This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Do PragerU videos "contain misleading or factually incorrect information" promoting climate change denial, or do they "contain content widely considered to be misleading or false" promoting climate change denial? Which is the better summary in the lede of the climate change denial section? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I created a new redirect today to Journal of Cosmology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as its illustrious leader seems intent on changing the title of his self-published list of crackpot papers maybe to stay one step ahead of the critics. Anyhow, the article itself isn't quite up to the standards I would like. As far as pseudojournals go, the Journal of Cosmology/Journal of Astrobiology universe is as pseudo as it gets, in my opinion. So can we improve the article to help the reader understand that a little better? jps ( talk) 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
According to whom?! jps ( talk) 17:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Not all sources seem to be MEDRS, but what do I know? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the article text state that Billy Meier's FIGU group is a "UFO religion"? We have several academic sources that call it that. Or should it be removed? Please discuss at Talk:Billy_Meier#Not_a_religion rather than here. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.
[1]
[2]
Sources "on my side"
|
---|
|
References
Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Is
that,
that and
that edits are really undue and fringe as the undoers claimed there?
202.134.10.130 (
talk)
18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, this is about [3]. See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The Azerbaijanis article has a lot of synthy genetic existentialist crap that seems to pervade Turkic articles. The problem is that while the origins are debated and like all cultures 'mixed' but it presents them as being 'mixed' in the present in a way that isn't backed up well. I'm not sure what teh best way to clean this up is.
Also does anyone know if there is a policy about 'genetics' sections in ethnic group articles? They're always always super fringey but i'm hesitant to just nuke whole sections— blindlynx 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
May need more solid sourcing for denialism. The Institute appears in several places in Merchants of Doubt, but I found no really good quotes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Just noticed this for the first time, coming from Pseudohistory, which mentions it; I had thought Asimov had a monopoly on it.
Most of the criticism is ghettoed away in a WP:CSECTION, I suspect the categories could use improving, and maybe other things are wrong with it. I am not competent enough to make it better. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Is [4] an improvement? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
A WP:FRINGE Catholic fundamentalist, has a reputation of defending traditional dogmatic POVs widely considered debunked among mainstream Bible scholars. The point is that the article is bereft of sources which aren't WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB, i.e. lacks sources which are independent of the subject.
Quoted from the article: "In his works, Pitre has consistently defended the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation [...]". The metaphysical reality of transubstantiation is simply not a matter of Bible scholarship: Bible scholars will tell you who defended it and who opposed it, but cannot tell you if it is metaphysically real. Since that is not a matter of historical research, but a matter of official religious dogma. Telling whether it is metaphysically real would require direct access to the Mind of God, and historians are not privy to such information. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Pitre's book will only convince the already convinced. Its basic argument is that an objective investigation by an honest researcher will discover a thoroughly Jewish first-century Jesus with a penchant for present-day Catholic teaching on the real presence. This is exceedingly difficult to swallow and shows an altogether naive confidence in the ability of modernist historical methods to deliver Christian doctrine.
In fact, Pitre's book is not a work that makes a compelling argument but one that uses some words from the New Testament and relatively or very late Jewish sources to re-present Catholic teaching for non-scholarly Catholics. Excavating the roots of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is an important task, but it is not helped by books that use historical scholarship so naively.
— C. Kavin Rowe, George Washington Ivey Distinguished Professor of New Testament; Vice Dean for Faculty, Duke Divinity School
Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.
— T. Bill, Amazon.com
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
naiveis not my own opinion, see the cited article. It wasn't exactly published in a liberal journal. If you want an example, N. T. Wright is conservative, but not naive. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems odd that the biography of physicist and ufologist Bruce Maccabee has only positive information and no "Criticism and controversies" section like Stanton T. Friedman, considering Maccabee publicly supported the Gulf Breeze and Carp, Ontario, Canada "Guardian" UFO cases which have been reasonably argued to have been hoaxes. Maybe an editor could add at least a sentence of some kind to balance it so that it doesn't read like a glowing resume? I don't know if balance has been attempted in the past and reverted. 5Q5| ✉ 13:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Section "Alleged Bigfoot attack" may profit from fringe-savvy editors. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
See [5]. Doug Weller Doug Weller talk 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This issue has been raised at this board many times in the past. The same fringe papers are being cited every year. See talk-page discussion [6]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Article doesn't really get into the science at all. Consequences of anti-maskers = being called a Karen? Entertaining alleged ineffectiveness at reducing COVID-19 transmission, or alleged exaggeration of the threats of the virus
without actually explaining that effectiveness or citing anything resembling MEDRS. Dropping a note here, but admittedly I haven't done anything to try to fix it and won't likely have the capacity in the immediate future. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
12:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
From April 2021 to April 2022, there was a discussion at Talk:James A. Lindsay/Archive 2#Academic label about whether James A. Lindsay, a popular fringe figure on the right, is appropriately classified as a mathematician by profession, and if it should appear in the lead. I think the overall weight of the arguments and discussion show that it should not, so I removed it from the lead section. On the other hand, Jweiss11 has a different reading on the discussion, and added it back. I believe that while it is true that Lindsay studied mathematics in school, and that this should be mentioned in the article about his education, I don’t think it’s appropriate to refer to him as a mathematician in the lead, as he’s never used his education in his career. Jweiss11 thinks differently and points to popular sources calling Lindsay a mathematician, but none of these are especially reliable or compelling. I am posting this here because Lindsay is a leading fringe figure and conspiracy theorist who his supporters defend by using the old argument from authority gambit—"Lindsay has a PhD in mathematics so we should take his theories about the dangers of Cultural Marxism and CRT seriously." I would appreciate if others take a look at this and weigh in. Viriditas ( talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Which sources besides Rabinowitz in The Skeptic label Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist?. It’s somewhat of an unusual request, as Lindsay’s entire schtick is based on ideas that are deeply tied into conspiracy theories. Journalists Joanna Hou, Russell Leung, and Maia Pandey refer to Lindsay as "an author, conspiracy theorist and anti-LGBTQ+ activist" in The Daily Northwestern. [17]. The SPLC has their own page devoted to him documenting his conspiracy theories, calling him a "leading voice" in the "conspiracy propaganda movements". They write, "James Lindsay regularly shares conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world (especially the United States), promotes “groomer” rhetoric against the LGBTQ community and spreads the “white genocide” theory that Marxists want to eradicate the white race. With alarmism and fearmongering, Lindsay incites and segregates his base." [18] Viriditas ( talk) 23:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what the exact religious beliefs of Turning Point USA areWhat an unusual comment! We know what TPUSA believes in terms of religion, it’s been explained here, and has hundreds of sources in the literature explaining it. It’s neither a mystery nor is it unknown. I am unaware of any atheist in the history of atheism speaking on behalf of an extremist, religious organization that wishes to tear down the separation between church and state and replace it with a Christian theocracy, so you’ll forgive me for questioning the sincerity of Lindsay’s so-called atheism. But since he was getting paid between $5-10k per speech, it’s now clear to me that this has little to do with atheism and more to do with the conservative grift we find so often on the right. Viriditas ( talk) 01:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Anything else?Also the other cites you can find in the article. I won't list them for you again here, since you've participated in plenty of prior discussions about them at the article talk page. MrOllie ( talk) 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Some of the sources cited in the "Conspiracy theory promotion" section of the article don't even mention LindsayAnd, of course, some of them do, and they support the point quite directly. MrOllie ( talk) 01:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Lindsay goes on to accuse critical race theory of working to penetrate and undermine “every school, college, university; every workplace, office, hospital; every magazine, journal, newspaper; every television program, movie, website; every government agency, institution, program; every church, synagogue, mosque; every club, affinity, pastime, and interest” in the United States and beyond. Hearing Lindsay’s paranoid speculations, one suspects that before long critical race theory will have inspired the shooter on the grassy knoll, concealed the remaining Romanov children, and — worst of all — ruined my night at the bar.- looks well supported to me. MrOllie ( talk) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Parts of Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources were recently copied into Wikipedia:Reliable sources, see diff here. Given the subject matter I thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 18:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
A new editor is threatening to "dramatically rewrite"
Chronic Lyme disease stating that it is no longer considered pseudoscience or fringe science
. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
A good read, interesting analysis. [30] Doug Weller talk 18:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
There's a lack of consistency across various articles about the state of scientific opinion about if CNEOS 2014-01-08 is confirmed to be an interstellar object and also claims about it being related to alien life.
JaggedHamster ( talk) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Template:Fringe theories was added to the Recent human evolution article last year and is still there; however, the parts criticized as fringe in the accompanying discussion, mainly citations of the unreliable Nicholas Wade, appear to have been removed since then, and the discussion ended more than a year ago. Is this sufficient to remove the template under WP:WTRMT? - LaetusStudiis ( talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Jaime Maussan has recently been in the news regarding alien claims. Worth keeping an eye on and/or expanding with sceptical coverage. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Very strange page created by a Sockpuppet in 2009 of a Kenyan nun who, apparently, says she was visited by Jesus and whatnot. Zero references, and I can't find anything to show notability online. Wonder if it should just be PROD'd. VdSV9• ♫ 19:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This guy is alleged to have lived to 160 but it more likely he died in his 80s. The page has been re-written by a new account with non-English sources and we have statements now such as "He finally attained Enlightenment in the Himalayas at the age of 90 in 1820. His guru was still alive and was 150 years old at the time".
Not sure what to do here. The exact same content was added to the Russian Wikipedia article a few days ago but the article was recently deleted [31] due to the unreliability of the content/translation of the sources.
Some of the newly added sources are suspect, for example Bhowmick, Haripada (2013–2014). শ্রী শ্রী লোকনাথ বাবার জন্মস্থান পূর্ণতীর্থ কচুয়াধাম. I can't find that source online. I see the author has written some books [32] but there is no way to translate these works or verify if the content is accurate. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Psychologist Guy: and @ TrangaBellam: I noticed you guys have remove chunks of unsourced or poorly sourced content from Lokenath Brahmachari. I would request both of you guys kindly look also Trailanga, Vishuddhananda Paramahansa, Mahavatar Babaji, and Tibbetibaba. In these Hindu saints article you'll notice either IPs have added unsourced or poorly sourced content regarding their age or their spiritual powers especially Trailanga and Vishuddhananda Paramahansa. Kindly go through these article and remove such poorly sourced content. Thanks-- Glcris ( talk) 06:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Does anybody know of any sources? See last entry on the Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Is kicking off again, with some sweeping changes being mooted on the Talk page. [40] More eyes welcome. Bon courage ( talk) 18:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPN#Problems with the Controversies section in the Martha G. Welch article Doug Weller talk 21:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
These "Nazca humanoid mummies" are just more fraudulent 'dolls' assembled with the bones stolen from peruvian mummies. Here is part 2 of a 3-part series debunking similar claims, for anyone wanting a quick update. There are some references in the video description but I don't think they pass RS muster. Here is a good one, I think. VdSV9• ♫ 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) One more ref, here. VdSV9• ♫ 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all for the feedback. VdSV9• ♫ 20:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: and @ LuckyLouie: to my surprise, I came across an article actually published in a Biology journal describing how the skull of one of the mummies is probably made from the deteriorated and modified braincase of a llama. Doesn't look like the greatest of journals, but not much is needed for this BS. It was used as a reference to this article (in Portuguese, from Instituto Questão de Ciência), in case you want to use a secondary source. Maybe there are others in English. VdSV9• ♫ 14:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment about whether Vivek Ramaswamy's view on climate change should be labeled as "climate change denial".
It seems like the RfC was started without enough thought put into deciding its statement, as it avoids the real question, which is how Ramaswamy's position on climate change should be described. The RfC creator is also reverting changes to the RfC statement that allow for alternative outcomes. –– FormalDude (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it deserves inclusion in more than a few of our articles. I notice a solid debunking of the "GOFAST" video high speed claims. Also a pretty clear declaration that there is no evidence that any UFO is due to aliens.
Anyway, thought I'd drop it here because so many different articles would likely benefit from including this as a source.
jps ( talk) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
For those who want to check whether Spanish-language sources do say that someone's amputated leg grew back. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
He knew, as this was commonly altogether impossible at any small distance of time and place; so was it extremely difficult, even where one was immediately present, by reason of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of a great part of mankind. He therefore concluded, like a just reasoner, that such an evidence carried falsehood upon the very face of it, and that a miracle, supported by any human testimony, was more properly a subject of derision than of argument.
User:JKim wrote "The data is very contested if not clarly wrong. The floor level was not there at the time of the suposed construction. Nothing about the laser like figures or the strange heavy blocks. Again, info is stuck in XVIII century. A pity." This response just made to a warning I gave in January maybe relevant, I'm not usre. [42] Doug Weller talk 16:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
On Talk:Child sacrifice in Uganda, someone complained that Charisma News should not be used as a source. I agree and I deleted the two instances in the article, but it is still used in several other articles. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Chiropractic_woo_through_the_backdoor (and please go there to discuss to keep it centralized). Thanks. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
We use it in a few articles. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I will confess a bias here: I quite like this tome and have owned one for some time (befitting my morbid fascination with woo). I suppose I can see a tortured way to use it as a source for the sociology and folklore of the "paranormal," but I would say it is generally unreliable absent very particular circumstances. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The Shiva hypothesis article could use an expansion to incorporate criticism the concept has received e.g. This article in OUP out this month > Also, I question the statement in the lead that "coherent catastrophism" is equivalent to the Shiva hypothesis. "coherent catastrophism" gives off strong Velikovskian vibes. It's also not clear to me that "Shiva hypothesis" is the best title for the article, because looking at scholar that name appears rarely used. I think a better title would be "Extinction periodicity". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I see this page has been cited here twice. First time in 2017, when MjolnirPants (I'm not bothering to tag because he retired) said he would look into the page, but I'm guessing he never got to it. And then again in 2018 when @ LuckyLouie: opined that it should be WP:TNT'd. And I agree. It's one of the most pro-FRINGE things I've seen in a while. The lede currently states the most far-fetched claims as facts. The whole "this pilot had so many thousand of hours of flight" thing is very UFO-speak. Those images are also a bit crufty, but maybe I'm being over-zealous. The Leslie Kean book in the "Further Reading" section is very pro-fringe, but I'm not sure if it's okay to keep. I made a couple small changes, will see if I find time for more, but I'm still officially "away from WP" for personal reasons. I think the AP piece by Raeburn already in the references (archived here) should be used more, and Brian Dunning had an episode on it in 2020, which could also be of use. VdSV9• ♫ 19:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh dear lard - just took a look at this page and I'm still shaking my head. I've written a few pages on UFO's and this is overly technical and very pro "a UFO happened here" - some serious work needs to be done here and probably just rewritten completely. Is there someone who wants to take this on, cause I might have time to do it tomorrow. But if I do, it will be a complete rewrite and not a fuss here or there. I want to be sure I'm not stepping on toes if I do. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
A user who is also using two IPs is repeatedly adding original research to the article, see talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Panspermia crank. Article may profit from more eyes. (Fun blog entry from 5 years ago: [45]) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Multiplicity (psychology) feels like it could do with some attention. It's been split recently from Multiplicity (subculture). The bulk of the history section is based on uncritically treating mesmerism/animal magnetism as factual. In general it's lacking context or information from a modern mainstream scientific perspective.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 17:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The death section caught my eye as a potential red flag for fringe:
Douglas died of lung and throat cancer on April 1, 2012 at the home of his sister in La Quinta, California. As his cancer progressed, he wrote of his beliefs about life and death in lengthy, highly philosophical emails to friends. He halted mainstream Western medical treatment in favor of Eastern therapies, abandoned his strict vegan diet and wound up outliving his doctors' prognoses by many months.
Assuming that everything checks out in the sources (I haven't had time to even look), the problem isn't necessarily the individual facts, but rather how they are placed together in this paragraph, and imply (quite deviously I might add), that Eastern medicine and a meat-based diet extended his lifespan by several months and proved the doctors wrong. It's an absurd claim on so many levels that I don't think I need to go into any more detail, as it should be obvious to others. If someone could help fix this, that would be wonderful, as Douglas was a good guy. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the bit about him lighting leaves on fire after he was treated for cancer is in the ==career== section? Am I missing something about his career? Does it have something to do with leaves? Sgerbic ( talk) 18:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Is this edit acceptable? (This is one of the article where IPs regularly remove the fact that ID is pseudoscience.) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
There have been issues on the blue zone article and talk-page which I noted before but I have just seen this article. The article reads as promotional. Pretty much the only sources on the article are The Albert Lea Tribune.
Most of Dan Buettner's claims regarding blue zones are fringe. I suggest that the AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project could be redirected to the Dan Buettner article, which is also in a bad way. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the article be rewritten because it is poorly written and argumentative? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Ergodicity economics is problematic. It is sourced largely to articles by Ole Peters, cites the “London Mathematical Laboratory” (a private organisation run by Peters), and if my spidey sense is right, the editor who created the article seems to share a lot in common with Mr Peters. At a minimum I think the article needs to be de-promotionalised, de-mathcrufted, and positioned as fringe. I’m 50:50 on whether it would survive AfD. What do others think? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Here, I was just warned for inserting fringe content. I'd like some additional opinions, please - am I in fact unknowingly pushing fringe material? Relevant edits are in the recent history of Foreskin, discussion is at Talk:Foreskin#Foreskin_function. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I have just moved Anti-vaccine activism from draft to mainspace. It is still a very short article, and is undoubtedly missing a lot of stuff, including specific notable incidents and theories. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Integrated information theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This possibly WP:FRINGE topic has gotten some attention lately (there was a letter published signed by 124 researchers who criticized the theory as pseudoscience) and I am worried it is suffering from some whitewashing and WP:DUE/ WP:NPOV issues. It could use more eyes.
For example, Steelpillow, feels that this change has "too much PoV bias" whereas I see it as simply providing more context and detail on what is already there. Steelpillow has been fine as far as adding criticism to the lead (where it was not mentioned at all), but I am concerned that the article overall is being governed by people who are sympathetic to the theory (judging from the IP edits and new accounts and such). It has all the hallmarks of any "flaky" theory's article. These are the changes that have been made since I first noticed the article (note again that the extensive criticism was not even in the lead at all).
—DIYeditor ( talk) 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
General FYI: See this discussion at WP:BLPN regarding possible WP:PROFRINGE editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
So us entomologists get to deal with a variety of fringe intersections, but one of our main journals here in the US had a pretty interesting piece that might be of interest to some here. The examples in it might be more of interest to those that deal more directly with politics subjects in the US.
“Debugging” insect-related conspiracy theories, Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Volume 116, Issue 5, September 2023 KoA ( talk) 22:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. It would be appreciated if more experienced editors were involved. TarnishedPath talk 00:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
New WP:PROFRINGE PR article... anybody know any RS for this? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
A prophetess. Article lists predictions that were supposedly accurate, but not, for instance, her prediction that there would be a nuclear war between 2010 and 2014. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Domestic violence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've grown rather exhausted with the WP:IDHT/ WP:CPUSH behavior of a certain editor at this and related articles where they have attempted to challenge the strong consensus that women are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence. If you have the patience for it, see the repetitious argumentation here, here, here, here, here, here, and now here.
In their most recent talk page post they argue for the inclusion of a statistic stating that 1 in 3 men experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime, which is well sourced ( a fact sheet published by the CDC). However, this source defines "violence" very broadly, so that even psychological harms like being stalked are counted as violence. On the other hand, we currently include the statistic in the lead that 1 in 3 women experience domestic violence ( sourced to the WHO), and this is defined narrowly, in terms of actual physical and/or sexual attack. Being WP:NOTDUMB, this recent addition appears to me like it might be the latest attempt by this user to do an end-run around consensus by creating in the mind of the reader a false sense of equivalence between these two very different statistics.
Note that I brought similar concerns about this user to this noticeboard back in August, and that I've made a number of attempts to engage them on their user talk page, most recently here. Any additional eyes on the situation would be welcome. Thanks y'all. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Side issue has been resolved. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Pretty detailed. Now a conflict is starting about how important one specific aspect is. The fringe has a fringe. How is this to be handled? With popcorn or with the big axe? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't use the video, Hafford knows his stuff. This is the video. [51]. The guy running the YouTube channel is good but probably not an rs himself. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The article on vision therapy has serious issues with neutrality and requires revision. This has been pointed out by several people on its talk page over the last few years, and their concerns are continuously dismissed by a single user ( Bon courage), who refuses to allow any edits that attempt to rectify this issue. This user cites several different Wikipedia guidelines to back up their stance – WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, WP:PST, and WP:COI – but it seems to me that contrary to this user's intentions these guidelines back up those who would wish to make the article more neutral. The scientific consensus at present is that vision therapy is effective at treating one disorder: convergence insufficiency, a medical condition marked by a reduced ability to turn the eyes inward, something that constitutes one of the primary components of binocular vision. Convergence insufficiency is found in the general population, but is most often diagnosed in one of two groups: children who struggle with reading or learning to read, and those with a recent brain injury. All of this is uncontroversial and is stated in multiple sources cited in the vision therapy Wiki article itself. The issues begin with the claim made that vision therapy can do more than address convergence insufficiency and related vergence disorders. As the article acknowledges, "vision therapy" is an umbrella term that encompasses a multitude of specific practices, procedures, and exercises aimed at improving ocular function, not limited to convergence insufficiency. Often practitioners of vision therapy will attempt to measure smooth pursuits and saccades, and then prescribe specific treatments aimed at improving ocular function in these areas. As far as I am aware, there are fewer controlled studies examining these other functional deficits and the efficacy of vision therapy at treating them, but scientific research is ongoing and some studies do exist, such as this one. There the result of a controlled study is the claim is that a kind of vision therapy (oculomotor training) is effective at improving saccades and reducing neurobehavioral symptoms for patients exhibiting saccadic dysfunction. So although there is less control tested data regarding other types of functional vision deficits ( which are also common after a brain injury), there is some evidence that certain types of vision therapy are effective at treating these symptoms. This should be reflected in the article. The main problem with the vision therapy article is that it ignores the claims above and insists that vision therapy is a body of knowledge (to quote the opening sentence) "based around the scientific evidences that vision problems are the true underlying cause of learning difficulties, particularly in children." As multiple users have pointed out in the talk section, this is not an accurate representation of general self-understanding or actual practice of those who prescribe vision therapy – usually specially trained optometrists (neuro-optometrists and behavioral optometrists). Generally, these optometrists attempt to treat specific visual deficits that can emerge either in the development of the individual or as a result of a brain injury. These deficits (particularly convergence insufficiency) can lead to difficulties reading and learning more generally – again, there is plenty of empirical evidence for this claim, evidence which the article cites – but this is very different from the claim that learning difficulties in general are all tied back to vision problems. IT is not at all clear that the majority of vision therapy practitioners are making such a strong claim (on this, see the back-and-forth between Lechevaler and Bon courage on the vision therapy talk page). In other words, I am in agreement with Lechevaler that the article's opening paragraph sets up and attacks a straw man.
Of course, as already mentioned, vision therapy is a general category, and it remains an open question which procedures are the most effective for specific visual deficits ( as this scientific paper makes clear). But the Wikipedia article should reflect what is supported empirically, and what is not, as well as the institutional and scientific reasons for doubts around the practice of vision therapy. Claims that lack evidence because there have not been sufficient empirical studies to prove them should not be conflated with claims that have been definitively refuted through such studies. And what really should not be done is to is define vision therapy at the outset as a practice centered around a belief that very few actually hold (namely that "vision problems are the true underlying cause of learning difficulties" in general), and then use the obvious falseness of this belief to claim: "vision therapy has not been shown to be effective according to modern evidence-based medicine." As I have argued, the evidence shows that it is effective at treating some very specific functional vision deficits. In my opinion, the edit executed by Lechevaler and seen here does a significantly better job at a) accurately characterizing the actual practice of vision therapy, b) stating what it can claim to effectively treat as well as which of its claims lack sufficient verification, and c) maintaining a neutral tone in doing so. Unfortunately these edits were removed by Bon courage and the polemical tone as well as the mischaracterizations discussed above were reinstated. AtavisticPillow ( talk) 17:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
From the Talk page: Indeed AS is a hate group, consciously spreading hateful misinformation about Autism. The Autistic community is fighting to repair the damage they do, but with a Wikipedia page like this I understand that we're fighting a uphill battle.
This seems to need more mainstream sources (but not in a separate criticism section). -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same user still promoting conspiracy theories on the talk-page now claiming " I've cited many high-quality secondary (and tertiary) sources supporting the alternative POV that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease". Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
There is one disruptive editor, Atinoua who is ignoring the third opinion, fillibustering, and displaying other types of tendentious editing on this article. Currently, one of the edits they are warring over is to include this:
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement, providing them various equipment including typewriters and fax machines according to a U.S. official.
The source for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is this. A brief AP news clipping from one person's statement. WP:UNDUE unless other RS verify this conspiracy theory. Atinoua's most recent revert here. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 03:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
An uptick of interest in how to summarize Rogan's output, could use eyes. Bon courage ( talk) 14:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
But separate issue, lede has nothing to do with the other much more blandly factual edits that I made in the Neil Young section and the section about Rogan supposed views against trans women participating in "any" sports. These banal corrections Bon courage won't allow, for some unexplainable reason. So please, not just eyes on the hyper easy-to-argue lede. Assuming all parties are just trying to help and be impartial, why don't we start with rereverting my much more indisputable edits (either as they were or with whatever changes necessary). {[User:Destrylevigriffith|Destrylevigriffith]] ( talk) 22:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
trans women competing with women in all forms of amateur and professional women's sports" feels redundant and thus less clear to me. Some articles will be more scrutinized on Wikipedia than others, especially if they cover living people or fringe topics. It's going to be much easier learning the norms and technology while editing the motorcycle suspension page than Joe Rogan's impact on trans teenage athletes. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk) 04:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
See source 6. The article now leans towards his concrete pyramids view. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Accused of conspiracy theories or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
First assessment: the article is mostly PR, WP:ABOUTSELF-like but self-serving, often directly using primary sources with COI. It's long and may violate WP:NOTCV. However, there used to be an apparently more reasonable article before. — Paleo Neonate – 10:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This is not how to do it, but the article should probably still mention it, if there are sources. It does have the category Pseudoscience, which should happen only if the article actually says so. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
As Nostratic languages and the work in this area by Allan R. Bomhard has recently been discussed on this board, I note the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editor Arbomhard regarding these issues. I am inclined to close the discussion there as passing the proposed caution, but would like to give editors working specifically on fringe topics the opportunity to weigh in. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, first time poster, long time reader. There appears to be some attempts at removing one of the paragraphs at this article. [53] [54] [55] [56] (COI editor) [57] [58]
This is referenced in the article [59]. Can I make sure that the reference is OK and my reverts (3, so at my limit) are correct? I did e-mail @ Ad Orientem: in regards to the COI editor and they left them a COI template. I wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. Many thanks, Knitsey ( talk) 17:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Administrator note Page semi-protected x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Would be nice if someone commented on the Talk page on whether abiogenesis is better called a "theory" or "mainstream approach" or whatever else. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It's Halloween season when the paranormal articles briefly awaken and some contend fringe policy doesn't apply. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The wording (which I restored and subsequently cleaned up anyway) is typical of definitions used to define trance mediumship- typical of what. Whose definition. You didn't add a source so it's completely unclear where you're getting this from - is it just your hazy subjective opinion? If you have a source then we need to add it, then we can fix the text to reflect what that source says. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Article about an antivax rumor, new and good but still short. Probably worth watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Another fringe author who died according to no source. Article does not always follow WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion that requires further input at its talk page over the applicability and sourcing of an example in the article. The example is a study which purportedly links power lines to childhood leukemia; the current sourcing for the example is inadequate. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Just making a note of this. I find that the view that information from health regulatory agencies (FDA, CDC, etc.) can not be trusted due to "regulatory capture" is often used as a wedge to prefer information contrary to agency findings on the safety and efficacy of products and practices (or absence thereof). BD2412 T 03:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#RfC:_Should_the_article_include_content_regarding_the_statements_of_the_"Forensic_Architecture"_group? The RfC asks whether the article should note the claims of a group called "Forensic Architecture" relating to the cause of the explosion in Gaza during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Neutrality talk 14:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The FA group is unusual:
You can imagine what I think of this. More eyeballs—and, better yet, input—at the RfC linked above would be most welcome. Neutrality talk 02:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Geez, canvassing with a non-neutral notice, misrepresenting the edit in question (no one is citing a tweet, and no one is citing FA; citing 4 RS reporting on a tweet by FA is a crucial difference, not lost on an admin who has been here forever), and then hatting all the responses? You know that old saying about editors who have "truth" or "neutrality" in their username... Don't do this again. Levivich ( talk) 16:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Loads of fringe claims have been resurrected. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
if one says that Gann reasoned so-and-so, that must be verifiable from Gann, and not someone else. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is going on at RSN. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by Anthroposophists are not RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Water_ionizer#Water_Ionizers I am being accused of violating NPOV and 'Status Quo Stonewalling on an article that seriously lacks NPOV' on this article, which is about pseudo-scientific devices used to produce 'Alkaline water', which proponents argue has numerous health benefits. More voices at the article talk would be very much appreciated. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Wrote against Satanic Panic (amongst other things). IPs (probably one person) added lots of stuff in October, most of which seems inappropriate to me, so I blanket-reverted. More eyes may be useful. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, this whole section is WP:FRINGE. E.g. Gail Dines is not an expert on brains, why should we trust her judgment about human brains? Further, correlation does not prove causation. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Dubious conspiracist guy, article looks whitewashed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This article has recently been white-washed after Hanania has complained on the talk-page [63]. Richard Hanania is a white nationalist who has written articles for various neo-nazi magazines such as Counter-Currents, Occidental Observer and VDARE. If you check the old lead [64], many sources have now been removed. The lead now says "Richard Hanania is an American right-wing academic". Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"a white nationalist who has written articles for various neo-nazi magazines"maybe, but he wrote those blog posts in 2008-2012 and has disavowed them as wrong. So the article seems pretty balanced (not "white washed") to clarify that.
"mention of significant criticism or controversies". Many experienced users on the talk page have suggested the significant prominence given to his (since disavowed) opinion pieces from 2008 constitutes NPOV. Putting "right wing" before academic seems strange, hence I put it in the second sentence that
He has been described as right wing and libertarian, and a supporter of "enlightened centrism". Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"Political science researcher". Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This came to my attention because an editor keeps adding stuff in about Sam Harris which looks rather COATRACK-y. However, more generally there was an AfD on this article which was closed with a redirect, which has not happened. In my understanding this podcast is pretty much a platform for all things fringe and culture wars, but I don't think it's received much attention from good sources. More eyes welcome. Bon courage ( talk) 12:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
See talk page Parham wiki ( talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on German Wikipedia spilled over here. Is a professor of media studies, writing in a journalistic source, relevant? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Galactic Federation (ufology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Found this article because I'm working on Scientology topics and the page creator mistakenly tied together Scientology and... what is this stuff. The topic seems to have been discussed back in 2020 at FTN Archive 76, but that was before this article was created. I have no clue about this topic but it sure looks hokum FRINGE to me. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Do PragerU videos "contain misleading or factually incorrect information" promoting climate change denial, or do they "contain content widely considered to be misleading or false" promoting climate change denial? Which is the better summary in the lede of the climate change denial section? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I created a new redirect today to Journal of Cosmology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as its illustrious leader seems intent on changing the title of his self-published list of crackpot papers maybe to stay one step ahead of the critics. Anyhow, the article itself isn't quite up to the standards I would like. As far as pseudojournals go, the Journal of Cosmology/Journal of Astrobiology universe is as pseudo as it gets, in my opinion. So can we improve the article to help the reader understand that a little better? jps ( talk) 15:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
According to whom?! jps ( talk) 17:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Not all sources seem to be MEDRS, but what do I know? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the article text state that Billy Meier's FIGU group is a "UFO religion"? We have several academic sources that call it that. Or should it be removed? Please discuss at Talk:Billy_Meier#Not_a_religion rather than here. Thanks, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.
[1]
[2]
Sources "on my side"
|
---|
|
References
Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Is
that,
that and
that edits are really undue and fringe as the undoers claimed there?
202.134.10.130 (
talk)
18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, this is about [3]. See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The Azerbaijanis article has a lot of synthy genetic existentialist crap that seems to pervade Turkic articles. The problem is that while the origins are debated and like all cultures 'mixed' but it presents them as being 'mixed' in the present in a way that isn't backed up well. I'm not sure what teh best way to clean this up is.
Also does anyone know if there is a policy about 'genetics' sections in ethnic group articles? They're always always super fringey but i'm hesitant to just nuke whole sections— blindlynx 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
May need more solid sourcing for denialism. The Institute appears in several places in Merchants of Doubt, but I found no really good quotes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Just noticed this for the first time, coming from Pseudohistory, which mentions it; I had thought Asimov had a monopoly on it.
Most of the criticism is ghettoed away in a WP:CSECTION, I suspect the categories could use improving, and maybe other things are wrong with it. I am not competent enough to make it better. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Is [4] an improvement? Doug Weller talk 13:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
A WP:FRINGE Catholic fundamentalist, has a reputation of defending traditional dogmatic POVs widely considered debunked among mainstream Bible scholars. The point is that the article is bereft of sources which aren't WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB, i.e. lacks sources which are independent of the subject.
Quoted from the article: "In his works, Pitre has consistently defended the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation [...]". The metaphysical reality of transubstantiation is simply not a matter of Bible scholarship: Bible scholars will tell you who defended it and who opposed it, but cannot tell you if it is metaphysically real. Since that is not a matter of historical research, but a matter of official religious dogma. Telling whether it is metaphysically real would require direct access to the Mind of God, and historians are not privy to such information. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Pitre's book will only convince the already convinced. Its basic argument is that an objective investigation by an honest researcher will discover a thoroughly Jewish first-century Jesus with a penchant for present-day Catholic teaching on the real presence. This is exceedingly difficult to swallow and shows an altogether naive confidence in the ability of modernist historical methods to deliver Christian doctrine.
In fact, Pitre's book is not a work that makes a compelling argument but one that uses some words from the New Testament and relatively or very late Jewish sources to re-present Catholic teaching for non-scholarly Catholics. Excavating the roots of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is an important task, but it is not helped by books that use historical scholarship so naively.
— C. Kavin Rowe, George Washington Ivey Distinguished Professor of New Testament; Vice Dean for Faculty, Duke Divinity School
Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class.
— T. Bill, Amazon.com
Most Catholics are aware that the New American Bible is authorized by the USCCB. It's the Catholic Bible
What does the NAB say on the subject of the gospel's authorship?
Matthew: "the unknown author." NAB 1008
Mark: "although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading 'According to Mark,' in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark.." (NAB 1064)
Luke: "Early Christian tradition, from the late 2nd century on, identifies the author of this gospel...as Luke." (This means roughly 175 years had passed before an author's name was affixed to this gospel.
"And the prologue to this gospel makes it clear that Luke was not is not part of the 1st generation of Christian disciples, but is himself dependent on traditions." NAB 1091
On John: "Although tradition identifies [the author] as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this." (1136)
In other words, the New American Bible states that we-simply-do-not-know who's the author of any of the four gospels. The NAB does not say, or imply, that the majority of Biblical scholars has it wrong that the gospels are works that are fundamentally anonymous.
If you're a Catholic, you no doubt have your own copy of the NAB, and can check this out for yourself.
— religio criticus, Amazon.com
naiveis not my own opinion, see the cited article. It wasn't exactly published in a liberal journal. If you want an example, N. T. Wright is conservative, but not naive. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems odd that the biography of physicist and ufologist Bruce Maccabee has only positive information and no "Criticism and controversies" section like Stanton T. Friedman, considering Maccabee publicly supported the Gulf Breeze and Carp, Ontario, Canada "Guardian" UFO cases which have been reasonably argued to have been hoaxes. Maybe an editor could add at least a sentence of some kind to balance it so that it doesn't read like a glowing resume? I don't know if balance has been attempted in the past and reverted. 5Q5| ✉ 13:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Section "Alleged Bigfoot attack" may profit from fringe-savvy editors. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
See [5]. Doug Weller Doug Weller talk 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This issue has been raised at this board many times in the past. The same fringe papers are being cited every year. See talk-page discussion [6]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Article doesn't really get into the science at all. Consequences of anti-maskers = being called a Karen? Entertaining alleged ineffectiveness at reducing COVID-19 transmission, or alleged exaggeration of the threats of the virus
without actually explaining that effectiveness or citing anything resembling MEDRS. Dropping a note here, but admittedly I haven't done anything to try to fix it and won't likely have the capacity in the immediate future. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
12:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
From April 2021 to April 2022, there was a discussion at Talk:James A. Lindsay/Archive 2#Academic label about whether James A. Lindsay, a popular fringe figure on the right, is appropriately classified as a mathematician by profession, and if it should appear in the lead. I think the overall weight of the arguments and discussion show that it should not, so I removed it from the lead section. On the other hand, Jweiss11 has a different reading on the discussion, and added it back. I believe that while it is true that Lindsay studied mathematics in school, and that this should be mentioned in the article about his education, I don’t think it’s appropriate to refer to him as a mathematician in the lead, as he’s never used his education in his career. Jweiss11 thinks differently and points to popular sources calling Lindsay a mathematician, but none of these are especially reliable or compelling. I am posting this here because Lindsay is a leading fringe figure and conspiracy theorist who his supporters defend by using the old argument from authority gambit—"Lindsay has a PhD in mathematics so we should take his theories about the dangers of Cultural Marxism and CRT seriously." I would appreciate if others take a look at this and weigh in. Viriditas ( talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Which sources besides Rabinowitz in The Skeptic label Lindsay as a conspiracy theorist?. It’s somewhat of an unusual request, as Lindsay’s entire schtick is based on ideas that are deeply tied into conspiracy theories. Journalists Joanna Hou, Russell Leung, and Maia Pandey refer to Lindsay as "an author, conspiracy theorist and anti-LGBTQ+ activist" in The Daily Northwestern. [17]. The SPLC has their own page devoted to him documenting his conspiracy theories, calling him a "leading voice" in the "conspiracy propaganda movements". They write, "James Lindsay regularly shares conspiracy theories about the supposed communist takeover of the world (especially the United States), promotes “groomer” rhetoric against the LGBTQ community and spreads the “white genocide” theory that Marxists want to eradicate the white race. With alarmism and fearmongering, Lindsay incites and segregates his base." [18] Viriditas ( talk) 23:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what the exact religious beliefs of Turning Point USA areWhat an unusual comment! We know what TPUSA believes in terms of religion, it’s been explained here, and has hundreds of sources in the literature explaining it. It’s neither a mystery nor is it unknown. I am unaware of any atheist in the history of atheism speaking on behalf of an extremist, religious organization that wishes to tear down the separation between church and state and replace it with a Christian theocracy, so you’ll forgive me for questioning the sincerity of Lindsay’s so-called atheism. But since he was getting paid between $5-10k per speech, it’s now clear to me that this has little to do with atheism and more to do with the conservative grift we find so often on the right. Viriditas ( talk) 01:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Anything else?Also the other cites you can find in the article. I won't list them for you again here, since you've participated in plenty of prior discussions about them at the article talk page. MrOllie ( talk) 00:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Some of the sources cited in the "Conspiracy theory promotion" section of the article don't even mention LindsayAnd, of course, some of them do, and they support the point quite directly. MrOllie ( talk) 01:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Lindsay goes on to accuse critical race theory of working to penetrate and undermine “every school, college, university; every workplace, office, hospital; every magazine, journal, newspaper; every television program, movie, website; every government agency, institution, program; every church, synagogue, mosque; every club, affinity, pastime, and interest” in the United States and beyond. Hearing Lindsay’s paranoid speculations, one suspects that before long critical race theory will have inspired the shooter on the grassy knoll, concealed the remaining Romanov children, and — worst of all — ruined my night at the bar.- looks well supported to me. MrOllie ( talk) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Parts of Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources were recently copied into Wikipedia:Reliable sources, see diff here. Given the subject matter I thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 18:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
A new editor is threatening to "dramatically rewrite"
Chronic Lyme disease stating that it is no longer considered pseudoscience or fringe science
. More eyes on the situation would be appreciated.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
A good read, interesting analysis. [30] Doug Weller talk 18:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
There's a lack of consistency across various articles about the state of scientific opinion about if CNEOS 2014-01-08 is confirmed to be an interstellar object and also claims about it being related to alien life.
JaggedHamster ( talk) 19:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Template:Fringe theories was added to the Recent human evolution article last year and is still there; however, the parts criticized as fringe in the accompanying discussion, mainly citations of the unreliable Nicholas Wade, appear to have been removed since then, and the discussion ended more than a year ago. Is this sufficient to remove the template under WP:WTRMT? - LaetusStudiis ( talk) 05:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Jaime Maussan has recently been in the news regarding alien claims. Worth keeping an eye on and/or expanding with sceptical coverage. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Very strange page created by a Sockpuppet in 2009 of a Kenyan nun who, apparently, says she was visited by Jesus and whatnot. Zero references, and I can't find anything to show notability online. Wonder if it should just be PROD'd. VdSV9• ♫ 19:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This guy is alleged to have lived to 160 but it more likely he died in his 80s. The page has been re-written by a new account with non-English sources and we have statements now such as "He finally attained Enlightenment in the Himalayas at the age of 90 in 1820. His guru was still alive and was 150 years old at the time".
Not sure what to do here. The exact same content was added to the Russian Wikipedia article a few days ago but the article was recently deleted [31] due to the unreliability of the content/translation of the sources.
Some of the newly added sources are suspect, for example Bhowmick, Haripada (2013–2014). শ্রী শ্রী লোকনাথ বাবার জন্মস্থান পূর্ণতীর্থ কচুয়াধাম. I can't find that source online. I see the author has written some books [32] but there is no way to translate these works or verify if the content is accurate. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Psychologist Guy: and @ TrangaBellam: I noticed you guys have remove chunks of unsourced or poorly sourced content from Lokenath Brahmachari. I would request both of you guys kindly look also Trailanga, Vishuddhananda Paramahansa, Mahavatar Babaji, and Tibbetibaba. In these Hindu saints article you'll notice either IPs have added unsourced or poorly sourced content regarding their age or their spiritual powers especially Trailanga and Vishuddhananda Paramahansa. Kindly go through these article and remove such poorly sourced content. Thanks-- Glcris ( talk) 06:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Does anybody know of any sources? See last entry on the Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Is kicking off again, with some sweeping changes being mooted on the Talk page. [40] More eyes welcome. Bon courage ( talk) 18:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPN#Problems with the Controversies section in the Martha G. Welch article Doug Weller talk 21:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
These "Nazca humanoid mummies" are just more fraudulent 'dolls' assembled with the bones stolen from peruvian mummies. Here is part 2 of a 3-part series debunking similar claims, for anyone wanting a quick update. There are some references in the video description but I don't think they pass RS muster. Here is a good one, I think. VdSV9• ♫ 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) One more ref, here. VdSV9• ♫ 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all for the feedback. VdSV9• ♫ 20:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven: and @ LuckyLouie: to my surprise, I came across an article actually published in a Biology journal describing how the skull of one of the mummies is probably made from the deteriorated and modified braincase of a llama. Doesn't look like the greatest of journals, but not much is needed for this BS. It was used as a reference to this article (in Portuguese, from Instituto Questão de Ciência), in case you want to use a secondary source. Maybe there are others in English. VdSV9• ♫ 14:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment about whether Vivek Ramaswamy's view on climate change should be labeled as "climate change denial".
It seems like the RfC was started without enough thought put into deciding its statement, as it avoids the real question, which is how Ramaswamy's position on climate change should be described. The RfC creator is also reverting changes to the RfC statement that allow for alternative outcomes. –– FormalDude (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it deserves inclusion in more than a few of our articles. I notice a solid debunking of the "GOFAST" video high speed claims. Also a pretty clear declaration that there is no evidence that any UFO is due to aliens.
Anyway, thought I'd drop it here because so many different articles would likely benefit from including this as a source.
jps ( talk) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
For those who want to check whether Spanish-language sources do say that someone's amputated leg grew back. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
He knew, as this was commonly altogether impossible at any small distance of time and place; so was it extremely difficult, even where one was immediately present, by reason of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of a great part of mankind. He therefore concluded, like a just reasoner, that such an evidence carried falsehood upon the very face of it, and that a miracle, supported by any human testimony, was more properly a subject of derision than of argument.
User:JKim wrote "The data is very contested if not clarly wrong. The floor level was not there at the time of the suposed construction. Nothing about the laser like figures or the strange heavy blocks. Again, info is stuck in XVIII century. A pity." This response just made to a warning I gave in January maybe relevant, I'm not usre. [42] Doug Weller talk 16:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
On Talk:Child sacrifice in Uganda, someone complained that Charisma News should not be used as a source. I agree and I deleted the two instances in the article, but it is still used in several other articles. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Chiropractic_woo_through_the_backdoor (and please go there to discuss to keep it centralized). Thanks. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
We use it in a few articles. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I will confess a bias here: I quite like this tome and have owned one for some time (befitting my morbid fascination with woo). I suppose I can see a tortured way to use it as a source for the sociology and folklore of the "paranormal," but I would say it is generally unreliable absent very particular circumstances. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The Shiva hypothesis article could use an expansion to incorporate criticism the concept has received e.g. This article in OUP out this month > Also, I question the statement in the lead that "coherent catastrophism" is equivalent to the Shiva hypothesis. "coherent catastrophism" gives off strong Velikovskian vibes. It's also not clear to me that "Shiva hypothesis" is the best title for the article, because looking at scholar that name appears rarely used. I think a better title would be "Extinction periodicity". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I see this page has been cited here twice. First time in 2017, when MjolnirPants (I'm not bothering to tag because he retired) said he would look into the page, but I'm guessing he never got to it. And then again in 2018 when @ LuckyLouie: opined that it should be WP:TNT'd. And I agree. It's one of the most pro-FRINGE things I've seen in a while. The lede currently states the most far-fetched claims as facts. The whole "this pilot had so many thousand of hours of flight" thing is very UFO-speak. Those images are also a bit crufty, but maybe I'm being over-zealous. The Leslie Kean book in the "Further Reading" section is very pro-fringe, but I'm not sure if it's okay to keep. I made a couple small changes, will see if I find time for more, but I'm still officially "away from WP" for personal reasons. I think the AP piece by Raeburn already in the references (archived here) should be used more, and Brian Dunning had an episode on it in 2020, which could also be of use. VdSV9• ♫ 19:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh dear lard - just took a look at this page and I'm still shaking my head. I've written a few pages on UFO's and this is overly technical and very pro "a UFO happened here" - some serious work needs to be done here and probably just rewritten completely. Is there someone who wants to take this on, cause I might have time to do it tomorrow. But if I do, it will be a complete rewrite and not a fuss here or there. I want to be sure I'm not stepping on toes if I do. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
A user who is also using two IPs is repeatedly adding original research to the article, see talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Panspermia crank. Article may profit from more eyes. (Fun blog entry from 5 years ago: [45]) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Multiplicity (psychology) feels like it could do with some attention. It's been split recently from Multiplicity (subculture). The bulk of the history section is based on uncritically treating mesmerism/animal magnetism as factual. In general it's lacking context or information from a modern mainstream scientific perspective.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 17:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The death section caught my eye as a potential red flag for fringe:
Douglas died of lung and throat cancer on April 1, 2012 at the home of his sister in La Quinta, California. As his cancer progressed, he wrote of his beliefs about life and death in lengthy, highly philosophical emails to friends. He halted mainstream Western medical treatment in favor of Eastern therapies, abandoned his strict vegan diet and wound up outliving his doctors' prognoses by many months.
Assuming that everything checks out in the sources (I haven't had time to even look), the problem isn't necessarily the individual facts, but rather how they are placed together in this paragraph, and imply (quite deviously I might add), that Eastern medicine and a meat-based diet extended his lifespan by several months and proved the doctors wrong. It's an absurd claim on so many levels that I don't think I need to go into any more detail, as it should be obvious to others. If someone could help fix this, that would be wonderful, as Douglas was a good guy. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the bit about him lighting leaves on fire after he was treated for cancer is in the ==career== section? Am I missing something about his career? Does it have something to do with leaves? Sgerbic ( talk) 18:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Is this edit acceptable? (This is one of the article where IPs regularly remove the fact that ID is pseudoscience.) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
There have been issues on the blue zone article and talk-page which I noted before but I have just seen this article. The article reads as promotional. Pretty much the only sources on the article are The Albert Lea Tribune.
Most of Dan Buettner's claims regarding blue zones are fringe. I suggest that the AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project could be redirected to the Dan Buettner article, which is also in a bad way. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the article be rewritten because it is poorly written and argumentative? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Ergodicity economics is problematic. It is sourced largely to articles by Ole Peters, cites the “London Mathematical Laboratory” (a private organisation run by Peters), and if my spidey sense is right, the editor who created the article seems to share a lot in common with Mr Peters. At a minimum I think the article needs to be de-promotionalised, de-mathcrufted, and positioned as fringe. I’m 50:50 on whether it would survive AfD. What do others think? Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Here, I was just warned for inserting fringe content. I'd like some additional opinions, please - am I in fact unknowingly pushing fringe material? Relevant edits are in the recent history of Foreskin, discussion is at Talk:Foreskin#Foreskin_function. - MrOllie ( talk) 02:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I have just moved Anti-vaccine activism from draft to mainspace. It is still a very short article, and is undoubtedly missing a lot of stuff, including specific notable incidents and theories. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Integrated information theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This possibly WP:FRINGE topic has gotten some attention lately (there was a letter published signed by 124 researchers who criticized the theory as pseudoscience) and I am worried it is suffering from some whitewashing and WP:DUE/ WP:NPOV issues. It could use more eyes.
For example, Steelpillow, feels that this change has "too much PoV bias" whereas I see it as simply providing more context and detail on what is already there. Steelpillow has been fine as far as adding criticism to the lead (where it was not mentioned at all), but I am concerned that the article overall is being governed by people who are sympathetic to the theory (judging from the IP edits and new accounts and such). It has all the hallmarks of any "flaky" theory's article. These are the changes that have been made since I first noticed the article (note again that the extensive criticism was not even in the lead at all).
—DIYeditor ( talk) 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
General FYI: See this discussion at WP:BLPN regarding possible WP:PROFRINGE editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
So us entomologists get to deal with a variety of fringe intersections, but one of our main journals here in the US had a pretty interesting piece that might be of interest to some here. The examples in it might be more of interest to those that deal more directly with politics subjects in the US.
“Debugging” insect-related conspiracy theories, Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Volume 116, Issue 5, September 2023 KoA ( talk) 22:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. It would be appreciated if more experienced editors were involved. TarnishedPath talk 00:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
New WP:PROFRINGE PR article... anybody know any RS for this? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
A prophetess. Article lists predictions that were supposedly accurate, but not, for instance, her prediction that there would be a nuclear war between 2010 and 2014. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Domestic violence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've grown rather exhausted with the WP:IDHT/ WP:CPUSH behavior of a certain editor at this and related articles where they have attempted to challenge the strong consensus that women are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence. If you have the patience for it, see the repetitious argumentation here, here, here, here, here, here, and now here.
In their most recent talk page post they argue for the inclusion of a statistic stating that 1 in 3 men experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime, which is well sourced ( a fact sheet published by the CDC). However, this source defines "violence" very broadly, so that even psychological harms like being stalked are counted as violence. On the other hand, we currently include the statistic in the lead that 1 in 3 women experience domestic violence ( sourced to the WHO), and this is defined narrowly, in terms of actual physical and/or sexual attack. Being WP:NOTDUMB, this recent addition appears to me like it might be the latest attempt by this user to do an end-run around consensus by creating in the mind of the reader a false sense of equivalence between these two very different statistics.
Note that I brought similar concerns about this user to this noticeboard back in August, and that I've made a number of attempts to engage them on their user talk page, most recently here. Any additional eyes on the situation would be welcome. Thanks y'all. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Side issue has been resolved. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Pretty detailed. Now a conflict is starting about how important one specific aspect is. The fringe has a fringe. How is this to be handled? With popcorn or with the big axe? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why we can't use the video, Hafford knows his stuff. This is the video. [51]. The guy running the YouTube channel is good but probably not an rs himself. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The article on vision therapy has serious issues with neutrality and requires revision. This has been pointed out by several people on its talk page over the last few years, and their concerns are continuously dismissed by a single user ( Bon courage), who refuses to allow any edits that attempt to rectify this issue. This user cites several different Wikipedia guidelines to back up their stance – WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, WP:PST, and WP:COI – but it seems to me that contrary to this user's intentions these guidelines back up those who would wish to make the article more neutral. The scientific consensus at present is that vision therapy is effective at treating one disorder: convergence insufficiency, a medical condition marked by a reduced ability to turn the eyes inward, something that constitutes one of the primary components of binocular vision. Convergence insufficiency is found in the general population, but is most often diagnosed in one of two groups: children who struggle with reading or learning to read, and those with a recent brain injury. All of this is uncontroversial and is stated in multiple sources cited in the vision therapy Wiki article itself. The issues begin with the claim made that vision therapy can do more than address convergence insufficiency and related vergence disorders. As the article acknowledges, "vision therapy" is an umbrella term that encompasses a multitude of specific practices, procedures, and exercises aimed at improving ocular function, not limited to convergence insufficiency. Often practitioners of vision therapy will attempt to measure smooth pursuits and saccades, and then prescribe specific treatments aimed at improving ocular function in these areas. As far as I am aware, there are fewer controlled studies examining these other functional deficits and the efficacy of vision therapy at treating them, but scientific research is ongoing and some studies do exist, such as this one. There the result of a controlled study is the claim is that a kind of vision therapy (oculomotor training) is effective at improving saccades and reducing neurobehavioral symptoms for patients exhibiting saccadic dysfunction. So although there is less control tested data regarding other types of functional vision deficits ( which are also common after a brain injury), there is some evidence that certain types of vision therapy are effective at treating these symptoms. This should be reflected in the article. The main problem with the vision therapy article is that it ignores the claims above and insists that vision therapy is a body of knowledge (to quote the opening sentence) "based around the scientific evidences that vision problems are the true underlying cause of learning difficulties, particularly in children." As multiple users have pointed out in the talk section, this is not an accurate representation of general self-understanding or actual practice of those who prescribe vision therapy – usually specially trained optometrists (neuro-optometrists and behavioral optometrists). Generally, these optometrists attempt to treat specific visual deficits that can emerge either in the development of the individual or as a result of a brain injury. These deficits (particularly convergence insufficiency) can lead to difficulties reading and learning more generally – again, there is plenty of empirical evidence for this claim, evidence which the article cites – but this is very different from the claim that learning difficulties in general are all tied back to vision problems. IT is not at all clear that the majority of vision therapy practitioners are making such a strong claim (on this, see the back-and-forth between Lechevaler and Bon courage on the vision therapy talk page). In other words, I am in agreement with Lechevaler that the article's opening paragraph sets up and attacks a straw man.
Of course, as already mentioned, vision therapy is a general category, and it remains an open question which procedures are the most effective for specific visual deficits ( as this scientific paper makes clear). But the Wikipedia article should reflect what is supported empirically, and what is not, as well as the institutional and scientific reasons for doubts around the practice of vision therapy. Claims that lack evidence because there have not been sufficient empirical studies to prove them should not be conflated with claims that have been definitively refuted through such studies. And what really should not be done is to is define vision therapy at the outset as a practice centered around a belief that very few actually hold (namely that "vision problems are the true underlying cause of learning difficulties" in general), and then use the obvious falseness of this belief to claim: "vision therapy has not been shown to be effective according to modern evidence-based medicine." As I have argued, the evidence shows that it is effective at treating some very specific functional vision deficits. In my opinion, the edit executed by Lechevaler and seen here does a significantly better job at a) accurately characterizing the actual practice of vision therapy, b) stating what it can claim to effectively treat as well as which of its claims lack sufficient verification, and c) maintaining a neutral tone in doing so. Unfortunately these edits were removed by Bon courage and the polemical tone as well as the mischaracterizations discussed above were reinstated. AtavisticPillow ( talk) 17:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
From the Talk page: Indeed AS is a hate group, consciously spreading hateful misinformation about Autism. The Autistic community is fighting to repair the damage they do, but with a Wikipedia page like this I understand that we're fighting a uphill battle.
This seems to need more mainstream sources (but not in a separate criticism section). -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same user still promoting conspiracy theories on the talk-page now claiming " I've cited many high-quality secondary (and tertiary) sources supporting the alternative POV that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease". Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
There is one disruptive editor, Atinoua who is ignoring the third opinion, fillibustering, and displaying other types of tendentious editing on this article. Currently, one of the edits they are warring over is to include this:
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement, providing them various equipment including typewriters and fax machines according to a U.S. official.
The source for this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is this. A brief AP news clipping from one person's statement. WP:UNDUE unless other RS verify this conspiracy theory. Atinoua's most recent revert here. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 03:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
An uptick of interest in how to summarize Rogan's output, could use eyes. Bon courage ( talk) 14:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
But separate issue, lede has nothing to do with the other much more blandly factual edits that I made in the Neil Young section and the section about Rogan supposed views against trans women participating in "any" sports. These banal corrections Bon courage won't allow, for some unexplainable reason. So please, not just eyes on the hyper easy-to-argue lede. Assuming all parties are just trying to help and be impartial, why don't we start with rereverting my much more indisputable edits (either as they were or with whatever changes necessary). {[User:Destrylevigriffith|Destrylevigriffith]] ( talk) 22:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
trans women competing with women in all forms of amateur and professional women's sports" feels redundant and thus less clear to me. Some articles will be more scrutinized on Wikipedia than others, especially if they cover living people or fringe topics. It's going to be much easier learning the norms and technology while editing the motorcycle suspension page than Joe Rogan's impact on trans teenage athletes. Regards, Rjjiii ( talk) 04:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
See source 6. The article now leans towards his concrete pyramids view. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Accused of conspiracy theories or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
First assessment: the article is mostly PR, WP:ABOUTSELF-like but self-serving, often directly using primary sources with COI. It's long and may violate WP:NOTCV. However, there used to be an apparently more reasonable article before. — Paleo Neonate – 10:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This is not how to do it, but the article should probably still mention it, if there are sources. It does have the category Pseudoscience, which should happen only if the article actually says so. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
As Nostratic languages and the work in this area by Allan R. Bomhard has recently been discussed on this board, I note the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editor Arbomhard regarding these issues. I am inclined to close the discussion there as passing the proposed caution, but would like to give editors working specifically on fringe topics the opportunity to weigh in. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, first time poster, long time reader. There appears to be some attempts at removing one of the paragraphs at this article. [53] [54] [55] [56] (COI editor) [57] [58]
This is referenced in the article [59]. Can I make sure that the reference is OK and my reverts (3, so at my limit) are correct? I did e-mail @ Ad Orientem: in regards to the COI editor and they left them a COI template. I wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. Many thanks, Knitsey ( talk) 17:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Administrator note Page semi-protected x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Would be nice if someone commented on the Talk page on whether abiogenesis is better called a "theory" or "mainstream approach" or whatever else. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It's Halloween season when the paranormal articles briefly awaken and some contend fringe policy doesn't apply. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The wording (which I restored and subsequently cleaned up anyway) is typical of definitions used to define trance mediumship- typical of what. Whose definition. You didn't add a source so it's completely unclear where you're getting this from - is it just your hazy subjective opinion? If you have a source then we need to add it, then we can fix the text to reflect what that source says. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Article about an antivax rumor, new and good but still short. Probably worth watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Another fringe author who died according to no source. Article does not always follow WP:FRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion that requires further input at its talk page over the applicability and sourcing of an example in the article. The example is a study which purportedly links power lines to childhood leukemia; the current sourcing for the example is inadequate. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Just making a note of this. I find that the view that information from health regulatory agencies (FDA, CDC, etc.) can not be trusted due to "regulatory capture" is often used as a wedge to prefer information contrary to agency findings on the safety and efficacy of products and practices (or absence thereof). BD2412 T 03:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#RfC:_Should_the_article_include_content_regarding_the_statements_of_the_"Forensic_Architecture"_group? The RfC asks whether the article should note the claims of a group called "Forensic Architecture" relating to the cause of the explosion in Gaza during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Neutrality talk 14:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The FA group is unusual:
You can imagine what I think of this. More eyeballs—and, better yet, input—at the RfC linked above would be most welcome. Neutrality talk 02:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Geez, canvassing with a non-neutral notice, misrepresenting the edit in question (no one is citing a tweet, and no one is citing FA; citing 4 RS reporting on a tweet by FA is a crucial difference, not lost on an admin who has been here forever), and then hatting all the responses? You know that old saying about editors who have "truth" or "neutrality" in their username... Don't do this again. Levivich ( talk) 16:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Loads of fringe claims have been resurrected. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
if one says that Gann reasoned so-and-so, that must be verifiable from Gann, and not someone else. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is going on at RSN. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by Anthroposophists are not RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Water_ionizer#Water_Ionizers I am being accused of violating NPOV and 'Status Quo Stonewalling on an article that seriously lacks NPOV' on this article, which is about pseudo-scientific devices used to produce 'Alkaline water', which proponents argue has numerous health benefits. More voices at the article talk would be very much appreciated. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Wrote against Satanic Panic (amongst other things). IPs (probably one person) added lots of stuff in October, most of which seems inappropriate to me, so I blanket-reverted. More eyes may be useful. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, this whole section is WP:FRINGE. E.g. Gail Dines is not an expert on brains, why should we trust her judgment about human brains? Further, correlation does not prove causation. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Dubious conspiracist guy, article looks whitewashed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This article has recently been white-washed after Hanania has complained on the talk-page [63]. Richard Hanania is a white nationalist who has written articles for various neo-nazi magazines such as Counter-Currents, Occidental Observer and VDARE. If you check the old lead [64], many sources have now been removed. The lead now says "Richard Hanania is an American right-wing academic". Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"a white nationalist who has written articles for various neo-nazi magazines"maybe, but he wrote those blog posts in 2008-2012 and has disavowed them as wrong. So the article seems pretty balanced (not "white washed") to clarify that.
"mention of significant criticism or controversies". Many experienced users on the talk page have suggested the significant prominence given to his (since disavowed) opinion pieces from 2008 constitutes NPOV. Putting "right wing" before academic seems strange, hence I put it in the second sentence that
He has been described as right wing and libertarian, and a supporter of "enlightened centrism". Zenomonoz ( talk) 00:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"Political science researcher". Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This came to my attention because an editor keeps adding stuff in about Sam Harris which looks rather COATRACK-y. However, more generally there was an AfD on this article which was closed with a redirect, which has not happened. In my understanding this podcast is pretty much a platform for all things fringe and culture wars, but I don't think it's received much attention from good sources. More eyes welcome. Bon courage ( talk) 12:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
See talk page Parham wiki ( talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on German Wikipedia spilled over here. Is a professor of media studies, writing in a journalistic source, relevant? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Galactic Federation (ufology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Found this article because I'm working on Scientology topics and the page creator mistakenly tied together Scientology and... what is this stuff. The topic seems to have been discussed back in 2020 at FTN Archive 76, but that was before this article was created. I have no clue about this topic but it sure looks hokum FRINGE to me. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)