![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
New AfC published from draft. About a COVID lab-leak origins proponent. In general I think it could just use more eyes. See:
Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for suggesting the possible lab origins of the virus in a BioRxiv preprint coauthored with Shing Hei Zhan which she sent for consideration to multiple journals but the editors decided against sending for peer review. cites preprint, no secondary source The preprint attracted criticism from prominent scientists such as Jonathan Eisen, with whom she interacted constructively, but also the head of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, in a more contentious exchange that Chan was regarded by some as having the upper hand, e.g. Nicholson Baker summarised this 'it was enough for one Twitter user to muse, “If capital punishment were as painful as what Alina Chan is doing to Daszak/WIV regarding their story, it would be illegal.”'
There are a few other instances where the article cites a preprint for some commentary about that preprint, and does not cite a secondary source.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Fringe is only a pejorative because of the euphemism treadmill. It etymologically refers to the edges of a tapestry which is a very neutral way to describe ideas that are not part of the mainstream. The fact that people find it pejorative when applied to their pet ideas is because they don't like other things that are objectively fringe and hate that their idea is in the same category. I do agree, however, that the term is overused on Wikipedia. Fringe festival, fringe benefit, etc. jps ( talk) 00:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
— Paleo Neonate – 04:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
An IP has been mildly edit-warring to remove a sentence from the lead. Additional pairs of eyes are welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Zang-fu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just came across this topic and all its subtopics (each one of the 12 Zang and Fu "organs") and it is in a terribly credulous state. My first thought is that all those "organ" articles should be merged into Zang-fu, and the whole thing would need a big POV review. VdSV9• ♫ 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Longish list of requests on the Talk page. Have fun. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
If anyone's got some spare time, the subject of our article Steve Kirsch came on the talk page to offer $1000 per hour to anyone who would like to debate him on zoom about whether or not the COVID-19 vaccines are toxic. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this WP:Teahouse#Richard_Lynn_article if anyone's interested. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I have problems with the Communism lead because it has a section of the lead that advances the proposition that the USSR was not a communist state. The sources for this claim include Noam Chomsky, Truthout.org and a heterodox economics journal. This seems problematic given that I'm under the impression that mainstream scholarship firmly characterizes the USSR as a communist state. In other words, it's a fringe theory that the USSR was not communist. The communist state Wikipedia article does not have this problem: it clearly describes the USSR as a communist state. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Chomsky and Richard D. Wolff are fringey for this topic. As explained by Doug Weller, Johnbod, and Generalrelative, we should clearly delineate two views of what communist means as a description of a country -- the view of Marxists and communists themselves and the view of writers and media in the West. Marxist or communist or leftist writers are certainly not fringe as a source for the former, just as anti-communist writers are not fringe for the latter. NightHeron ( talk) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
[1] 20-21 November. Few details yet. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Elvira Bierbach does not pass
WP:LUNATICS. It does not acknowledge the commandment I will put enmity between thee and Wikipedia
. Thee
meaning quackery. Even if that's legal in Germany, she is still a quack by our book. Every
Heilpraktiker is a quack, every one of them. If they had something
positive to offer, they would not become Heilpraktiker. I call a spade a spade. I call a quack a quack. Heilpraktiker is legalized quackery. That's tautologically true.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
05:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Quacks really hate Wikipedia.Of course, that is not my own fault, but a result of WP:RULES such as WP:DUE, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. We are at war with quacks, how comes that you did not know it?
Worse than 1984 Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Runs an industry-organized, coordinated smear engine to discredit and suppress all independent scientists, naturopaths and journalists.
techno-fascism. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Low-intensity but persistent whitewashing of Yeadon's involvement in spreading COVID misinformation and conspiracy theories. Additional eyeballs on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Someone wants to happily promote bogus treatments in a Wikipedia article by removing the risks of death and stroke from it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Another article about COVID quacks, now approaching 1000/views day as the World continues to go crazy, and also attracting drive-by disruption. Like other similar articles probably needs some form of protection. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Eyes needed for event edits. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this and sourcing edits to this author Paulette Steeves? He iro 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
the Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation, which does not sound like a branch of paleontology or paleoanthropology. And you can "focus on" things outside your expertise. That's where many fringe ideas come from. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
research and truth as it pertains to the First Peoples of Canada and their history here on Turtle Island, the funding coming from a Canadian initiative supporting
Truth, Healing and Reconciliationwith indigenous Canadians. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Brigham Young University is about to be stricken by a new wave of fideism. What do you think about [2]? tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while Deseret News is under editorial control of the LDS church, Salt Lake Tribune, though owned by big-names in Mormonism, has (relative) editorial independence. jps ( talk) 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
DISC assessment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It looks like editors associated with the vendor of this pseudoscientific psychological assessment model have been making this article increasingly promotional. I've attempted to cut back some of the advertising content and put the fact that it is pseudoscientific up front. I would appreciate extra eyes on this article. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Has seen significant expansion in recent months and seems distinctly WP:PROFRINGE. May need attention. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
A WP:SPA, Silliestchris is making multiple edits across these pages, apparently in an attempt to de-stubify stubs and create more articles in this messy, fringe, topic space. A new article, Environmental sensitivity (illness) is proposed by them. More eyes/input would be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed the COI criteria and believe that I am an interested party, not COI, so long as I do nothing to advocate my heretical hypothesis here, which would be utterly inappropriate.I'd recommend you reread WP:COI, most notably:
Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.In other words, it's not wrong or bad or a judgment on you if you have a potential COI. Only that it's worth recognizing (and disclosing) if one exists. And, whether or not your outside writings rise to the level of COI, it's worth asking yourself whether you can set aside that personal belief in order to build a neutral encyclopedia. Especially if it means working to the contrary of your personal beliefs. While it doesn't appear you're exhibiting any off the behaviors of WP:NOTHERE, that's the broad concern others have in these kinds of situations (which, as I'm sure you'll believe, we've seen repeated many times before). Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the Huber source is usable at all. But (as mentioned on the MCS Talk) page, we're in luck! A June 2021 comprehensive review has been published [5] by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. This should be a good basis for reforming the article. (I haven't read it yet, and will need to brush off my French). Alexbrn ( talk) 07:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Related to the above, I notice there have been repeated attempts to cite this gentleman's (likely non- WP:MEDRS) work in the MCS article, and the above article was created last month, with a high proportion of unsourced biographical detail. Is Huber notable? Alexbrn ( talk) 03:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn, you blanked a fairly large part of that article, and I think that the line in WP:CHALLENGE might have some relevant advice:
"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. [1] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. [2] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
It seems to me that it would be easy for an editor to misunderstand your blanking as indicating "chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions" that are "unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material" while you "concentrate only on material of a particular point of view".
Also, do you actually have any rational "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source" for all of what you blanked? Most of what you removed was basic education and work history, such as where he went to medical school. That's not usually at high risk for being unverifiable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The Organic farming farming article strikes me as problematic. In particular, this sentence in the lead, "Organic farming advocates claim advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety." There is no counterpoint to these claims in the lead. Isn't it a violation of WP:FRINGE (or at the very least NPOV) to prominently feature rhetoric claiming that organic food has health benefits over non-organic food? The other purported benefits also strike me as dubious and poorly substantiated. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims?Per WP:FRINGE. Imagine if the homeopathy article or its lead just said the claims of proponents - attributed as claims, mind you - and left off all criticism. That would be a huge problem. Now, organic farming isn't as fringe as homeopathy, but the point stands. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Does this need so many weird See-alsos? The same question applies to other articles from here: Will-SeymoreIII ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Article uses the Creationist archaeologist Collins as a main source, describing him as a professor at two universities (although further down it mentions that one of them is Creationist). It also mentions the claims discussed above of a Tonguska event. I'm generally unhappy with using sources so recent that haven't yet been discussed in the professional literature. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Fun new AfD for you to consider:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Southwest University.
jps ( talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this issue and it seems to me that what we have here is a WP:SENSATION situation. Does this warrant an article about the controversy? I would say so. Something like Controversial archaeological claims about Tall el-Hamman. You know, not that, but that. This would remove some of the problems of writing articles about obscure unaccredited universities or shoehorning fringe material into mainstream articles. jps ( talk) 15:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
~ Kalergi Plan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User just does not get it. I am done with reverting, and I cannot think of anything at the moment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the bulk of the content because it was totally unreferenced and attempted to add credibility to her alleged precognitive powers. The remaining content is solely obituary, which cannot be used to prove WP:NBIO. Not taking to AfD yet in absence of WP:BEFORE. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
“ | Hughes, in the interview with Ebert, predicted that Lyndon B. Johnson would not seek re-election as President, and furthermore that "the Democrats will come right to the brink of nominating Robert F. Kennedy but then switch to someone else." This was said more than a year before LBJ announced on March 31, 1968 that he would not seek a second term. Bobby Kennedy, then the likely Democrats' nominee, would be assassinated on June 6, 1968. | ” |
I just did a trimming of this page on WP:NOTCV and WP:UNDUE grounds (seriously, no one cares about signing "dissent from Darwinism" open letters, and they've been a joke for over a decade). I'm not convinced that the subject is wiki-notable. He wrote some papers, signed a thing, was part of a thing... There's just not a lot there. Previously discussed at FTN here. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Apostle_JP_M_Dinayen - First time I have seen anything like this. A user page that looks like an article. I have no idea where to go. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
BrandonTRA ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing that a book by conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier James Fetzer is a reliable source for claims related to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. It's already cited in the article for Fetzer's POV, but not in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
38.126.71.24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) was banned for long-term insertion unsourced or material not in sources provided or undue conspiracy theories (eg Woodstock was plan by the government and AIDs doesn't exist). Several have been reverted but there a number of fringe edits by them that may need a check (the field is a bit out of personal wheelhouse) 2001:8003:38C0:900:9:D148:4A30:DF5B ( talk) 00:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
May be worth watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Some sockpuppet accounts are pushing the idea that Superdeterminism has been proven. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Johnbannan/Archive and recent IP editing. Affected articles include Superdeterminism, Quantum entanglement, Copenhagen interpretation, Determinism, Predestination, and Free will. Those of you who embody the proper collection of quantum states will be compelled to watchlist these articles shortly. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
New article with pretty much one author. Stubby, some dubious sources, probably redundant with something else too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I cama across this by chance, so I will just comment and move on. Given that I do not personally believe in reincarnation I was surprised to see that the University of Virginia School of Medicine has a group working on past memories and the page on Ian Stevenson is in effect a review of the field. Jim B. Tucker also has a detailed page, and the letters MD after his name. So:
I do not know the past memory field and will not be able to work on the article. My edits would be half baked, at best. As a final note I should say that Ian Stevenson was sloppy as they say in his article, given his attempt at a Popper type empirical falsification test. To test past memories, he left a combination lock at the department, and said he would try to give the combination to a department member after his death. This would of course not test "memory" but communication. So his work can not be taken seriously. The article will survive an Afd attempt, so someone with knowledge of the topic should try and fix it. Ode+Joy ( talk) 09:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular fieldis "in its particular field". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Has a section "The theory of evolution" which is probably 100% bollocks. And lots of other stuff likely needs cutting down. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
SPA wants to delete the risks of stroke and death because some chiropractic somehow managed to get a whitewashing study published. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Came across this recent article on SBM, and then noticed we have a substantial article on this topic already (~700 views/day). Reading it, it seems a bit ... credulous. As Doc James noted [12] back in 2018: "The article basically takes the word of the people who own this trademark without critical analysis. This article needs independent sourcing". Alexbrn ( talk) 07:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies (2nd nomination) and share your thoughts.
jps ( talk) 01:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
A new article in Scientific Reports suggests that city destruction was wrought by a meteorite. [13] This has found its way into this article as asserted fact. But is it fringe? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The deletion bombardment directed at Shanks and his works displays a lack of familiarity with him and them. BAR was (and I imagine is) a perfectly straightforward piece of popularization which at times attacked popular fringe ideas: in one notorious case, a Franklin-Mint-ish statuette of a very white Nefertiti set off a letter battle which culminated in an article discussing the matter pretty much along the same lines as this Wash. Post article on the matter. I agree that we don't need every one of these articles, but assuming that they are fringe is a major failure of WP:BEFORE. Mangoe ( talk) 04:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. What sources do we have that say this sort of thing which would be much more useful to describe in our article than what we currently (don't) tell readers. jps ( talk) 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
If there had been a city in the path of the Tunguska event, it would have been destroyed, so there is nothing intrinsically implausible about a comet zapping a city.Except that the rarity of such events points to the likelihood of hitting the bullseye something of an ECREE situation. I find your attempt to pooh-pooh skeptics a bit remarkable (Mark Boslough is not "poorly-qualified"). Mockery is about what should be expected here because the evidence for a meteor strike is pretty poor and there is a long history of claiming meteor strikes where the evidence is scant. jps ( talk) 12:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Finally, Shanks is not an author; why does he keep getting brought up here?Because he founded BAS which the co-director and lead author of the Sci Rep paper seem to have been able to manipulate into supporting these rather fantastical positions. It is unclear whether this group still wields influence at BAS or not, but they might. Sourcing is horrible for those related articles and it looks to me, at least, like there may be a concerted effort on Wikipedia to provide more coverage than reliable sources do for the associated group of (amateurish) Biblical archaeologists and catastrophists. Shanks seems to have been on the up-and-up for the most part with his popularizations of Biblical archaeology, but the group pushing this new claim (and others from the last few years) seems firmly WP:FRINGE as far as I can tell. Sourcing for articles other than Shanks is atrocious and connecting the dots is nigh on impossible for me, at least. jps ( talk) 12:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
By this reasoning, nobody wins the lotteryargument is transparently specious. I imagine I was the only one to respond because others just threw up their hands. But in any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this line of debate further. If you don't see why it was specious at this point I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the response would be like if the paper had not mentioned Sodom.Imagine what the response had been if it had been a completely different paper!
the previous similar claim about Abu Hureyra that makes no suggestion at all of a biblical connection received little or none of this type of reactionDepends where you mean, really. Reactions in the media, twitter, etc., no, because unfortunately the Neolithic doesn't have the widespread same appeal as "bible times". But amongst people who actually study Neolithic Southwest Asia, I can assure you that it's been alternately a source of despair and the butt of jokes for years. – Joe ( talk) 09:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery because one person is far far smaller than the human population.Not at all. Someone might win the lottery, but identifying some specific person as a lottery winner without doing a systematic search of all lottery players is far more likely to result in a false positive than a correct attribution. That's just the way Bayes' Theorem works. jps ( talk) 16:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about deleting the article Abadir dynasty that may benefit from the attention of editors at this noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 16:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted some bad edits on this page. User was inserting a racial debate onto the article and claiming "Bowman's theory on genetics was in direct conflict with the pseudoscience on race that scientists and universities had utilized for hundreds of years to preserve and ingrain the concept of white superiority, so it must be noted that McGill University itself has a deep history of participation in race pseudoscience". [36]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Has been expanded recently. I just changed the order yet - did not have time for more then - but NPOV and FRINGE problems are likely. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Breast tax ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is surely one of the longest surviving WP:HOAX on Wikipedia because it tries to show a imaginary subject as historical. The article depends on mainly new and partisan sources who are mixing up with a local village legend called Nangeli.
A BBC article about Nangeli was published in 2016, and the article about "Breast Tax" was created in 2018, while Nangeli was created in 2017. This is clearly in line with the fact that these subjects were not known before BBC published article about local village legend Nangeli in 2016. Historians agree that a "breast tax" did not exist. [37] [38] [39]
The article even survived AfD but the participants at DRV guided editors to avoid WP:AFD and instead look for merging or redirect via discussion.
Numerous discussions have happened since, such as Talk:Breast tax#Redirect, Talk:Breast tax#Dubious journals, Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, and others where it was made certain that the subject is a WP:HOAX after carefully analyzing the sources provided.
A couple of users (Paraoh of Wizards, 103.13.229.228) however believe otherwise.
The page is currently fully protected, but input is very much welcome at Talk:Breast tax#Redirect. Azuredivay ( talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Could you take a look at [40], please? I am not an active editor of the enwiki and have no idea of whether it satifies its rules, but it certainly looks fringe. Wikisaurus ( talk) 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The article has been tagged since 2015 due to overreliance on anecdotes from sometimes questionable sources; a large section from The Book of Lists was removed in September 2020 for this reason. Should any other content be removed or cleaned up, considering that most of the anecdotes are based solely on news articles? In addition, some of the other sources are clearly non- WP:MEDRS.
My motive for reporting this at FTN is that it is described (without proper citation) as an extremely rare event that is going to attract incredible anecdotes. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hires an editor Is edit warring on the Antarctica article to imply that Antarctica was known prior to its discovery by Europeans, complaining that the article is written from a "Western European perspective". diff. As far as I can gather, this is apparently referring to Maori oral tradition surrounding the legendary figure Ui-te-Rangiora that some have interpreted as evidence of an expedition to Antarctica during the 7th century. These claims made a brief splash in the news in June, which was based off a paper entitled A short scan of Māori journeys to Antarctica in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. The paper has received a response in the same journal entitled On the improbability of pre-European Polynesian voyages to Antarctica: a response to Priscilla Wehi and colleagues. As far as I can tell, there is no scholarly consensus that these claims are likely. My question is, do these claims merit inclusion/how much weight should they be given in the discovery section of the Antarctica article? In my own opinion, the current wording repeats these claims as if they were fact, and should at least be modified, if included at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
While there is essentially no evidence that anyone knew about Antarctica prior to the so-called "Age of Exploration", there is definitely a bias that needs correcting with a certain undue and trivial emphasis on the provenance of discovery. I am certain there are historiographical sources which deal with this and probably provide ways forward for this and other similar framings. I think it would be good if WP:Wikiproject Countering Systematic Bias tried to reposition some of the text at Wikipedia that gets overly into the Great Man Theory trope -- in a fashion that was coherent and, dare I say, systematic. jps ( talk) 03:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"Unknown to European science" absolutely carries the implication that it was not unknown to all peoples. The specificity implies exceptions. Like describing a no-parking zone as "No parking on Tuesdays", or describing George Washington as "The first straight, white president of the united states." ApLundell ( talk) 03:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Polynesian voyaging through the circumpolar westerlies would have little chance of success and archaeological evidence of Polynesian voyaging does not extend south of about 50° South.It isn't physically plausible for even the expert seafarer Polynesians to have gone there. I get not wanting to be Eurocentric, but WP:FALSEBALANCE does apply. We wouldn't rewrite Apollo 11 to say Armstrong was the "first documented" person on the Moon because, oh, some lost civilization 100,000 years ago, or aliens from another star system billions of years ago, maybe could have landed there. And of course, the implausibility of both scenarios is part of the point. Crossroads -talk- 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Following some outrage on FaceBook among behavioral optometrists about Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, there has been an influx of new editors and an uptick in article interest. Could use more eyes from editors experienced with WP:FRINGE topics. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
We could really use the expertise of someone with a serious background in evaluating both studies and reviews of studies. Especially related to poor design (in support of quackery) and misrepresentation of papers, or selection bias in a review.
I’m hoping there is a lot I can learn here and I can be of more value to Wiki for other topics in the future, especially areas of healthcare outside my own expertise.
Snapdginger (
talk)
13:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
People here may be interested in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Fringe science and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Should the article say you can learn only bollocks there? Someone
deleted this part: Ayurvedic medicine is considered
pseudoscientific because it confuses reality and metaphysical concepts, and because its premises are not based on science. Ethnologist
Johannes Quack writes than although the rationalist movement
Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti officially labels Ayurveda – like
astrology – a pseudoscience, these practices are in fact embraced by many of the movement's members.
The user is right that the quote is not talking about the institution... and the rationalist movement's members embracing Ayurveda sounds fishy. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The same sort of nonsense on the talk-page of the saturated fat article again from the usual suspects that were pasting in similar low-carb stuff 4-5 months ago. This time claiming a single low-carbohydrate diet feeding trial is a high-quality study that should be put onto the article [43] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the wording of the lead in the Stephen F. Hayes article. Hayes is known as a chief proponent for the false claim that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship. Hayes claimed in 2003, "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans." Should we describe Hayes's claims as being "false" [44] or should we say that the claims were "later determined to be false" [45]? The latter language suggests that Hayes's claims were valid at the time, but only later discovered to be false. I find that language to be deceptive, as Hayes's claims were baseless at the time that he made them. Furthermore, Hayes was actively working with Bush administration officials in selling the Iraq War, which makes his claims on the subject even more reckless. His claim, "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans", was false when it was made in 2003 and it was false after 2003. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The article originally stated, in the intro paragraph, that Hayes was "and an influential figure in promoting the false claim that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship." My view, which sparked the disagreement, is that this gives the impression of a deliberate lie. "False claim" may be literally ambiguous about motive, but its implication, I would say, is definitely one of knowingly lying. I argue that in 2003, the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda was still an open question in the US, and the book was only definitively closed on it -- as Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations recounts -- in 2007-2008. My larger point is that since this is a WP:BLP, we should take care to ensure that our language is as NPOV as possible. I'm not married to "later determined," but the old wording of "promoting the false claim," to me, sounds like it's making an implication about motive and knowledge that we simply can't be making. Korossyl ( talk) 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Should explosive detectors be mentioned in that article because someone called them "nothing more than dowsing rods"? They seem to be based on the ideomotor effect, with the swiveling antenna and so on, but it could be WP:COATRACK to mention them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
A mention of fraudulent devices seems warranted, but obviously not a claim that actual detection devices are dowsing... — Paleo Neonate – 22:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
de:Peter Plichta is supposed to have proved something, but without a source, a text introduced here. For context: Plichta has written a book "Benzin aus Sand" ("Gas/Petrol from Sand") propagating silans as energy storage, although he makes it sound like an energy source. (He has also revolutionized number theory and quantum mechanics with his self-published ideas about prime numbers, without the communities of mathematicians or physicists noticing it.) My chemistry knowledge is not good enough to judge the silan stuff. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Australian climate change denier. The "Climate" section is pretty weird, starting with attributing the (obviously true, from what he said) "denier" category to political opponents. The crazy accusations he leveled at climate scientists are repetitive and not well written. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Another one. Lengthy quotes outlining his opinion about stuff he does not understand. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Most here have probably seen DGG's ARCA request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Fringe science which is still open but you may not have seen this. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The problem is adequately discussed in the case statements, and epitomized by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, but I can summarize them as Consensus has changed and what was originally a far fringe theory from sources associated with conspiracy theories, became one seriously considered by both the medical establishment, and the most reliable possible news sources (WSJ, NYT--in a series of major articles).
wonder if those articles are WP:PROFRINGE, yes, you were right in bringing it here and learning that it was not fringe. If someone wonders if something is fringe, this is the place to find out. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this new page which seems to give free advertising to an Idaho anti-vax group under the guise of alternative medicine. The page is only mildly promotional in tone but seems to have been written by connected individuals. It's possible there's sufficient local coverage to indicate meeting GNG, but I'm concerned Wikipedia's voice is being used to legitimize an organization dedicated to misinformation about vaccinations of all types. BusterD ( talk) 06:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The WP:WEASEL is strong with this one. Nine times "some". The medical types can handle this better than I would. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
For archives and as an invitation for editors to patrol or merge as needed (some redirects were also created for these pages), it seems that the intention was to create a WP:POVFORK of the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article, rather than needing to expand its own section because it's too long ( WP:SPINOFF). One of the stated goals being to promote standard arguments like presenting a false balance between Adhanom's opinions and the WHO's official report (or as I observed at the other article, between Alina Chan and the WHO), etc. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Your participation is welcome in the discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal concerning merging the article Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve. NightHeron ( talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Persistent IP tries to turn the evidence for man-made climate change on its head quoting Wall Street Journal. I reverted twice, but that probably won't be the end of it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
In case someone would like to work on this obscure article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 23:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Some other related:
— Paleo Neonate – 07:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Wang Sichao ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Whaddya think about that last section?
jps ( talk) 17:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is now uncritically declaring that most of the world agrees 5% of UFOs are not "human-originated" (But since there are four types of UFO ids: natural phenomena, human technology, delusions, and hoaxes... I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean). jps ( talk) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Just stumbled across this after noticing an RfC. Definitely in the WP:FRINGE space and based largely on non- WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical claims. Could uses eyes from fringe-savvy editors. (Also note drama at ANI) Alexbrn ( talk) 06:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a VERY interesting case to me. It's an odd case of what should be fringe masquerading as mainstream, and those that believe the mass psychogenic illness hypothesis of the psychology experts (and other mass psychogenic illness experts) are called fringe. As been said in various Talk venues regarding this topic: Skeptics are "part of a skeptic religion" and should just "shut up about medical matters" and "stick to debunking UFOs and Bigfoot." In truth, the only things pointing to the "attacks" causing the reported symptoms as being real are (poorly done) studies starting with the Trump administration, with the goal of finding things that could be attributed to enemy attacks and backing-up the administrations early position, taken before any evidence was in. When you look for things to prove what you're looking for, instead of investigating IF the hypothesis is true at all, you find "evidence" you want. This is why homeopathic doctors and Reiki masters think what they do is real. And admitting you were wrong is near impossible for people, organizations, and esp. governments. So the attack claims have spread in the years I've been following this (When the page was named Sonic attacks in Cuba) from just being in Cuba to happening pretty much everyplace, including folks walking their dog on the mall in DC, and even to embassies and hotels in US allied countries. (Yet oddly sparing nearby people of any issues - people who were not pre-warned about getting attacked don't seem to get symptoms of the attacks. These must be amazingly focused energy weapons.) All this has the signs of BS spreading as BS does. And the gov't and media are (mainly) still assuming its all true, with the US gov't even passing a bill to pay for medical treatments. For the media, it's a more interesting (click-baity) story if they keep reporting we are under attack everywhere than reporting that nothing nefarious is going on anywhere. And experts on the skeptical side, pointing out all the flaws and red flags in the mainstream story, barely get heard. Because they are not medical experts. Of course the issue there is pre-assuming whatever medical problems are found are due to attacks. And then, because the skeptical view is underrepresented in the media, and seen as fringe even when it is mentioned, the WP article reflects this situation. A damned shame I say. Seems to be slowly changing, but not fast enough for me. This has been a travesty of the truth, and luckily a war hasn't started (yet) over the unsubstantiated claims of these unproven "attacks". RobP ( talk) 22:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks no doubt to nefarious Google tracking cookie monsters, I was spoonfed this old-news NYTimes op-piece with my morning coffee. Thanks for nothing, sheeple. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/havana-syndrome-disorder.html jps ( talk) 23:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this a thing? Not reading Swedish I can't tell whether hits like this are using the term "Svenska väldet" in a technical sense or as a generic term for territories controlled by Swedish kings. This has been entirely unsourced since it was created in 2003 and has no corresponding page in svwiki, so I feel reasonably comfortable saying that this is not, in fact, a thing. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It is probably just a translation of Konungariket Sverige, i.e. 'The Kingdom of Sweden'.-- Berig (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
[51] ID not pseudoscience! News at eleven! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Robert Hare is a chemist who died in 1858, but is remembered in certain circles today for his efforts to validate mediumship and spiritualism. An IP editor apparently does not like that our article on them includes criticism of those experiments, and has vowed to edit war 'forever' to keep it out. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
At the moment, disproportionally influenced by the opinion of recent gullible journalist Gideon Lewis-Kraus. This idea has been out there for many decades, and there is no reason to replace what has been learned during that time by one guy's collection of ignorance from this year. See WP:RECENT. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I just corrected some cite errors at Lawrence A. Tabak. They were caused by an addition related to COVID and gain of function, so I thought it would be good if someone with relevant knowledge could caste their eye over it. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 19:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, eyes would be again appreciated on this article, especially with regard to the 'liquid stone' section; anyone with particular knowledge of material sciences or geology would be especially welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion that may be of interest to readers of this noticeboard, — Paleo Neonate – 05:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
In response to points raised by Sesquivalent, I've tried to improve the lead of the article " Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which describes a 1994 letter published in the Wall Street Journal defending the controversial book The Bell Curve. More eyes on this would perhaps be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
"defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH.Goodness no. I've even supplied a couple of sources to support the existing language in the article's first paragraph, which state explicitly that the letter in question was a defense of The Bell Curve. One is a scientific journal: [54]. And please note that SYNTH is something we're not permitted to do in article text. Of course we're meant to use our capacity for putting 2 and 2 together when discussing what belongs in articles and how to apply guidelines like WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up.
no, that journal article does not say the letter is a defense of the Bell Curve.What?? Just like in the above discussion of Ann Coulter, you are advancing a distinction without a difference. The McInerney article is very clear about what is meant by "commentaries that are supportive". No one who has read the article could possibly interpret it otherwise. Saying
no indication whether the author thinks so. Merely "supportive" if all commentaries are dichotomized into supportive or criticalis utterly baffling since the author explicitly discusses Gottfredson's letter as a defense of both the The Bell Curve's evidentiary basis (p.85) and its pretension to inform public policy (p.91), and in the latter discussion holds it up as a paradigmatic example. But in any case, it's immaterial whether you agree on this since you've conceded that there are numerous other sources we can use which say the same thing. So let's both move on to other things now. You can go on doubting whether Gottfredson and her co-signers meant to defend The Bell Curve, and we will continue to abide by what reliable secondary sources say. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you.
Using Steven Pinker as a touchstone is prima facie evidence of an ideological
WP:POVPUSH in my opinion.
jps (
talk)
22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
standard, a well known guy around these parts cited NOFUCKINGNAZIS and threatened to have his admin friends eject me from the site (spoiler: that's not how the movie ended), GeneralRelative has at least twice vaguely hinted that I should be banned (spoiler: nobody took up the cause), and a certain Talk page buddy of his and yours has poured lots of similar passive-aggressive speculation and insinuations in my direction. So I don't have to imagine what it would be like, it's been a parade of vitriol from the day I posted on a talk page about their pet issues. Sesquivalent ( talk) 00:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thinkwhat I stated,
that because Pinker isembedded in some very sweet high status gigs that he likes to keep, and because I have some other reasons to be confident in my suspicion that he works hard to stay respectable, him citing something isn't an indicator it's correct, but it is a great indicator that it's not fringe. All the more so when he riffs on it calling itself "the mainstream". Shoot First, Read Later doesn't work well online --- at least those IDW dorks preach epistemic humility. Sesquivalent ( talk) 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
“Rationality is uncool,” he laments. It isn’t seen as “dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb.” As evidence for its diminished status, he quotes celebrations of nonsense by the Talking Heads and Zorba the Greek. (Pinker is also vexed by the line “Let’s go crazy,” which he says was “adjured” by “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”)[55]
"R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutralityThis assumes that the "B" was "toward neutrality", which begs the question. Whether the changes were neutral is exactly what is to be discussed during the "D" part. It seems you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like. That is exactly the reason why we have BRD. It is not "broken". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise [...]— Paleo Neonate – 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like.You have already determined that the "B" changes were "toward neutrality", because you assessed it in a
relatively objectiveway, and therefore the "R" and "D" parts are unnecessary. In other word, other editors should not revert or contradict you because you know what you are doing, because you are the arbiter of neutrality. But they do revert you, and they do contradict you, and they do not accept that you are arbiter, therefore the system is broken.
Too many of the sources are Creationists Steven Collins and Joseph Holden. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Proponent of various WP:FRINGE altmed ideas. Possible NPOV problems with this article. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an imprint of Penguin Books that publishes on the occult. I can't tell whether I should trust books they publish to be out-of-universe, or whether it's a case-by-case thing. Any thoughts? Reason I'm here is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta; there's a brief discussion of gandanta here. It seems in-universe-y, but then again discussions of mythical things often adopt an in-universe style because it's easier than constantly saying "as believers in this thing believe …" AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
only Westerner ever to become a licensed Ayurvedic physicianand someone who
has been studying and practising Vedic astrology since 1968. It's very definitely in-universe, not a view from outside. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Edit conflict at Joy of Satan Ministries. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering. I used it when it was on bulletin boards. Then came the Internet. And then modems that I didn't need to stick my phone into! Doug Weller talk 16:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
A reliable source is not sufficiently denialist to copy Prager's anti-science propaganda word by word, therefore it is not reliable and cannot be used. Discussion on Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This article could stand a little attention. It's rather drastically under-sourced and sports an "in popular culture" junk drawer. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The Race and crime article has long been problematic, and has been discussed on this noticeboard several times before. A fundamental issue, beyond the obvious one of attracting proponents of fringe perspectives, is that it doesn't cover the supposed subject matter from any sort of global perspective. As has been noted on numerous occasions, in practice it only discusses the supposed relationship between 'race' and crime the United States in any detail at all, while managing to imply that it is giving some sort of broader perspective. This is of course entirely misleading, and contrary to Wikipedia policy, given that the article Race and crime in the United States already exists: it is either redundant, or a POV fork. I'd appreciate WP:FTN regulars taking a look, to se if anything merits merging elsewhere, because beyond that, it is an obvious candidate for deletion. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Some interesting recent edits on how to deal with a celebrity doctor's view on all this, a WP:FRINGE connection I'd say. Note potential BLP and COI considerations may apply. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, trying not to let people die, it's not a million miles from what Hitler was doing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This is Bill Warner (writer) (a pen name}} where someone has added the statement " Warner with the help of statistical methods proves that a substantive part of the Islamic doctrine is not religious but falls within the domain of politics." There are three sources for this - all are the subject himself. I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
New AfC published from draft. About a COVID lab-leak origins proponent. In general I think it could just use more eyes. See:
Chan became known during the COVID-19 pandemic for suggesting the possible lab origins of the virus in a BioRxiv preprint coauthored with Shing Hei Zhan which she sent for consideration to multiple journals but the editors decided against sending for peer review. cites preprint, no secondary source The preprint attracted criticism from prominent scientists such as Jonathan Eisen, with whom she interacted constructively, but also the head of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, in a more contentious exchange that Chan was regarded by some as having the upper hand, e.g. Nicholson Baker summarised this 'it was enough for one Twitter user to muse, “If capital punishment were as painful as what Alina Chan is doing to Daszak/WIV regarding their story, it would be illegal.”'
There are a few other instances where the article cites a preprint for some commentary about that preprint, and does not cite a secondary source.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Fringe is only a pejorative because of the euphemism treadmill. It etymologically refers to the edges of a tapestry which is a very neutral way to describe ideas that are not part of the mainstream. The fact that people find it pejorative when applied to their pet ideas is because they don't like other things that are objectively fringe and hate that their idea is in the same category. I do agree, however, that the term is overused on Wikipedia. Fringe festival, fringe benefit, etc. jps ( talk) 00:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
— Paleo Neonate – 04:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
An IP has been mildly edit-warring to remove a sentence from the lead. Additional pairs of eyes are welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Zang-fu ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just came across this topic and all its subtopics (each one of the 12 Zang and Fu "organs") and it is in a terribly credulous state. My first thought is that all those "organ" articles should be merged into Zang-fu, and the whole thing would need a big POV review. VdSV9• ♫ 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Longish list of requests on the Talk page. Have fun. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
If anyone's got some spare time, the subject of our article Steve Kirsch came on the talk page to offer $1000 per hour to anyone who would like to debate him on zoom about whether or not the COVID-19 vaccines are toxic. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this WP:Teahouse#Richard_Lynn_article if anyone's interested. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I have problems with the Communism lead because it has a section of the lead that advances the proposition that the USSR was not a communist state. The sources for this claim include Noam Chomsky, Truthout.org and a heterodox economics journal. This seems problematic given that I'm under the impression that mainstream scholarship firmly characterizes the USSR as a communist state. In other words, it's a fringe theory that the USSR was not communist. The communist state Wikipedia article does not have this problem: it clearly describes the USSR as a communist state. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Chomsky and Richard D. Wolff are fringey for this topic. As explained by Doug Weller, Johnbod, and Generalrelative, we should clearly delineate two views of what communist means as a description of a country -- the view of Marxists and communists themselves and the view of writers and media in the West. Marxist or communist or leftist writers are certainly not fringe as a source for the former, just as anti-communist writers are not fringe for the latter. NightHeron ( talk) 16:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
[1] 20-21 November. Few details yet. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Elvira Bierbach does not pass
WP:LUNATICS. It does not acknowledge the commandment I will put enmity between thee and Wikipedia
. Thee
meaning quackery. Even if that's legal in Germany, she is still a quack by our book. Every
Heilpraktiker is a quack, every one of them. If they had something
positive to offer, they would not become Heilpraktiker. I call a spade a spade. I call a quack a quack. Heilpraktiker is legalized quackery. That's tautologically true.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
05:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Quacks really hate Wikipedia.Of course, that is not my own fault, but a result of WP:RULES such as WP:DUE, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. We are at war with quacks, how comes that you did not know it?
Worse than 1984 Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Runs an industry-organized, coordinated smear engine to discredit and suppress all independent scientists, naturopaths and journalists.
techno-fascism. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Low-intensity but persistent whitewashing of Yeadon's involvement in spreading COVID misinformation and conspiracy theories. Additional eyeballs on the article would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Someone wants to happily promote bogus treatments in a Wikipedia article by removing the risks of death and stroke from it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Another article about COVID quacks, now approaching 1000/views day as the World continues to go crazy, and also attracting drive-by disruption. Like other similar articles probably needs some form of protection. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Eyes needed for event edits. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this and sourcing edits to this author Paulette Steeves? He iro 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
the Canada Research Chair in Healing and Reconciliation, which does not sound like a branch of paleontology or paleoanthropology. And you can "focus on" things outside your expertise. That's where many fringe ideas come from. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
research and truth as it pertains to the First Peoples of Canada and their history here on Turtle Island, the funding coming from a Canadian initiative supporting
Truth, Healing and Reconciliationwith indigenous Canadians. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Brigham Young University is about to be stricken by a new wave of fideism. What do you think about [2]? tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while Deseret News is under editorial control of the LDS church, Salt Lake Tribune, though owned by big-names in Mormonism, has (relative) editorial independence. jps ( talk) 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
DISC assessment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It looks like editors associated with the vendor of this pseudoscientific psychological assessment model have been making this article increasingly promotional. I've attempted to cut back some of the advertising content and put the fact that it is pseudoscientific up front. I would appreciate extra eyes on this article. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Has seen significant expansion in recent months and seems distinctly WP:PROFRINGE. May need attention. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
A WP:SPA, Silliestchris is making multiple edits across these pages, apparently in an attempt to de-stubify stubs and create more articles in this messy, fringe, topic space. A new article, Environmental sensitivity (illness) is proposed by them. More eyes/input would be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed the COI criteria and believe that I am an interested party, not COI, so long as I do nothing to advocate my heretical hypothesis here, which would be utterly inappropriate.I'd recommend you reread WP:COI, most notably:
Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith... Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.In other words, it's not wrong or bad or a judgment on you if you have a potential COI. Only that it's worth recognizing (and disclosing) if one exists. And, whether or not your outside writings rise to the level of COI, it's worth asking yourself whether you can set aside that personal belief in order to build a neutral encyclopedia. Especially if it means working to the contrary of your personal beliefs. While it doesn't appear you're exhibiting any off the behaviors of WP:NOTHERE, that's the broad concern others have in these kinds of situations (which, as I'm sure you'll believe, we've seen repeated many times before). Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the Huber source is usable at all. But (as mentioned on the MCS Talk) page, we're in luck! A June 2021 comprehensive review has been published [5] by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec. This should be a good basis for reforming the article. (I haven't read it yet, and will need to brush off my French). Alexbrn ( talk) 07:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Related to the above, I notice there have been repeated attempts to cite this gentleman's (likely non- WP:MEDRS) work in the MCS article, and the above article was created last month, with a high proportion of unsourced biographical detail. Is Huber notable? Alexbrn ( talk) 03:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn, you blanked a fairly large part of that article, and I think that the line in WP:CHALLENGE might have some relevant advice:
"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. [1] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. [2] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
It seems to me that it would be easy for an editor to misunderstand your blanking as indicating "chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions" that are "unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material" while you "concentrate only on material of a particular point of view".
Also, do you actually have any rational "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source" for all of what you blanked? Most of what you removed was basic education and work history, such as where he went to medical school. That's not usually at high risk for being unverifiable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The Organic farming farming article strikes me as problematic. In particular, this sentence in the lead, "Organic farming advocates claim advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety." There is no counterpoint to these claims in the lead. Isn't it a violation of WP:FRINGE (or at the very least NPOV) to prominently feature rhetoric claiming that organic food has health benefits over non-organic food? The other purported benefits also strike me as dubious and poorly substantiated. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does there need to be a counterpoint to those claims?Per WP:FRINGE. Imagine if the homeopathy article or its lead just said the claims of proponents - attributed as claims, mind you - and left off all criticism. That would be a huge problem. Now, organic farming isn't as fringe as homeopathy, but the point stands. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Does this need so many weird See-alsos? The same question applies to other articles from here: Will-SeymoreIII ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Article uses the Creationist archaeologist Collins as a main source, describing him as a professor at two universities (although further down it mentions that one of them is Creationist). It also mentions the claims discussed above of a Tonguska event. I'm generally unhappy with using sources so recent that haven't yet been discussed in the professional literature. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Fun new AfD for you to consider:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity Southwest University.
jps ( talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this issue and it seems to me that what we have here is a WP:SENSATION situation. Does this warrant an article about the controversy? I would say so. Something like Controversial archaeological claims about Tall el-Hamman. You know, not that, but that. This would remove some of the problems of writing articles about obscure unaccredited universities or shoehorning fringe material into mainstream articles. jps ( talk) 15:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
~ Kalergi Plan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User just does not get it. I am done with reverting, and I cannot think of anything at the moment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the bulk of the content because it was totally unreferenced and attempted to add credibility to her alleged precognitive powers. The remaining content is solely obituary, which cannot be used to prove WP:NBIO. Not taking to AfD yet in absence of WP:BEFORE. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
“ | Hughes, in the interview with Ebert, predicted that Lyndon B. Johnson would not seek re-election as President, and furthermore that "the Democrats will come right to the brink of nominating Robert F. Kennedy but then switch to someone else." This was said more than a year before LBJ announced on March 31, 1968 that he would not seek a second term. Bobby Kennedy, then the likely Democrats' nominee, would be assassinated on June 6, 1968. | ” |
I just did a trimming of this page on WP:NOTCV and WP:UNDUE grounds (seriously, no one cares about signing "dissent from Darwinism" open letters, and they've been a joke for over a decade). I'm not convinced that the subject is wiki-notable. He wrote some papers, signed a thing, was part of a thing... There's just not a lot there. Previously discussed at FTN here. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Apostle_JP_M_Dinayen - First time I have seen anything like this. A user page that looks like an article. I have no idea where to go. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
BrandonTRA ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing that a book by conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier James Fetzer is a reliable source for claims related to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. It's already cited in the article for Fetzer's POV, but not in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
38.126.71.24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) was banned for long-term insertion unsourced or material not in sources provided or undue conspiracy theories (eg Woodstock was plan by the government and AIDs doesn't exist). Several have been reverted but there a number of fringe edits by them that may need a check (the field is a bit out of personal wheelhouse) 2001:8003:38C0:900:9:D148:4A30:DF5B ( talk) 00:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
May be worth watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Some sockpuppet accounts are pushing the idea that Superdeterminism has been proven. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Johnbannan/Archive and recent IP editing. Affected articles include Superdeterminism, Quantum entanglement, Copenhagen interpretation, Determinism, Predestination, and Free will. Those of you who embody the proper collection of quantum states will be compelled to watchlist these articles shortly. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
New article with pretty much one author. Stubby, some dubious sources, probably redundant with something else too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I cama across this by chance, so I will just comment and move on. Given that I do not personally believe in reincarnation I was surprised to see that the University of Virginia School of Medicine has a group working on past memories and the page on Ian Stevenson is in effect a review of the field. Jim B. Tucker also has a detailed page, and the letters MD after his name. So:
I do not know the past memory field and will not be able to work on the article. My edits would be half baked, at best. As a final note I should say that Ian Stevenson was sloppy as they say in his article, given his attempt at a Popper type empirical falsification test. To test past memories, he left a combination lock at the department, and said he would try to give the combination to a department member after his death. This would of course not test "memory" but communication. So his work can not be taken seriously. The article will survive an Afd attempt, so someone with knowledge of the topic should try and fix it. Ode+Joy ( talk) 09:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular fieldis "in its particular field". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Has a section "The theory of evolution" which is probably 100% bollocks. And lots of other stuff likely needs cutting down. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
SPA wants to delete the risks of stroke and death because some chiropractic somehow managed to get a whitewashing study published. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Came across this recent article on SBM, and then noticed we have a substantial article on this topic already (~700 views/day). Reading it, it seems a bit ... credulous. As Doc James noted [12] back in 2018: "The article basically takes the word of the people who own this trademark without critical analysis. This article needs independent sourcing". Alexbrn ( talk) 07:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationist cosmologies (2nd nomination) and share your thoughts.
jps ( talk) 01:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
A new article in Scientific Reports suggests that city destruction was wrought by a meteorite. [13] This has found its way into this article as asserted fact. But is it fringe? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The deletion bombardment directed at Shanks and his works displays a lack of familiarity with him and them. BAR was (and I imagine is) a perfectly straightforward piece of popularization which at times attacked popular fringe ideas: in one notorious case, a Franklin-Mint-ish statuette of a very white Nefertiti set off a letter battle which culminated in an article discussing the matter pretty much along the same lines as this Wash. Post article on the matter. I agree that we don't need every one of these articles, but assuming that they are fringe is a major failure of WP:BEFORE. Mangoe ( talk) 04:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. What sources do we have that say this sort of thing which would be much more useful to describe in our article than what we currently (don't) tell readers. jps ( talk) 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
If there had been a city in the path of the Tunguska event, it would have been destroyed, so there is nothing intrinsically implausible about a comet zapping a city.Except that the rarity of such events points to the likelihood of hitting the bullseye something of an ECREE situation. I find your attempt to pooh-pooh skeptics a bit remarkable (Mark Boslough is not "poorly-qualified"). Mockery is about what should be expected here because the evidence for a meteor strike is pretty poor and there is a long history of claiming meteor strikes where the evidence is scant. jps ( talk) 12:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Finally, Shanks is not an author; why does he keep getting brought up here?Because he founded BAS which the co-director and lead author of the Sci Rep paper seem to have been able to manipulate into supporting these rather fantastical positions. It is unclear whether this group still wields influence at BAS or not, but they might. Sourcing is horrible for those related articles and it looks to me, at least, like there may be a concerted effort on Wikipedia to provide more coverage than reliable sources do for the associated group of (amateurish) Biblical archaeologists and catastrophists. Shanks seems to have been on the up-and-up for the most part with his popularizations of Biblical archaeology, but the group pushing this new claim (and others from the last few years) seems firmly WP:FRINGE as far as I can tell. Sourcing for articles other than Shanks is atrocious and connecting the dots is nigh on impossible for me, at least. jps ( talk) 12:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
By this reasoning, nobody wins the lotteryargument is transparently specious. I imagine I was the only one to respond because others just threw up their hands. But in any case, I'm not interested in pursuing this line of debate further. If you don't see why it was specious at this point I'm probably not going to be able to convince you. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the response would be like if the paper had not mentioned Sodom.Imagine what the response had been if it had been a completely different paper!
the previous similar claim about Abu Hureyra that makes no suggestion at all of a biblical connection received little or none of this type of reactionDepends where you mean, really. Reactions in the media, twitter, etc., no, because unfortunately the Neolithic doesn't have the widespread same appeal as "bible times". But amongst people who actually study Neolithic Southwest Asia, I can assure you that it's been alternately a source of despair and the butt of jokes for years. – Joe ( talk) 09:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
By this reasoning, nobody wins the lottery because one person is far far smaller than the human population.Not at all. Someone might win the lottery, but identifying some specific person as a lottery winner without doing a systematic search of all lottery players is far more likely to result in a false positive than a correct attribution. That's just the way Bayes' Theorem works. jps ( talk) 16:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about deleting the article Abadir dynasty that may benefit from the attention of editors at this noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 16:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted some bad edits on this page. User was inserting a racial debate onto the article and claiming "Bowman's theory on genetics was in direct conflict with the pseudoscience on race that scientists and universities had utilized for hundreds of years to preserve and ingrain the concept of white superiority, so it must be noted that McGill University itself has a deep history of participation in race pseudoscience". [36]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Has been expanded recently. I just changed the order yet - did not have time for more then - but NPOV and FRINGE problems are likely. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Breast tax ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is surely one of the longest surviving WP:HOAX on Wikipedia because it tries to show a imaginary subject as historical. The article depends on mainly new and partisan sources who are mixing up with a local village legend called Nangeli.
A BBC article about Nangeli was published in 2016, and the article about "Breast Tax" was created in 2018, while Nangeli was created in 2017. This is clearly in line with the fact that these subjects were not known before BBC published article about local village legend Nangeli in 2016. Historians agree that a "breast tax" did not exist. [37] [38] [39]
The article even survived AfD but the participants at DRV guided editors to avoid WP:AFD and instead look for merging or redirect via discussion.
Numerous discussions have happened since, such as Talk:Breast tax#Redirect, Talk:Breast tax#Dubious journals, Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, and others where it was made certain that the subject is a WP:HOAX after carefully analyzing the sources provided.
A couple of users (Paraoh of Wizards, 103.13.229.228) however believe otherwise.
The page is currently fully protected, but input is very much welcome at Talk:Breast tax#Redirect. Azuredivay ( talk) 16:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Could you take a look at [40], please? I am not an active editor of the enwiki and have no idea of whether it satifies its rules, but it certainly looks fringe. Wikisaurus ( talk) 00:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The article has been tagged since 2015 due to overreliance on anecdotes from sometimes questionable sources; a large section from The Book of Lists was removed in September 2020 for this reason. Should any other content be removed or cleaned up, considering that most of the anecdotes are based solely on news articles? In addition, some of the other sources are clearly non- WP:MEDRS.
My motive for reporting this at FTN is that it is described (without proper citation) as an extremely rare event that is going to attract incredible anecdotes. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hires an editor Is edit warring on the Antarctica article to imply that Antarctica was known prior to its discovery by Europeans, complaining that the article is written from a "Western European perspective". diff. As far as I can gather, this is apparently referring to Maori oral tradition surrounding the legendary figure Ui-te-Rangiora that some have interpreted as evidence of an expedition to Antarctica during the 7th century. These claims made a brief splash in the news in June, which was based off a paper entitled A short scan of Māori journeys to Antarctica in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. The paper has received a response in the same journal entitled On the improbability of pre-European Polynesian voyages to Antarctica: a response to Priscilla Wehi and colleagues. As far as I can tell, there is no scholarly consensus that these claims are likely. My question is, do these claims merit inclusion/how much weight should they be given in the discovery section of the Antarctica article? In my own opinion, the current wording repeats these claims as if they were fact, and should at least be modified, if included at all. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
While there is essentially no evidence that anyone knew about Antarctica prior to the so-called "Age of Exploration", there is definitely a bias that needs correcting with a certain undue and trivial emphasis on the provenance of discovery. I am certain there are historiographical sources which deal with this and probably provide ways forward for this and other similar framings. I think it would be good if WP:Wikiproject Countering Systematic Bias tried to reposition some of the text at Wikipedia that gets overly into the Great Man Theory trope -- in a fashion that was coherent and, dare I say, systematic. jps ( talk) 03:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
"Unknown to European science" absolutely carries the implication that it was not unknown to all peoples. The specificity implies exceptions. Like describing a no-parking zone as "No parking on Tuesdays", or describing George Washington as "The first straight, white president of the united states." ApLundell ( talk) 03:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Polynesian voyaging through the circumpolar westerlies would have little chance of success and archaeological evidence of Polynesian voyaging does not extend south of about 50° South.It isn't physically plausible for even the expert seafarer Polynesians to have gone there. I get not wanting to be Eurocentric, but WP:FALSEBALANCE does apply. We wouldn't rewrite Apollo 11 to say Armstrong was the "first documented" person on the Moon because, oh, some lost civilization 100,000 years ago, or aliens from another star system billions of years ago, maybe could have landed there. And of course, the implausibility of both scenarios is part of the point. Crossroads -talk- 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Following some outrage on FaceBook among behavioral optometrists about Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, there has been an influx of new editors and an uptick in article interest. Could use more eyes from editors experienced with WP:FRINGE topics. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
We could really use the expertise of someone with a serious background in evaluating both studies and reviews of studies. Especially related to poor design (in support of quackery) and misrepresentation of papers, or selection bias in a review.
I’m hoping there is a lot I can learn here and I can be of more value to Wiki for other topics in the future, especially areas of healthcare outside my own expertise.
Snapdginger (
talk)
13:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
People here may be interested in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Fringe science and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Should the article say you can learn only bollocks there? Someone
deleted this part: Ayurvedic medicine is considered
pseudoscientific because it confuses reality and metaphysical concepts, and because its premises are not based on science. Ethnologist
Johannes Quack writes than although the rationalist movement
Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti officially labels Ayurveda – like
astrology – a pseudoscience, these practices are in fact embraced by many of the movement's members.
The user is right that the quote is not talking about the institution... and the rationalist movement's members embracing Ayurveda sounds fishy. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The same sort of nonsense on the talk-page of the saturated fat article again from the usual suspects that were pasting in similar low-carb stuff 4-5 months ago. This time claiming a single low-carbohydrate diet feeding trial is a high-quality study that should be put onto the article [43] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the wording of the lead in the Stephen F. Hayes article. Hayes is known as a chief proponent for the false claim that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship. Hayes claimed in 2003, "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans." Should we describe Hayes's claims as being "false" [44] or should we say that the claims were "later determined to be false" [45]? The latter language suggests that Hayes's claims were valid at the time, but only later discovered to be false. I find that language to be deceptive, as Hayes's claims were baseless at the time that he made them. Furthermore, Hayes was actively working with Bush administration officials in selling the Iraq War, which makes his claims on the subject even more reckless. His claim, "there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans", was false when it was made in 2003 and it was false after 2003. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The article originally stated, in the intro paragraph, that Hayes was "and an influential figure in promoting the false claim that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship." My view, which sparked the disagreement, is that this gives the impression of a deliberate lie. "False claim" may be literally ambiguous about motive, but its implication, I would say, is definitely one of knowingly lying. I argue that in 2003, the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda was still an open question in the US, and the book was only definitively closed on it -- as Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations recounts -- in 2007-2008. My larger point is that since this is a WP:BLP, we should take care to ensure that our language is as NPOV as possible. I'm not married to "later determined," but the old wording of "promoting the false claim," to me, sounds like it's making an implication about motive and knowledge that we simply can't be making. Korossyl ( talk) 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Should explosive detectors be mentioned in that article because someone called them "nothing more than dowsing rods"? They seem to be based on the ideomotor effect, with the swiveling antenna and so on, but it could be WP:COATRACK to mention them. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
A mention of fraudulent devices seems warranted, but obviously not a claim that actual detection devices are dowsing... — Paleo Neonate – 22:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
de:Peter Plichta is supposed to have proved something, but without a source, a text introduced here. For context: Plichta has written a book "Benzin aus Sand" ("Gas/Petrol from Sand") propagating silans as energy storage, although he makes it sound like an energy source. (He has also revolutionized number theory and quantum mechanics with his self-published ideas about prime numbers, without the communities of mathematicians or physicists noticing it.) My chemistry knowledge is not good enough to judge the silan stuff. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Australian climate change denier. The "Climate" section is pretty weird, starting with attributing the (obviously true, from what he said) "denier" category to political opponents. The crazy accusations he leveled at climate scientists are repetitive and not well written. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Another one. Lengthy quotes outlining his opinion about stuff he does not understand. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Most here have probably seen DGG's ARCA request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Fringe science which is still open but you may not have seen this. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The problem is adequately discussed in the case statements, and epitomized by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, but I can summarize them as Consensus has changed and what was originally a far fringe theory from sources associated with conspiracy theories, became one seriously considered by both the medical establishment, and the most reliable possible news sources (WSJ, NYT--in a series of major articles).
wonder if those articles are WP:PROFRINGE, yes, you were right in bringing it here and learning that it was not fringe. If someone wonders if something is fringe, this is the place to find out. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned about this new page which seems to give free advertising to an Idaho anti-vax group under the guise of alternative medicine. The page is only mildly promotional in tone but seems to have been written by connected individuals. It's possible there's sufficient local coverage to indicate meeting GNG, but I'm concerned Wikipedia's voice is being used to legitimize an organization dedicated to misinformation about vaccinations of all types. BusterD ( talk) 06:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The WP:WEASEL is strong with this one. Nine times "some". The medical types can handle this better than I would. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
For archives and as an invitation for editors to patrol or merge as needed (some redirects were also created for these pages), it seems that the intention was to create a WP:POVFORK of the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article, rather than needing to expand its own section because it's too long ( WP:SPINOFF). One of the stated goals being to promote standard arguments like presenting a false balance between Adhanom's opinions and the WHO's official report (or as I observed at the other article, between Alina Chan and the WHO), etc. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Your participation is welcome in the discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal concerning merging the article Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve. NightHeron ( talk) 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Persistent IP tries to turn the evidence for man-made climate change on its head quoting Wall Street Journal. I reverted twice, but that probably won't be the end of it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
In case someone would like to work on this obscure article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 23:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Some other related:
— Paleo Neonate – 07:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Wang Sichao ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Whaddya think about that last section?
jps ( talk) 17:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is now uncritically declaring that most of the world agrees 5% of UFOs are not "human-originated" (But since there are four types of UFO ids: natural phenomena, human technology, delusions, and hoaxes... I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean). jps ( talk) 23:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Just stumbled across this after noticing an RfC. Definitely in the WP:FRINGE space and based largely on non- WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical claims. Could uses eyes from fringe-savvy editors. (Also note drama at ANI) Alexbrn ( talk) 06:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a VERY interesting case to me. It's an odd case of what should be fringe masquerading as mainstream, and those that believe the mass psychogenic illness hypothesis of the psychology experts (and other mass psychogenic illness experts) are called fringe. As been said in various Talk venues regarding this topic: Skeptics are "part of a skeptic religion" and should just "shut up about medical matters" and "stick to debunking UFOs and Bigfoot." In truth, the only things pointing to the "attacks" causing the reported symptoms as being real are (poorly done) studies starting with the Trump administration, with the goal of finding things that could be attributed to enemy attacks and backing-up the administrations early position, taken before any evidence was in. When you look for things to prove what you're looking for, instead of investigating IF the hypothesis is true at all, you find "evidence" you want. This is why homeopathic doctors and Reiki masters think what they do is real. And admitting you were wrong is near impossible for people, organizations, and esp. governments. So the attack claims have spread in the years I've been following this (When the page was named Sonic attacks in Cuba) from just being in Cuba to happening pretty much everyplace, including folks walking their dog on the mall in DC, and even to embassies and hotels in US allied countries. (Yet oddly sparing nearby people of any issues - people who were not pre-warned about getting attacked don't seem to get symptoms of the attacks. These must be amazingly focused energy weapons.) All this has the signs of BS spreading as BS does. And the gov't and media are (mainly) still assuming its all true, with the US gov't even passing a bill to pay for medical treatments. For the media, it's a more interesting (click-baity) story if they keep reporting we are under attack everywhere than reporting that nothing nefarious is going on anywhere. And experts on the skeptical side, pointing out all the flaws and red flags in the mainstream story, barely get heard. Because they are not medical experts. Of course the issue there is pre-assuming whatever medical problems are found are due to attacks. And then, because the skeptical view is underrepresented in the media, and seen as fringe even when it is mentioned, the WP article reflects this situation. A damned shame I say. Seems to be slowly changing, but not fast enough for me. This has been a travesty of the truth, and luckily a war hasn't started (yet) over the unsubstantiated claims of these unproven "attacks". RobP ( talk) 22:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks no doubt to nefarious Google tracking cookie monsters, I was spoonfed this old-news NYTimes op-piece with my morning coffee. Thanks for nothing, sheeple. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/opinion/havana-syndrome-disorder.html jps ( talk) 23:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this a thing? Not reading Swedish I can't tell whether hits like this are using the term "Svenska väldet" in a technical sense or as a generic term for territories controlled by Swedish kings. This has been entirely unsourced since it was created in 2003 and has no corresponding page in svwiki, so I feel reasonably comfortable saying that this is not, in fact, a thing. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 02:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It is probably just a translation of Konungariket Sverige, i.e. 'The Kingdom of Sweden'.-- Berig (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
[51] ID not pseudoscience! News at eleven! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Robert Hare is a chemist who died in 1858, but is remembered in certain circles today for his efforts to validate mediumship and spiritualism. An IP editor apparently does not like that our article on them includes criticism of those experiments, and has vowed to edit war 'forever' to keep it out. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
At the moment, disproportionally influenced by the opinion of recent gullible journalist Gideon Lewis-Kraus. This idea has been out there for many decades, and there is no reason to replace what has been learned during that time by one guy's collection of ignorance from this year. See WP:RECENT. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I just corrected some cite errors at Lawrence A. Tabak. They were caused by an addition related to COVID and gain of function, so I thought it would be good if someone with relevant knowledge could caste their eye over it. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 19:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, eyes would be again appreciated on this article, especially with regard to the 'liquid stone' section; anyone with particular knowledge of material sciences or geology would be especially welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion that may be of interest to readers of this noticeboard, — Paleo Neonate – 05:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
In response to points raised by Sesquivalent, I've tried to improve the lead of the article " Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which describes a 1994 letter published in the Wall Street Journal defending the controversial book The Bell Curve. More eyes on this would perhaps be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
"defending ... The Bell Curve" and "in support of PROFRINGE" (and thus a link to FTN) are assumptions, or SYNTH.Goodness no. I've even supplied a couple of sources to support the existing language in the article's first paragraph, which state explicitly that the letter in question was a defense of The Bell Curve. One is a scientific journal: [54]. And please note that SYNTH is something we're not permitted to do in article text. Of course we're meant to use our capacity for putting 2 and 2 together when discussing what belongs in articles and how to apply guidelines like WP:FRINGE. I hope that clears things up.
no, that journal article does not say the letter is a defense of the Bell Curve.What?? Just like in the above discussion of Ann Coulter, you are advancing a distinction without a difference. The McInerney article is very clear about what is meant by "commentaries that are supportive". No one who has read the article could possibly interpret it otherwise. Saying
no indication whether the author thinks so. Merely "supportive" if all commentaries are dichotomized into supportive or criticalis utterly baffling since the author explicitly discusses Gottfredson's letter as a defense of both the The Bell Curve's evidentiary basis (p.85) and its pretension to inform public policy (p.91), and in the latter discussion holds it up as a paradigmatic example. But in any case, it's immaterial whether you agree on this since you've conceded that there are numerous other sources we can use which say the same thing. So let's both move on to other things now. You can go on doubting whether Gottfredson and her co-signers meant to defend The Bell Curve, and we will continue to abide by what reliable secondary sources say. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Just imagine if the same standard were applied to you.
Using Steven Pinker as a touchstone is prima facie evidence of an ideological
WP:POVPUSH in my opinion.
jps (
talk)
22:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
standard, a well known guy around these parts cited NOFUCKINGNAZIS and threatened to have his admin friends eject me from the site (spoiler: that's not how the movie ended), GeneralRelative has at least twice vaguely hinted that I should be banned (spoiler: nobody took up the cause), and a certain Talk page buddy of his and yours has poured lots of similar passive-aggressive speculation and insinuations in my direction. So I don't have to imagine what it would be like, it's been a parade of vitriol from the day I posted on a talk page about their pet issues. Sesquivalent ( talk) 00:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thinkwhat I stated,
that because Pinker isembedded in some very sweet high status gigs that he likes to keep, and because I have some other reasons to be confident in my suspicion that he works hard to stay respectable, him citing something isn't an indicator it's correct, but it is a great indicator that it's not fringe. All the more so when he riffs on it calling itself "the mainstream". Shoot First, Read Later doesn't work well online --- at least those IDW dorks preach epistemic humility. Sesquivalent ( talk) 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
“Rationality is uncool,” he laments. It isn’t seen as “dope, phat, chill, fly, sick or da bomb.” As evidence for its diminished status, he quotes celebrations of nonsense by the Talking Heads and Zorba the Greek. (Pinker is also vexed by the line “Let’s go crazy,” which he says was “adjured” by “the Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”)[55]
"R" is almost guaranteed for edits toward neutralityThis assumes that the "B" was "toward neutrality", which begs the question. Whether the changes were neutral is exactly what is to be discussed during the "D" part. It seems you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like. That is exactly the reason why we have BRD. It is not "broken". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
there would be many successful edits that make small movements in both directions, that on the whole tend to cancel each other out POVwise [...]— Paleo Neonate – 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
you want to skip the "R" and "D" parts because you already know which "D" result you would like.You have already determined that the "B" changes were "toward neutrality", because you assessed it in a
relatively objectiveway, and therefore the "R" and "D" parts are unnecessary. In other word, other editors should not revert or contradict you because you know what you are doing, because you are the arbiter of neutrality. But they do revert you, and they do contradict you, and they do not accept that you are arbiter, therefore the system is broken.
Too many of the sources are Creationists Steven Collins and Joseph Holden. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Proponent of various WP:FRINGE altmed ideas. Possible NPOV problems with this article. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an imprint of Penguin Books that publishes on the occult. I can't tell whether I should trust books they publish to be out-of-universe, or whether it's a case-by-case thing. Any thoughts? Reason I'm here is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta; there's a brief discussion of gandanta here. It seems in-universe-y, but then again discussions of mythical things often adopt an in-universe style because it's easier than constantly saying "as believers in this thing believe …" AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
only Westerner ever to become a licensed Ayurvedic physicianand someone who
has been studying and practising Vedic astrology since 1968. It's very definitely in-universe, not a view from outside. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Edit conflict at Joy of Satan Ministries. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering. I used it when it was on bulletin boards. Then came the Internet. And then modems that I didn't need to stick my phone into! Doug Weller talk 16:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
A reliable source is not sufficiently denialist to copy Prager's anti-science propaganda word by word, therefore it is not reliable and cannot be used. Discussion on Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This article could stand a little attention. It's rather drastically under-sourced and sports an "in popular culture" junk drawer. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The Race and crime article has long been problematic, and has been discussed on this noticeboard several times before. A fundamental issue, beyond the obvious one of attracting proponents of fringe perspectives, is that it doesn't cover the supposed subject matter from any sort of global perspective. As has been noted on numerous occasions, in practice it only discusses the supposed relationship between 'race' and crime the United States in any detail at all, while managing to imply that it is giving some sort of broader perspective. This is of course entirely misleading, and contrary to Wikipedia policy, given that the article Race and crime in the United States already exists: it is either redundant, or a POV fork. I'd appreciate WP:FTN regulars taking a look, to se if anything merits merging elsewhere, because beyond that, it is an obvious candidate for deletion. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Some interesting recent edits on how to deal with a celebrity doctor's view on all this, a WP:FRINGE connection I'd say. Note potential BLP and COI considerations may apply. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, trying not to let people die, it's not a million miles from what Hitler was doing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This is Bill Warner (writer) (a pen name}} where someone has added the statement " Warner with the help of statistical methods proves that a substantive part of the Islamic doctrine is not religious but falls within the domain of politics." There are three sources for this - all are the subject himself. I think that the use of mathematics to define a religion is fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)