they say about Rabbinic Judaism isn't true.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary
WP:RS.
MrOllie (
talk)
16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ MrOllie: I can source what I'm saying.
- Please read
Halakha.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There should be enough * University Press
WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to
WP:CITE centuries old texts.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your
user talk page
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't based upon
first-hand material
, but upon WP:SECONDARY sources. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- @ Tgeorgescu: "first hand material" refers to the editors own research. Sorry... ZucherBundlech ( talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what we say about
WP:PRIMARY and
WP:SECONDARY sources; as a rule we prefer the latter. Primary sources are important for research, but that isn’t what we do on Wikipedia. Repeated failure to recognize that this is part of our
no original research policy is going to result in a loss of editing privileges if continued. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's some potentially useful sources:
- Traditional Jewish Sex Guidance: A History, Brill, seems like it would be an ideal source for the topic of Jewish attitudes towards sex as a whole.
- Women in Modern Judaism, Cambridge
- Observance of the Laws of Family Purity in Modern–Orthodox Judaism, Springer (which does appear to refer specifically to the Modern Orthodox movement and not those who are Orthodox today in the "modern" day, so a bit less useful maybe)
- signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where are those quotes coming from?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Check the editors Talk Page ZucherBundlech ( talk) 21:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where are those quotes coming from?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is NOT true. Please stop attacking Jews and Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your beliefs of Orthodox Jews being "anti women", "outdated", and as seeing criticism and religion studies as "attacks". You are free to make these accusations on social media; not here.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Rosguill: Thanks. I'm aware that source do exist, and I will quote them; however, I prefere sources in the Jewish Orthodox world itself, which I have found to be more accurate.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
18:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- What kind of source are you thinking of, exactly? By definition, sources that contradict the majority of reliable sources on a topic will be considered WP:FRINGE at best. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The real question is if they read such sources, or they consider these sources as attacking their religion. I was a fundamentalist myself, so I know they see higher criticism and religion studies as attacks upon their worldview.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's some potentially useful sources:
- Yup, search for WP:IS, i.e. third-party observers. See emic and etic. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that you’ll have a very easy time finding authoritative sources on the contemporary beliefs of Orthodox Jews on Google Scholar, as it is a topic that has drawn a fair amount of scholarly interest. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, I'm searching for later sources. The problem is, not many Jewish Orthodox books have been written about the topic less than 200-150 years, since we tend to follow earlier sources in any case. The best I will probably find is a short summary or something similar.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maimonides in this context, as part of the Jewish theological tradition and as a pre-modern text, is considered primary with respect to the topic. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Rosguill: I'm sorry, I just reread my post. It is quit misleading. I apologize for that. ZucherBundlech ( talk) 17:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Rosguill: If you didn't notice, I quoted the Bible (the primary source) as well as Maimonides ( secondary source) precisely because I am aware of this. I would welcome an accurate later source. However, none have been provided. I will continue to search for later sources.
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't based upon
- I'm sorry, but nothing is as accurate as the first-hand material itself. I'm beginning to feel that you are somehow opposed to Orthodox Judaism's views, especially after what you wrote me on your
user talk page
ZucherBundlech (
talk)
17:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There should be enough * University Press
WP:RS which tell matter-of-factly what Orthodox Jews believe. There is no need to
WP:CITE centuries old texts.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can't rely on your own opinion of what's true or your interpretation of documents that are 900+ years old. You're going to have to work with modern scholarship, the kind found in secondary
WP:RS.
MrOllie (
talk)
16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I went in and fixed it so you can see what I mean:
[8]
Loki (
talk)
16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
LokiTheLiar: That nothing has changed for more than 800 years isn't my claim; it is the claim of my opponent. And, yup, I think I have
WP:CITED several Reform of Conservative rabbis. If you read the quotes, they speak about the Bible, but they also speak about Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. post-Bible Jewish religious authorities.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)