![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
Muscovy duck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does a homeopathic preparation of 200C contain any Muscovy duck? An editor claims it is possible it might. I say that there are many instances of the universe that would be required which means that to the extent that anything is true, it is true there are no molecules of this duck in that preparation. What say ye? [1] jps ( talk) 02:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure of the drift of these mixed flippant/irrelevant comments, but this is not a "fringe theory" question, but one of strictly correct framing of a stochastic outcome. If 100 molecules of a substance are dispersed into a water volume the size of the Pacific, then it is still incorrect to say "the Pacific contains none of that substance". These molecules do not magically disappear into the aether. It is merely extremely improbable that any given sample from that volume will contain a single moclecule. ජපස et al, please stop waving "homeopathical claims are bunk" like a flag of merit - I think we are all in the same boat here - and resist the temptation to state false absolutes in articles because they sound nice. If the term "astronomically improbable" is not snappy enough for your liking, desist of inserting the relevant statement entirely; the article in question does not need to hit readers over the head with comments on homeopathy. We deal with that elsewhere in great detail. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Note that per WP:ONEWAY among other principles, all mention of oscillococcium has been excised from Muscovy duck. We now move venues to Talk:Domestic_Muscovy_duck#Oscillococcinum. Should we mention this lunacy there? jps ( talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Someone privately e-mailed me to point out that the concentration is given in terms of grams rather than molecules so all of my numbers are are off by twenty-two orders of magnitude (roughly). Doesn't change anything practically, however. There are no duck soup molecules in any oscillococcinum. For posterity, however, I thought I would document the back of the envelope absurdity. The molecular concentration of oscillococcinum is roughly one part in 10378 which means that in a critical-density universe full of oscillococcinum, we're looking at something like a one in 10298 chance that any molecule of duck soup would be in the universe. I'll compare that to
a woman who won at craps 154 times in Atlantic City which is equivalent to beating the odds of one in 1012. If you want to consider the entire inflationary landscape, maybe you can get another 60 orders of magnitude (it's outside our observable universe, but... whatever). Okay, so if you were that lucky, you'd only have to deal with 10226 inflationary-landscape-sized volumes to get to break-even likelihood. But don't you call it zero! Also, I should be clear that the likelihood of discovering a molecule from the duck soup is far greater than the likelihood of observing a violation of the second law of thermodynamics for something like an ideal gas which is in the realm of a whopping one part in 101024 or so. Time goes forward because returning to unlikely microstates is so uncommon. More uncommon than finding the needle in a haystuck duck soup in the oscillococcinum.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
jps ( talk) 15:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a really bizarre thread. Just so I have things straight: the idea is that we should deliberately say things that are factually untrue because that will make people less likely to believe homeopathy is true? I really don't think it makes sense to say that any number of dilutions ensures that literally zero molecules of something is left. As has been said: they don't disappear. I also don't think that a stupid claim becomes reasonable by virtue of smugly insinuating that anyone who disagrees with it is a dumb crackpot who loves homeopathy. If you dropped a teaspoon of coffee into the mists of Jupiter, Jupiter would contain a teaspoon of coffee, not "no coffee". Saying that Jupiter "contained no coffee" would just be incorrect. It does not matter if there is some dumbass somewhere who says that Jupiter is made of coffee. jp× g 🗯️ 04:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This series of dilutions would result in one molecule of the original substance being present in 10400 molecules of solute; for comparison, the atmosphere of the entire planet Earth is estimated to constitute around 1.04×1044 molecules (i.e. one molecule of duck offal per 10356 Earth atmospheres). [1] [2] [3]
I have been reading this discussion for 45 minutes and I have got absolutely no idea what the hell anybody is talking about. Jondvdsn1 ( talk) 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
References
For months, a single user has been citing himself in-line as an authority on the subject, claiming that whatever he feels is the true cost should be taken as seriously as published scientific literature. Moreover, there are now lines about Thomas Hobbes and "State of Nature" (yes, literal 17th century philosophy) interspersed through the entire article. The worst thing has been the surprising inaction from other editors, who apparently haven't noticed anything off. I reverted the worst of it once, but then I didn't have time to edit war and hoped an informal complaint to an administrator would settle the matter. It hasn't. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 13:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Monoamine oxidase A ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The literature on a possible association between this enzyme and antisocial behavior appears to be all over the map, with some studies showing a large correlation and others failing to replicate. The gene that encodes it, MAOA, is sometimes called in the popular press the "warrior gene", and this usage has been criticized as a wild misrepresentation.
My sense is that meta-analyses –– which are of course our preferred source type per WP:MEDRS –– are pretty circumspect about the level of evidence here, e.g. [5] and [6]
Complicating the matter, we've seen in the past some rather committed POV-pushing on this and related " biosocial criminology" topics by LTAs, leaving aside the well-meaning efforts of editors who have possibly been misled by news stories presenting this as settled science.
You can see the rather schizophrenic result in this section of the article: Monoamine oxidase A#Antisocial behavior.
Input from experienced editors familiar with molecular biology is requested. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
However, a large genome-wide association study has failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression. The "antisocial behavior" and "warrior gene" section practically cover the same thing as well. Zenomonoz ( talk) 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
A connection between the MAO-A gene 3R version and several types of anti-social behaviour has been found(citing apparently solid studies, e.g. [7]), but then farther down one finds that
According to a large meta-analysis in 2014, the 3R allele had a small, nonsignificant effect on aggression and antisocial behavior[8], and even further down another meta-analysis
failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression[9]. We then read that there are replication and methodological issues with earlier studies. So yeah, I think a rewrite of the section is probably in order, focused on properly attributing statements cited to earlier, individual studies. At a later stage, this could then impact what information is conveyed in the lead. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure about this one. @
FMSky has
removed this MED RS disclaimer about conversion therapy from the lead of Joseph Nicolosi. and then added
this disclaimer suggesting "reparative therapy" is different from conversion therapy. FMSky asked "why is this disclaimer in the lead of a biography of a person"
? I have reverted.
Just to clarify: I am guessing
WP:FRINGELEVEL applies: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community"
, right? Academic reviews which discuss conversion therapy very often refer to Nicolosi specifically anyway e.g.
here. I think the revert was correct but some clarification would be appreciated. I guess FMSky would also appreciate the information.
Zenomonoz (
talk)
07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
and then added this disclaimer suggesting "reparative therapy" is different from conversion therapy.I actually didnt add anything at all just removed a line break -- FMSky ( talk) 14:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Nicolosi described his ideas in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (1991) and three other books. Nicolosi proposed that homosexuality is often the product of a condition he described as gender-identity deficit caused by an alienation from, and perceived rejection by, formative individuals of the subject's gender which interrupts normal masculine or feminine identification process.Loki ( talk) 06:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A few months back I added a section to Antisemitism in Contemporary Hungary dealing with the Orban government's use of antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories regarding George Soros. I recently re-read it, and I wondered if anyone here could check it to see if I am using neutral enough language. I don't edit much on conspiracy stuff, and this is a really delicate area where conspiracy-theories are right in the mainstream of a country's political culture.
Basically I want to know if it has the right balance between specifying that this is a racist conspiracy theory and WP:NPOV.
Any help gratefully received. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Bangladesh genocide has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Malerisch ( talk) 05:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Climate apocalypse has an RfCl regarding a proposed merge discussion. If you would like to participate, the RfCl is here, which also links to the original, unresolved discussion. Thank you. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 12:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
New article, prequel of
Great Purge. It depicts the plot as a real thing, although
Great Purge says The validity of these claims is still debated by historians
. So, historians, please debate how to improve the articles. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
08:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Is apparently a type of rock found in Russia. It has gained some attention for its use making geegaws that are meant to have healing properties and/or absorb the evil energy from mobile phones. More generally though there seems to be some confusion about what this stuff actually is. Bon courage ( talk) 07:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A user keeps reverting me when I attempted to add pseudoscience-related categories to the article ( [11] and [12]), despite reliably sourced claims that it appears in alternative medicine and 5G misinformation. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
At Grover Furr, this revert was challenged on MOS:LABEL and BLP grounds. The dispute is between the first sentence saying Furr:
...is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
...is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist fringe views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
The other point of contention is whether the 'see also' link in the Holodomor section should go to Holodomor denial or Holodomor genocide question.
This is outside my area, but my impression is that Furr is fringe enough that relatively few reputable academics even bother talking about him enough to debunk his claims. It doesn't help that he seems to like to attack other historians over these issues. I think this is why the article mostly cites Furr's own work, to its detriment. Furr's claims are, however, convenient for right-wing pundits who present his fringe views as an example of campus culture gone amuck and similar. This makes sourcing the 'fringe' bit slightly more difficult. Source disputing his claims are trivially easy to find, but sources which link those claims to Furr by name are harder to come by due to this noise. (Or maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places).
Since Furr has come up here a few times in the past, and to avoid local consensus issues, I would appreciate input from editors who are more knowledgeable about fringe issues, specifically Holodomor denial and Stalinism.
Thanks. Grayfell ( talk) 22:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
After many years of stability, there is currently a move to walk Wikipedia back from stating as fact that it was an airforce balloon which crashed near Roswell in 1947. More eyes could help. Bon courage ( talk) 13:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially.. It does not say "Post here only if you have a problem with profringe editors". It is your personal conclusion that, if someone posts here after discussing you, they must regard you as a profringe user. Also, someone is not a "meatpuppet" of someone else just because they disagree with you and the someone else also disagrees with you. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Yet there is no source in the known universe which WP:Verifies this. Bon courage ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Scholarly consensus conclude [sic] that the military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device
Stop talking about users. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
A startling section in our Marburg virus article describes how the Soviet Union had weaponized it. Similarly, at Soviet biological weapons program we have stated as fact that "A production line to manufacture smallpox on an industrial scale was launched in the Vector Institute in 1990". The common theme to these assertions (and many others [14] throughout Wikipedia) is that they are sourced to books by
a fêted Soviet defector who, our Wikipedia article tells us, also offers telemedicine service to treat autism and sells "Dr. Ken Alibek's Immune System Support Formula". [15]
Other RS is a bit less accepting. The LA Times says [16]
And, as Alibek raised fear of bioterrorism in the United States, he also has sought to profit from that fear. By his count, Alibek has won about $28 million in federal grants or contracts for himself or entities that hired him.
How should Wikipedia be using Alibek as a source for these claims? Should the source be used at all? Bon courage ( talk) 08:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
...portions of his testimony and narrative regarding Soviet BW activities carried out by the MOD are considered less authoritative.Should probably find each allegation in a better source and see what is "according to Alibek" or stated with more confidence. For instance the industrial scale production of smallpox is p. 224, chapter 8's discussion of Vector and weaponization of Marburg seems much more assertive. fiveby( zero) 14:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Cow urine ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
"Diesel-cow urine emulsion" seems dubious to me. Anybody familiar with the science of fuels? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
has just warped in, entire. Apart from being a synthetic topic (does any source talk about such 'theories'?), from a quick look, it somehow manages to avoid saying that zoonosis is the hypothesis most supported by scientists. Might need eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage ( talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
A zoonotic spillover event is the possible origin of COVID-19 that is considered most plausible by the scientific community.Sennalen ( talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
COVID-19 zoonosis theories are scientific hypotheses proposing that SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis....I can find no source which matches the term "COVID-19 zoonosis theories" with such a definition. jps ( talk) 14:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Like Origin of COVID-19?Yes, that is what I meant. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
sourced to PMID:33116300, which is impeccable WP:MEDRS. Alternatively, Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (although a litle rough still) explains all about it. Bon courage ( talk) 05:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)The virus is of zoonotic origin and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus.
there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible. [1]
a likely natural origin for the virus with a yet-to-be-identified wild-caught or farmed animal, [2]
are still unknown and subject to intense scientific and political dispute. Although the virus was believed to have most likely spread from a marine food market in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, there is currently no convincing evidence to support this, and controversies still exist. [2]
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors.
Of the three possibilities — natural, accidental, or deliberate — the most scientific evidence yet identified supports natural emergence. More than half of the earliest Covid-19 cases were connected to the Huanan market, and epidemiologic mapping revealed that the concentration of cases was centered there.
Proponents of the accidental laboratory leak theory stress the geographic location of the WIV in the city where the pandemic began. [...] Most scientists refute this theory because there is considerable evolutionary distance between the two viruses. However, the possibility that the laboratory held a different progenitor strain to SARS-CoV-2 that led to a laboratory leak cannot be unequivocally ruled out. [3]
On the one hand, it seems evident that the transmission originated in the Huanan market. But, on the other hand, three fundamental questions remain that have not been definitively answered. First, where did the virus come from? Second, what was the intermediate animal host? And third, why has the virus genome not been reproduced 100% in any of the coronaviruses found in bats? [4]
the WP:RS guidance I shared. If you mean the
opinions of reliable authorsabove, you are missing the
based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracypart. Letters to the editor are not fact-checked by the editor - when you write one, you obviously want them to be published as they are - so they can be as inaccurate as the writer wants them to be, and the reputation of the editor is irrelevant. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thinker78 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided.
"It bothers me that Origin of COVID-19 is almost entirely about investigations"← I think jps's proposed merge could actualy help with that. Bon courage ( talk) 16:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
In an attempt to remove some of the problems of the page, I began an early round of edits and changed the title of the page to Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (allowing for the plural since more than one sense of "origin" is discussed in the sources and the current editorial approach). I'm still not convinced that this page is worth keeping as-is rather than just having the relevant content shunted back to Origin of COVID-19, but my hope is that savvy editors can come together to make the choice more obvious. I do believe the article as written is suffering a bit from bloat and is WP:UNDUE. There is little in the way of organizing the best sources with the most attention paid while marginalizing less important sources. I see some papers that have hundreds of citations with the same amount of attention as papers with fewer than ten citations. Not a good look. jps ( talk) 12:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
References
There's a dispute regarding use of a Piers Corbyn view regarding the Hamas October 7 attack, in which - inter alia - he calls it a false flag Israeli operation. The discussion is here. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Bio of a writer-reporter specializing in UFO fringe conspiracy theories rewritten by an WP:SPA seems to blur the line between fringe and mainstream. Cites text to WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB sources, infers old awards for non-UFO journalism apply to UFO-related work, and introduces a number of WP:TONE problems. Could use a copyedit and WP:FRIND sourcing, but may take a WP:BLOWITUP to sort out which sources actually support a jumble of claims. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a new thread on WP:NPOVN about this, and it is relevant to this board too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
it's just been heavily edited by a member with major unsourced changes, some contradicting sources I believe. If it isn't fringe, please ignore this. I've given the editor several warnings. Thanks. Note that the changes have been reverted, so I'm only asking for eyes. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
See recent Talk section. Last summer, the article had a short section "Skeptical view" which seemed to contain a skeptical view. Now the whole article looks like a homogenous pap, including the "Skeptical view" part. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
In the Bible, Sanat Kumara is called as the ageless, "the Ancient of Days"cited to a theosophist. This is clearly an "in-universe" view that shouldn't be stated in wikivoice. Then again, I don't think the original version before they started editing is much better honestly. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
A user is trying to add Aseem Malhotra and many other unreliable sources into the lead. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
A user has declared on the talk page that "Kombucha is fermented tea. Nothing more, nothing less" and is tagging content around its potential benefits and harms in a way I am finding it difficult to comprehend/deal with on Talk. More eyes could help. Bon courage ( talk) 17:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Follower of Thomas Szasz. Article has hagiographic elements. - Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
If you spent a lot of time in COVID-related or other articles tagged by WPMED during 2023, please consider signing up at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds We're tracking both most (net) sources added and most (bad) sources removed, and I'm hoping that some of you can give @ Bon courage some proper competition in that latter category. (If you can't figure out the interface, then ping me, and I can add you directly.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Conversion therapy about whether it should include "gender exploratory therapy" and if so, whether it should be defined as conversion therapy. The relevant text being debated is the last two paragraphs of Conversion therapy#Gender identity change efforts (GICE) and the relevant discussion is Talk:Conversion therapy#GET sourcing problems. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
register a charity for anything. See [19] . Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
it is possible to achieve a ban on conversion practices that protects the trans, non-binary and intersex communities, without limiting exploratory therapy.
It is important to note that the references cited in this report do not constitute a comprehensive literature review. It defines GET once, in a glossary which says
it is important to emphasise that the language used is not an indication of a position being taken by the Review, and doesn't comment on it at all anywhere else except to say GIDS doesn't use it, and some people quit over that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encountersto the extent that they would simply refer cases direct to GIDS. These problems have all been well-documented in Time To Think.
evidence on the appropriate management of children and young people with gender incongruence and dysphoria is inconclusive both nationally and internationally., and this is something I believe we should cautious of deviating from in wikivoice.
campaigners are seeking to make the provision of exploratory therapy effectively impossible by ensnaring it in an ill-defined criminal ban on trans “conversion therapy”. This is the nature of this controversy: a political battle over what does or does not count as "conversion therapy", with experts outside the US insisting that exploratory therapy is not conversion, and the NHS moving more in that direction, guided by the interim findings of The Cass Review.
ethical exploratory therapywould never be covered by a ban. As is already noted in Gender exploratory therapy, supporters of GET oppose trans conversion therapy bans.
The ban has been linked to parallel proposals to ban gay conversion therapy; yet the fluidity of gender dysphoria makes it a completely different phenomenon to sexual orientation in young people.Our article on Conversion therapy is clear: conversion therapy includes T, not just LGB.
the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of “exploratory therapy” has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name.
UKCP is not the best sourceI'm sorry, but you don't establish whether an uncontroversial, commonplace therapeutic viewpoint advanced by a regulated charity with a board, trustees, and a well-respected CEO who is the former CEO of the Ethics Committee, is WP:FRINGE by trawling the social media of the chair to see if he's retweeted Peter Hitchens.
absolutely nobody is saying "all exploration is bad"The WPATH statement is criticising the Cass Review for favouring exploratory interventions, criticising the
“psychotherapeutic” approach, and calling
"exploratory therapy"tantamount to conversion. Are WPATH a strong source or not? You can't apply this selectively. Either what both WPATH and Cass describe as "exploratory therapy" is conversion therapy (as your sources argue) or it isn't.
Effective accelerationism is up for DYK, so I took a quick look at it. The only problem that I can see is in terms of framing. This is very much a fringe theory that is being deliberately framed as mainstream, but only because it has received a lot of attention, not because mainstream researchers and academics support it. This is a problem for me. We only see minor criticism, which is corralled in a "Reception" section, giving it the appearance that the concept is not fringe at all but just has some detractors. To me, this is a form of bias. If we had similar articles about related ideas calling for the removal and bypassing of regulation in other sectors, whether it was in building codes, medical testing and drug analysis, air and water quality, or just food inspection, we would automatically recognize it as a fringe theory. Yet somehow, this kind of free market fundamentalism gets a free pass because it is talking about AI. Please, can someone take a look at this. What's disturbing to me the most, is that the source they are using to say it is no longer fringe, says the opposite ("the idea is still fairly fringe"). [24] Viriditas ( talk) 23:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Coriantumr_(son_of_Omer) regarding independence of LDS-adherent publications on LDS topics and how this integrates with N, NPOV, and FRINGE. Namely, can we have a page on a narrow religious topic sourced exclusively to adherents who treat the topic as if it is historically plausible (or is at least derived from ancient testimony rather than recent invention) when the consensus among scientists and historians is that no part of the broader topic is accurate? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this can be saved. I can find American Indian Rock Art. Monograph series of the American Rock Art Research Association (ARARA). Edited by DAVID A. KAISER and JAMES D. KEYSER. The most recent issue features these papers: Volume 44 (2018): . HILBISH, J. F.: Dating western message petroglyphs with Aztec and Maya glyphs. This is by the author of the self-published book. And of course a paper at a conference isn't enough either. But maybe there's a place for some of it? Doug Weller talk 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is becoming a wikibook of original research with no secondary sources to be found. I suggested a TNT, but the article author added more of their research. Additional eyes would be appreciated Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 17:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I have submitted multiple unreliable Theosophy articles to afd:
This is an on-going issue that I have noticed has plagued Wikipedia for a long time. A lot of throwaway accounts have been editing these articles over the years adding unreliable Theosophical sources. These articles are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia, they are poorly sourced violate WP:Fringe and WP:RS and contain no academic historical coverage. We shouldn't be creating articles that are not neutral or have no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Also related, Mental body and Astral body seem to be very fringe and not NPOV, with the normal set of Theosophical only sources. Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
New user adding 29,154 bytes of text, most of which do not mention Yusuf ( WP:OR) or are unreliable, claiming the consensus on saturated fat has been overturned. The usual sources being cited including Gary Taubes and paleo diet advocate Steven Hamley. We had similar issues to this recently at the Ancel Keys talk-page where scientific consensus is being ignored. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
MGTOW folks have their knickers in a twist about the article, posting things like "What are the implications about the prevailing conditions if Wikipedia's MGTOW entry is more dramatic than Encyclopedia Dramatica's MGTOW entry?" on the Quora Q&A forum. Apparently we are biased by relying on mainstream journalism and other reliable sources instead of accepting their self-descriptions. The complaints on the talk page have already begun. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Grusch revealed himself to be a full fledged UFO mythicist, from referring to "the phenomenon" to "experiencers" having psychic contact with non human entities to the phenomenon being a "bipedal hominid" and higher dimensional beings to Operation Stargate being a successful remote viewing program which turns a part of the brain into a transceiver. He's a fan of Jacques Vallée and he's forming a company with Garry Nolan (though oddly he calls himself a founder while not appearing anywhere on the company's webpage.)
Anyhoo, the mainstream media, as well as the politicians who threw their lot in with him, are all avoiding the embarrassment of admitting that they believed someone who is so obviously a cook. Consequently there is minimal coverage of his headlong dive down the rabbit hole. But having taken his mask off on the most popular podcast in the world, Grusch does not have a right of privacy about his WP:ABOUTSELF statements. The guiding principle here is WP:PARITY. But as usual, those who want to pretend they are protecting WP:PRIMARY refuse to recognize to keep embarrassing things off the page. The exact same tactic was used to keep D. Gary Young's worst medical malpractices off his page. It's a frustratingly cynical ploy that smacks of bad faith. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine
There is currently an editing war claiming that osteopathic manipulative medicine practiced by physicians in the United States is pseudoscience. This is a fringe theory that some editors refuse to remove from the article and have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that it is indeed pseudoscience.
Here are some sources that outline the benefits of osteopathic manipulative medicine
The Lymphatic System: An Osteopathic Review
Osteopathic Manipulation Treatment
The Elephant in the Room: Does OMT Have Proved Benefit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eko321 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage ( talk) 06:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)I received an excellent undergraduate medical education and am proud to be a DO, but I cannot continue to support an antiquated system of healthcare that is based on anecdote or, in some cases, pseudoscience. As a medical school student, I was taught to critically analyze problems and practice evidence-based medicine. When it came to courses in osteopathic principles and practices, however, my peers and I were asked to put aside our critical, evidence-based medical skills and accept the tenets of OMT on faith. When we questioned such esoteric practices as craniosacral therapy and energy field therapy, we were told that “we needed to believe.” Likewise, when less than 5% of the class “felt” the craniosacral rhythm, the rest of the class was derided for a lack of faith—to the point that ejection from the medical school was threatened. When we complained that some students were using barbeque strikers to stimulate invisible “energy fields,” we were told that in time, we would come to understand and believe.
Sensational cruft cited to search engine results, blogs, Facebook groups, and Youtube videos being justified because "Wikipedia has no firm rules". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This is now at Wikipedia Third Opinion when it is very clear from the Talk page that WP:FRINGE is at issue. An editor with about two months experience is tendentiously edit warring to remove skeptical sources from the article and add credulous interpretations from primary sources, justified by massive WP:WALLSOFTEXT on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not "walls of text" as a strategy of war or subversion, I thought you could read the text as it is my response. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 00:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC) In neither reversion I returned the same content I tried to adapt to the expectations of Rjjiii (ii) Talk:Westall_UFO#4_January_2023 "Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and using inline citations" 00:07, 7 January 2024. With LuckyLouie reversion I haven't added any more disagreeable information and limited my response to only that which is proven obviously, also removing those parts which the sources don't show which suprising is quite a few informations as shown at Talk:Westall_UFO#7_January_2024 "23:49, 7 January 2024", to stabilize the content to the expected standard of reference to content being a true representation. I didn't provide a sceptical position because the sources don't provide that position. I'm not an advocate I just obeyed the sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 01:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) The article as it is now is stable as far as I am concerned; the sources to content have representation so this allows all involved editors to discuss the reality of the article instead of being deceived and proceeding from a false position. I don't intend to make any more changes unless with discussion, I thought this could proceed as to how LuckyLouie thinks the sources can't be used to represent the statements of the involved individuals. Whether or not someone should believe their statements it is interesting to see what they stated, and to allow people to decide for themselves the reality, instead of judging that they are wrong as FRINGE would indicate. Obviously no proof is available but by stating isn't proven is fringe or extrordinary does not prove it is not the reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 01:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC) WP:FRNG "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.". Obviously the sources of the supposed incidents don't have a sceptical view so ignoring their views is simply to discount the evidence from the sources as if the "Explanations" argue away the possibility of the things they state being true. The explanations part of the artilce is not satisfactory as a explanation against the details of the statements. It is a false representation to provide the sceptical position if the statements of the sources of the incidents aren't obviously currently disproven. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
It is a false representation to provide the sceptical position if the statements of the sources of the incidents aren't obviously currently disproven.Ignoring its problematic logic, this statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the policies and guidelines that underlie what content is, and is not, included in Wikipedia articles. I strongly suggest that you read about Wikipedia's policy of sourcing requirements here, and also the guideline here that describes how fringe material is handled. Wikipedia articles do not necessarily include The Truth, only material that is verifiable in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The Wikipedia policy of WP:CONSENSUS, which I note is not in your favor at the article Talk page, should also be read because it describes the basic model of how editors, through collaborative discussion, determine article content. Lastly, regarding such discussions, please read the Wikipedia policy here about how to engage with other editors. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 09:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The article is kind of a daunting mess. Given the nature of the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, the lack of analysis and critique published by independent secondary expert sources is surprising. Most newspaper coverage seems to be WP:SENSATIONAL mystery-monging and jumping on the "Australia's Roswell" bandwagon. The "Further information" section at the bottom is loaded with conspiracy junk, non-notable YouTube videos, and other WP:ELNO - all formatted as citations. This could take some work. ( @ User:SGerbic, yup, still trying!) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
"Consipiracy junk" is nonsense you haven't looked at the sources to state that. "non-notable YouTube videos" isn't very probable as it is possible to corroborate the contents of the Kible video as I showed at 03:12, 6 January 2024 Princeton corroborates source 4 "brother-in-law" which is to state that although kirk (which is the Princton source) merely copied from Basterfiald and Clarke he didn't determine that Basterfiald and Clarke were a worthless source as you seem to be implying, which matters since "kirk" is Professor Emeritus Experimental High-Energy Physics Department of Physics Princeton University as I indicated at Talk:Westall UFO#7 January 2024 14:07, 8 January 2024. And why would you state non-notable, since obviously the Youtube video of JE McDonald in which he is interviewed stating "I've investigated about 50 or 60 cases since I came down to New Zealand and Australia extremely interesting UFO sightings", as shown here ref.16 plus the absolutely certain same voice of the interviewer in the Youtube video at 16 couldn't be classed as the apparent non-notable evidently by " James E. McDonald". You comments have a perplexing lack of observation of the actual reality of the sources, your dispariging comments are a presumed reality.
Correct my mis-apprehension of your meaning: "mystery-monging", so you have the proof that the entire accounts of the sources are absolutely and covincingly discredited: where are the sources for me and other editors to be similarly convinced: if you would like to show the counter argument to how their extrordinary claims are so obviously extraordinarily false then show how this is proven, beause I didn't find such a proof just your suspicion and persuasve use of language to attempt to discredit the sources, unless you have a contrary proof.
I requested someone review the edits I made 23:49, 7 January 2024 & 14:35, 8 January 2024, for the purposes of peer-review, which no-one has so far done. I tried to begin a discussion of the sources, you seem to think policy discounts my using the sources so state where in policy it is the sources shouldn't be used.
Dunn, Matthew (6 January 2016). "The Westall 'UFO' incident still remains a mystery 50 years after it occurred"
Lucadou-Wells, Cam (7 April 2016). "Westall sighting remains a mystery"
Sharpe, Matthew (3 April 2016). "Westall '66: 50 years on, still stranger than fiction"
Natarsha Belling, Terry Peck (21 January 2016). Melbourne UFO Mystery: 50 Years On, Shane Ryan (investigator)
Paul Smith (22 March 2022). Phenom Westall '66 - A Suburban UFO Mystery
are the sources: please share with me and any other interested editors how the accounts are so obviously disproven, since you obviously know how they are by mentioning "The Roswell incident is a collection of events and myths surrounding the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon, near Roswell, New Mexico.". I didn't use the sources to confirm anything extraterrestrial or secret military simply to restate the claims of the sources as rerepresentation of their realities since I didn't find obvious indications of deluded, conspiracy theory or any other charge or claim against the sources. Unless I see the evidence that these sources shouldn't think mystery then your claims are just slander against the reputation of legitaimately employed journalists and an investigator currently employed by Australian parliament Canberra. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
You didn't indicate the exact relevant part of WP:ELNO so I had to presume that "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." is the expeccted reference (although I don't know); which isn't applicable as I didn't use the sources to state or imply anything more than the sources themselves state, which is the subject of the article not: if the sources of the article Westall state something which is extraordinarily improbable in known reality, the laws of physics, the current ctate of physics. The subject matter is ufology not physics. The videos which show interviews with the soures look authentic to me: so they can't be "factually inaccurate material" as they are the facts of the acounts of the sources. If ELNO applied I would be: seeing a different version of the sources which distorted their accounts, but I didn't find that, obviously, as the sources give videos which are convincing. As to whether the sources are "unverifiable research", the sources give accounts of what happened either in typeface or video and names of individuals are given in video interviews.
Your argument excludes WP:ELNO: "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting" even if your position with regards were true, the position of the article is to represent the information, whatever is available in sources, on the supposed events of the day which is Westall. Your criticisms amount to Original research here that you make a variety of claims as to the no-value state of the sources but that is all you do, make claims without showing exactly how those claims could be easily supported by the evidence. Please show exactly how your position is agreeable then this argument could be ended immediately by the obvious reality which I so obviously have no evidence to prove to myself of (unless I should be convinced by your "loaded" and offensive response which you so obviously execute on this page to the expected conclusion of ceasing any further inclusion to the article), regards Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
"Consipiracy junk" is nonsense you haven't looked at the sourcesand
You comments have a perplexing lack of observation of the actual realityand
your claims are just slanderand
your "loaded" and offensive response) are not only unhelpful, they could lead to you being blocked. You are also displaying WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON behavior, which could also get you blocked. As has already been explained to you, Wikipedia policies determine what is and isn't included in Wikipedia articles. There are no Wikipedia policies that obligate editors to provide "proof," to you or anyone else, that something WP:SENSATIONAL didn't happen. Our chosen avocation here - and by "our" I mean you, me, and all editors - starts with populating articles with reliably sourced content. Experienced editors in good standing are balking at your desired content because it is apparently not reliably sourced. You should be trying to better understand their positions, rather than engaging in personal attacks. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
1894: Dr Freud is inhaling ignited tobacco smoke containing the psychoactive nicotine from about 20 cigars every day. Possibly true, but what exactly has that got to do with the supposed subject of the article? Bizarre... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I've posted what sources I can find on the talk pageThanks Rjjiii, can you repost these at the bottom of the article Talk page? I lost them in the mess of WP:SOUP. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Should this article be split into the actual proposal and the conspiracy theory? Lumping them both in together seems bizarre and WP:COATRACKy to me. -- GnocchiFan ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
There has been an renewed uptick of interest in this recently, with the suggestion that Japanese primary research in some way validates the clinic's products. Relatedly, I notice a supposed Burynski 'success story' being added [27] to Brainstem_glioma. More eyes helpful. Bon courage ( talk) 09:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Zhou Yusen could do with attention, it's a new article and the sources are a primary source, the National Review and NY Post, a PerthNow page which is syndicated DailyMail content, and an article by Sharri Markson who is a lab leak conspiracy theorist. The current wording of the article seems heavily skewed towards promoting lab leak conspiracy theories. The external links section links to multiple unreliable sources. (I'm also not sure if Zhou Yusen is notable enough to need a page, from a quick search most of the coverage seems to come from conspiracy theorists and unreliable sources, but a deeper dive might turn up some better ones). JaggedHamster ( talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=America_B.C.%3A_Ancient_Settlers_in_the_New_World&diff=1196827934&oldid=1147349167]. This was done by User:BOZ. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
most of the scientific world rejected Fell's work as pseudoscience? – Austronesier ( talk) 22:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilly Juice.
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why this article is allowed to exist in its present form, and apparently has been for over a decade? This is the kind of gibberish that gets Wikipedia a reputation for being a hypertrophied blog that self-identifies as an encyclopedia without actually being one in any meaningful sense.
Not that I'm suggesting you should't have a list of the major pseudosciences. Of course you should. Pseudoscience matters. If you're seriously ill, being treated with remedies based on pseudoscience rather than seeing a proper doctor may kill you. And if pseudoscientific ideas about climate change influence the policies of enough major governments, it may even kill the planet! So yes, by all means let's have a list of significant pseudoscientific topics!
The trouble is, you don't have one. What you've got instead is - well, look at the title, and then think about what it actually means. And then read the introduction to the article itself:
"This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. ... These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices—efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning."
If we untangle that hairball of weasel words, what it's basically saying is that this a list of things which have at any time in recorded history been described using the word "pseudoscience" by any person who either had academic qualifications, possibly in a relevant field, or didn't have any qualifications at all, and was either making a serious point or just having a laugh. By the way, is "practices-efforts" a real word?
And then it gets worse!
"Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific, but have in one way or another impinged on scientific domains or practices."
Now, the definition of pseudoscience, and I'm quoting Wikipedia itself here, is "unscientific claims wrongly presented as science", and it's hard to see how something which is entirely non-scientific can be presented, however wrongly, as science. But remember, this is not a list of things which are pseudoscience; it's a list of things which have been characterized as pseudoscience by anyone at any time for any reason. Which would seem to me to include an impossibly vast number of topics, but fortunately the persons responsible for this brain-dead drivel didn't do very much research before getting bored and going off to play with their Batman Lego.
Talking of research, if you can call it that, it's pretty obvious how this article was "researched". The authors gathered a few likely-looking texts, mostly published by Prometheus Books and/or written by Michael Shermer, ran a wordsearch for "pseudoscience", and listed every single thing described in those books using that word. Then they wrote that idiotic intro to justify the inclusion of things even they could dimly grasp weren't altogether relevant, and retitled the article to be on the safe side. Perhaps it should be retitled again, to something like "List of stuff described as woo-woo by CSICOP"? Because it would be near as dammit the same article, and it would be much clearer what it was about and how useful it was.
Seriously, look at this list! Cold Fusion isn't listed as a pseudoscience even though it's inarguably a very significant example thereof because none of the books these children let a machine read for them specifically "characterized" that topic as such, but one specific alleged cold fusion device called an E-Cat does merit inclusion. Are we to therefore assume that Cold Fusion in general is perfectly valid science, apart from one obscure scam by some fellow who built a contraption called an E-Cat? Are we likewise to assume that Scientology as such isn't pseudoscientific at all, apart from two specific practices (or perhaps they're practices-efforts?), Dianetics, which is basically just pop psychotherapy, and the Purification Rundown, which advances the only mildly cranky idea that vitamins and saunas can cure drug addiction? And everything else that lot get up to is less scientifically unorthodox than those two mildly odd activities?
It's true that almost every entry has a link to a page describing it in more detail, so you can click the link and read a page hopefully written by an adult which will probably tell you whether or not the topic is relevant and/or important, but if you have to look up every entry on the list to find out whether it ought to be on the list, what use is the list? And how do you follow the non-existent link to something like Cold Fusion which isn't listed at all, unless you happen to notice that an E-Cat, whatever that is, has some connection with it?
Do you have access to a reasonably advanced AI? You might try asking it to rewrite this article, because although it has no mind at all, it'll do a far better job than some little boys who are too lazy to do any proper research and too stupid to see why they should. Because it'll be using exactly the same method as they did but far more efficiently, since its database will be many orders of magnitude larger. So instead of mindlessly listing every trivial use of a certain word in a few books, it'd be able to determine whether a scientific consensus exists that a thing is pseudoscientific, and will thus include only the topics that matter, such as Cold Fusion, while omitting nonsense like Rumpology, which is included here not because it was ever in any way important or has even the remotest connection with science, but because it gets a passing mention in The Skeptic's Dictionary so onto the list it jolly well goes!
Also, a reasonably efficient piece of software would be able to break up inconvenietly long lists using subheadings somewhat better than these kiddiwinks could. It looks very much as though they once got a brief glimpse of a real encyclopedia and understood that very long lists should be subdivided in this way, but didn't have the slightest idea how to do it, never mind why. It would also probably know that "practices-efforts" isn't really a word.
Or even better, you could dispense with both the quasi-smart machine and the authentically dumb humans and scrap the whole sorry mess, then start again with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific ideas" and write an article that fits the title instead of the other way round. That way you might end up with something that would be much more useful to your readers, and much less embarrassing to you. 86.130.233.248 ( talk) 15:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Once upon a time, I suggested that List of pseudosciences was a better title. I was overruled. C'est la vie. But maybe now the time is ripe to revisit that question. I've grown past caring. Be WP:BOLD, 86, and start an account and an AfD! jps ( talk) 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RS/N#Yoga Journal as a Reliable Source which may be of interest to participants here. Bon courage ( talk) 10:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Guy invented laws for ghosts. Article may profit from more eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
WSJ confirms lab leak. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
In 2023, Public was credited by the Wall Street Journal for publicly identifying three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were allegedly working on Coronaviruses and had taken ill near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.[53]
Diana Walsh Pasulka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article uncritically parrots some pretty WP:ECREE claims about "base reality" to alien abductions. Pasulka is one of those academics who seems to be teetering off the edge of the limb they climbed out on. Are there sources we can use to show the WP:MAINSTREAM does not accept her fantastical beliefs as being, y'know, based in "base reality"?
jps ( talk) 16:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
So, where is the issue?I suggest that the answer can be found by reading WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 20:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Article uncritically parrots some pretty WP:ECREE claims about "base reality" to alien abductions.That is the issue. I once again suggest reading WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I attempted to write the synopsis for the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. User:Bon courage deleted the book synopsis per WP:FRINGE, then gave me a less than useful explanation. It's longstanding precedent that book synopses are cited by the book itself, why wouldn't this book qualify? 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. (my underlining)
Workshopping of a possible addition of a synopsis continues. I am all but spent. If others who have sanguine heads about themselves would see it fit to make some judgement calls about this, I would be most appreciative. jps ( talk) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I have found reasonable evidence of falsification of history in Azeri Wikipedia pages about Armenia.Which include fake claims of Armenians committing a genocide against Turks and Azeris, other fake claims include a claim that the territory of Armenia was historical Azeri land. These false claims are supported by the Azeri government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrafiq ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This is about making stuff up. See [30]. Seen Talk:Anthroposophy, wherein others made the same point (look for posts of 1 November 2023), I came to believe that most citations by SamwiseGSix are phony. Meaning the WP:RS fail to WP:V the claims they're WP:CITED for. SamwiseGSix cited a bunch of sources, putting his own opinions in their mouth. He might not understand what we mean by WP:V, but that's not a reason for allowing his citations to stay in the article.
Herbermann, Charles George (2015-10-02). The Catholic Encyclopedia. Arkose Press. ISBN 978-1-343-86075-9. is an 80-pages booklet. It is not a 16-volumes encyclopedia. So, it does not have a volume 13, nor a volume 14. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
In Germany, the group's country of origin, the Roman Catholic Church totally rejects the Christian Community.Why can't we just remove the offending text and if SamwiseGSix returns and objects take it from there? fiveby( zero) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
making stuff upand
putting his own opinions in their mouthseem like appropriate descriptions. Need to check all the Steiner related edits and revert probably, don't know what is the most economical way to deal with the user. fiveby( zero) 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
what has this to do with "Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded", what is this thread about? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Heise holds the Jews responsible for the World War (Entente-Freimaurerei und Weltkrieg 32-33, 84, 262, 295, etc.), warns repeatedly against “Jewish capitalists” (e.g. 286), claims that the Roosevelts are Jewish and that their real name is Rosenfeld (285), that Woodrow Wilson's wife is Jewish (296), that the news agencies are controlled by Jews (306), that the Jews control Britain and the Empire is a plaything of the Zionists (122-127), and that Bolshevism is an Anglo-Jewish invention (253). Heise invokes Steiner and anthroposophy throughout the book, at one point praising Steiner as the alternative to “Jewish thinking” (297). The book draws heavily on ariosophist sources as well. Heise’s work continues to find anthroposophist admirers; Ursula Marcum, for example, writes: “What makes Heise’s book special is his treatment of Jewish influence in world affairs.” Marcum, “Rudolf Steiner: An Intellectual Biography,” 408. See also the extremely positive reviews of Heise’s book in Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus no. 47 (1920) and Das Reich January 1919, 474.
Someone (a newbie) erasing WP:PSCI-compliant statements from Rudolf Steiner. More eyes needed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
...and he immediately had to flee to Switzerland[33] looks like invention. fiveby( zero) 15:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what what a "condom report' is [34] , also see User talk:Mcorrlo#January 2024 Doug Weller talk 17:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I've interacted with that user over on pt.wiki and can confirm he has pushed the ALIENS ARE HERE agenda over there (and maybe other strange beliefs, perhaps ghost stuff? Not sure ATM). Also, IIRC, he was immune to arguments, and just got his way as I gave up trying to reason with him. pt.wiki is pretty bad. VdSV9• ♫ 02:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Source here. Probably worth updating a few articles.
Heh.
jps ( talk) 17:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
[35] [36] Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This might be useful somewhere. [1] Doug Weller talk 14:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Although this is an article about a religious belief, it is using archaeology for proof. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
but don't think i can because of that sucky OR policy. There's some that can be cut based on misuse of sources, and i think critics Vogel and the Tanners are really not much help at all and probably doing more harm than good. fiveby( zero) 07:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)One has to assume, it seems to me, that when the members of Lehi’s party heard the local name for "the place that was called Nahom" they associated the sound of that local name with the term Nahom, a Hebrew word that was familiar to and had meaning for them.
Fringe but you'd never guess it from the short lead if you didn't know the people involved. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Gunnar Kaiser ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled onto this article on a German Covid skeptic I'd never heard of. Looks like it suffers from some rather extreme WP:FALSEBALANCE. The poor quality of the English (and 13,068 byte initial edit) suggests it was a Google Translate copy/paste from a German-language article. Interestingly, Kaiser's article on German-language Wikipedia has long since been deleted. No longer a BLP since the subject passed away last year. 3700 views in the past month. Thoughts on what to do with this? Generalrelative ( talk) 14:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
One IP and the user JayBeeEll are removing the infobox calling Template:Infobox pseudoscience use as " disinfobox". I think that this is wrong and asking here for more eyes to resolve the dispute. Cheers! Ixocactus ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Might be in the wrong here, but need a second set of eyes/opinions. 10k section in Deism on “Deism in Nazi Germany” feels to me entirely disproportionate to the page, but two editors are insisting on its inclusion and size therein. Hyperbolick ( talk) 02:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion about fringe publications that could use more people to have a look. Page history, Discussion. -- mfb ( talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
FYI
Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 13:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know how closely the average FTN editor follows climate change news. Nevertheless, I would assume there's a better-than-average chance that last summer, you would have seen headlines such as Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests
That was based on a paper in Nature Communications - normally a reliable, mainstream source. Yet, in this case, the conclusion was very far outside of the scientific consensus - you can see a summary of just how far in these commentaries from scientists here and here. At times, cutting-edge research can overturn consensus - but in this case, the opposite happened, as the paper applied its modelling to what has long been outdated data. Science Media Center had requested comment from scientists on this matter (including lead authors of the other AMOC papers, like Levke Caesar or Niklas Boers): I have been following SMC for a while, and I have never seen a climate change paper prompt over a dozen responses there - let alone for several to criticize it in really stark terms.
You might also find it interesting that this paper had just two authors (in climate science, papers on major topics typically have 5-10, even when it's other modelling studies - i.e. here and some can have several dozen, like here), and that they are apparently siblings, according to The Conversation article. Now, the brother, Peter Ditlevsen, has apparently chosen to directly edit the way their paper is covered in our article. As you can see from history, the edits were first done through an IP address (curiously, from Bayonne, France, even though the authors are based at the University of Copenhagen), then, after I removed their whitewashing, the exact same thing was done through a newly created account, "Pditlev", which even uses "we" in the edit summary.
The way I understand policy, this is WP:COI at the very least. I am still not particularly experienced on the administrative side of things, so I would appreciate involvement of more experienced editors. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Does a PROFRINGE source belong in the {{ press}} header at Talk:Race and intelligence? How about when we're pretty sure it's written by someone we've banned from editing Wikipedia for disrupting the topic area? The question has turned into something of a battleground, unfortunately. Cool heads are invited to help bring down the temperature at Talk:Race and intelligence#Removal of Quillette quote. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
For the interested, Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Removal_of_Quillette_quote now closed. We'll see if there's a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages are unindexed–– appears to be incorrect. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
His zero-point energy stuff needs physicist eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for a bit, and some review of the article generally and assistance with developing the lead in particular would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 03:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The lead seems to argue in favor of fringe explanations. Although maybe I'm reading it wrong (many of the sources are in Italian) which is why I'm listing it here at FTN. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
May need more egyptologists. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
IP says it is him, complains a lot on the Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Does Havana Syndrome even exist? It is not clearly a "syndrome", as opposed to a delusion. Nangaf ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a big dispute at WP:NORN#Bicameral mentality about this concept and the book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Bringing it hear because the person who is probably using OR is also arguing that the articles support the concept unduly. For those unfamiliar with this concept, the lead for the first article says "Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by Julian Jaynes who argued human ancestors as late as the ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but as the consequences of actions of gods external to themselves. The theory posits that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind, and that the breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in human". Doug Weller talk 07:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
RedHuron is a student editor who changed Feng shui significantly through two huge edits [47] [48].
I've reverted the changes to the lede prior to those edits [49].
The other changes need a careful review. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This Hindutva activist believes that caste system was created by the western world and firecracker as an Indian invention. Need attention of more editors here given the current dispute where I am involved. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 07:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable sources being edit-warred in, it seems. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:29, 19 February 2024 (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.
I suggest restoring the content that can be found in these diff's at Karen Black, Gail Brown, Hunter Carson and Theodore McKeldin. Very basic, standard content that you would naturally expect to be included. But it seems that a certain somebody is recklessly determined to suppress it, [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] which is so bizarre to me.
My stance is that the content never had any reason to be removed in the first place. On February 10, I tried to start a discussion at Black's talk page, but couldn't get any editors to participate. I also brought it up at the Administrators' Noticeboard, again getting absolutely nowhere. Attempts to get the conversation going were shut down before any kind of resolution could be reached.
Your guess is as good as mine why 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B / 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE / 80.136.196.48 repeatedly blanks basic content and keeps putting a COI (conflict of interest) tag on the pages. Talk about chaos. There is no conflict of interest (the IP-switching editor seems to be suggesting this family is so irrelevant, that anyone who makes a substantial contribution to their pages must have a "close connection"). As a result of the inexplicable content wipeouts and meritless COI tags, each page is now incomprehensible and dishonors its subject. The pages were fine until the multi-IP editor came along and started making trouble.
This is an open-and-shut matter. Please remove the unwarranted COI tags and restore the content; then add protection and assign watchdogs to the four pages to prevent this madness from reoccurring. Deep Purple 2013 ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
Muscovy duck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does a homeopathic preparation of 200C contain any Muscovy duck? An editor claims it is possible it might. I say that there are many instances of the universe that would be required which means that to the extent that anything is true, it is true there are no molecules of this duck in that preparation. What say ye? [1] jps ( talk) 02:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure of the drift of these mixed flippant/irrelevant comments, but this is not a "fringe theory" question, but one of strictly correct framing of a stochastic outcome. If 100 molecules of a substance are dispersed into a water volume the size of the Pacific, then it is still incorrect to say "the Pacific contains none of that substance". These molecules do not magically disappear into the aether. It is merely extremely improbable that any given sample from that volume will contain a single moclecule. ජපස et al, please stop waving "homeopathical claims are bunk" like a flag of merit - I think we are all in the same boat here - and resist the temptation to state false absolutes in articles because they sound nice. If the term "astronomically improbable" is not snappy enough for your liking, desist of inserting the relevant statement entirely; the article in question does not need to hit readers over the head with comments on homeopathy. We deal with that elsewhere in great detail. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Note that per WP:ONEWAY among other principles, all mention of oscillococcium has been excised from Muscovy duck. We now move venues to Talk:Domestic_Muscovy_duck#Oscillococcinum. Should we mention this lunacy there? jps ( talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Someone privately e-mailed me to point out that the concentration is given in terms of grams rather than molecules so all of my numbers are are off by twenty-two orders of magnitude (roughly). Doesn't change anything practically, however. There are no duck soup molecules in any oscillococcinum. For posterity, however, I thought I would document the back of the envelope absurdity. The molecular concentration of oscillococcinum is roughly one part in 10378 which means that in a critical-density universe full of oscillococcinum, we're looking at something like a one in 10298 chance that any molecule of duck soup would be in the universe. I'll compare that to
a woman who won at craps 154 times in Atlantic City which is equivalent to beating the odds of one in 1012. If you want to consider the entire inflationary landscape, maybe you can get another 60 orders of magnitude (it's outside our observable universe, but... whatever). Okay, so if you were that lucky, you'd only have to deal with 10226 inflationary-landscape-sized volumes to get to break-even likelihood. But don't you call it zero! Also, I should be clear that the likelihood of discovering a molecule from the duck soup is far greater than the likelihood of observing a violation of the second law of thermodynamics for something like an ideal gas which is in the realm of a whopping one part in 101024 or so. Time goes forward because returning to unlikely microstates is so uncommon. More uncommon than finding the needle in a haystuck duck soup in the oscillococcinum.
Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
jps ( talk) 15:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a really bizarre thread. Just so I have things straight: the idea is that we should deliberately say things that are factually untrue because that will make people less likely to believe homeopathy is true? I really don't think it makes sense to say that any number of dilutions ensures that literally zero molecules of something is left. As has been said: they don't disappear. I also don't think that a stupid claim becomes reasonable by virtue of smugly insinuating that anyone who disagrees with it is a dumb crackpot who loves homeopathy. If you dropped a teaspoon of coffee into the mists of Jupiter, Jupiter would contain a teaspoon of coffee, not "no coffee". Saying that Jupiter "contained no coffee" would just be incorrect. It does not matter if there is some dumbass somewhere who says that Jupiter is made of coffee. jp× g 🗯️ 04:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This series of dilutions would result in one molecule of the original substance being present in 10400 molecules of solute; for comparison, the atmosphere of the entire planet Earth is estimated to constitute around 1.04×1044 molecules (i.e. one molecule of duck offal per 10356 Earth atmospheres). [1] [2] [3]
I have been reading this discussion for 45 minutes and I have got absolutely no idea what the hell anybody is talking about. Jondvdsn1 ( talk) 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
References
For months, a single user has been citing himself in-line as an authority on the subject, claiming that whatever he feels is the true cost should be taken as seriously as published scientific literature. Moreover, there are now lines about Thomas Hobbes and "State of Nature" (yes, literal 17th century philosophy) interspersed through the entire article. The worst thing has been the surprising inaction from other editors, who apparently haven't noticed anything off. I reverted the worst of it once, but then I didn't have time to edit war and hoped an informal complaint to an administrator would settle the matter. It hasn't. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 13:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Monoamine oxidase A ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The literature on a possible association between this enzyme and antisocial behavior appears to be all over the map, with some studies showing a large correlation and others failing to replicate. The gene that encodes it, MAOA, is sometimes called in the popular press the "warrior gene", and this usage has been criticized as a wild misrepresentation.
My sense is that meta-analyses –– which are of course our preferred source type per WP:MEDRS –– are pretty circumspect about the level of evidence here, e.g. [5] and [6]
Complicating the matter, we've seen in the past some rather committed POV-pushing on this and related " biosocial criminology" topics by LTAs, leaving aside the well-meaning efforts of editors who have possibly been misled by news stories presenting this as settled science.
You can see the rather schizophrenic result in this section of the article: Monoamine oxidase A#Antisocial behavior.
Input from experienced editors familiar with molecular biology is requested. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
However, a large genome-wide association study has failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression. The "antisocial behavior" and "warrior gene" section practically cover the same thing as well. Zenomonoz ( talk) 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
A connection between the MAO-A gene 3R version and several types of anti-social behaviour has been found(citing apparently solid studies, e.g. [7]), but then farther down one finds that
According to a large meta-analysis in 2014, the 3R allele had a small, nonsignificant effect on aggression and antisocial behavior[8], and even further down another meta-analysis
failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression[9]. We then read that there are replication and methodological issues with earlier studies. So yeah, I think a rewrite of the section is probably in order, focused on properly attributing statements cited to earlier, individual studies. At a later stage, this could then impact what information is conveyed in the lead. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure about this one. @
FMSky has
removed this MED RS disclaimer about conversion therapy from the lead of Joseph Nicolosi. and then added
this disclaimer suggesting "reparative therapy" is different from conversion therapy. FMSky asked "why is this disclaimer in the lead of a biography of a person"
? I have reverted.
Just to clarify: I am guessing
WP:FRINGELEVEL applies: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community"
, right? Academic reviews which discuss conversion therapy very often refer to Nicolosi specifically anyway e.g.
here. I think the revert was correct but some clarification would be appreciated. I guess FMSky would also appreciate the information.
Zenomonoz (
talk)
07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
and then added this disclaimer suggesting "reparative therapy" is different from conversion therapy.I actually didnt add anything at all just removed a line break -- FMSky ( talk) 14:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Nicolosi described his ideas in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (1991) and three other books. Nicolosi proposed that homosexuality is often the product of a condition he described as gender-identity deficit caused by an alienation from, and perceived rejection by, formative individuals of the subject's gender which interrupts normal masculine or feminine identification process.Loki ( talk) 06:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A few months back I added a section to Antisemitism in Contemporary Hungary dealing with the Orban government's use of antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories regarding George Soros. I recently re-read it, and I wondered if anyone here could check it to see if I am using neutral enough language. I don't edit much on conspiracy stuff, and this is a really delicate area where conspiracy-theories are right in the mainstream of a country's political culture.
Basically I want to know if it has the right balance between specifying that this is a racist conspiracy theory and WP:NPOV.
Any help gratefully received. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Bangladesh genocide has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Malerisch ( talk) 05:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Climate apocalypse has an RfCl regarding a proposed merge discussion. If you would like to participate, the RfCl is here, which also links to the original, unresolved discussion. Thank you. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 12:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
New article, prequel of
Great Purge. It depicts the plot as a real thing, although
Great Purge says The validity of these claims is still debated by historians
. So, historians, please debate how to improve the articles. --
Hob Gadling (
talk)
08:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Is apparently a type of rock found in Russia. It has gained some attention for its use making geegaws that are meant to have healing properties and/or absorb the evil energy from mobile phones. More generally though there seems to be some confusion about what this stuff actually is. Bon courage ( talk) 07:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
A user keeps reverting me when I attempted to add pseudoscience-related categories to the article ( [11] and [12]), despite reliably sourced claims that it appears in alternative medicine and 5G misinformation. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
At Grover Furr, this revert was challenged on MOS:LABEL and BLP grounds. The dispute is between the first sentence saying Furr:
...is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
...is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist fringe views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin.
The other point of contention is whether the 'see also' link in the Holodomor section should go to Holodomor denial or Holodomor genocide question.
This is outside my area, but my impression is that Furr is fringe enough that relatively few reputable academics even bother talking about him enough to debunk his claims. It doesn't help that he seems to like to attack other historians over these issues. I think this is why the article mostly cites Furr's own work, to its detriment. Furr's claims are, however, convenient for right-wing pundits who present his fringe views as an example of campus culture gone amuck and similar. This makes sourcing the 'fringe' bit slightly more difficult. Source disputing his claims are trivially easy to find, but sources which link those claims to Furr by name are harder to come by due to this noise. (Or maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places).
Since Furr has come up here a few times in the past, and to avoid local consensus issues, I would appreciate input from editors who are more knowledgeable about fringe issues, specifically Holodomor denial and Stalinism.
Thanks. Grayfell ( talk) 22:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
After many years of stability, there is currently a move to walk Wikipedia back from stating as fact that it was an airforce balloon which crashed near Roswell in 1947. More eyes could help. Bon courage ( talk) 13:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially.. It does not say "Post here only if you have a problem with profringe editors". It is your personal conclusion that, if someone posts here after discussing you, they must regard you as a profringe user. Also, someone is not a "meatpuppet" of someone else just because they disagree with you and the someone else also disagrees with you. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Yet there is no source in the known universe which WP:Verifies this. Bon courage ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Scholarly consensus conclude [sic] that the military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device
Stop talking about users. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
A startling section in our Marburg virus article describes how the Soviet Union had weaponized it. Similarly, at Soviet biological weapons program we have stated as fact that "A production line to manufacture smallpox on an industrial scale was launched in the Vector Institute in 1990". The common theme to these assertions (and many others [14] throughout Wikipedia) is that they are sourced to books by
a fêted Soviet defector who, our Wikipedia article tells us, also offers telemedicine service to treat autism and sells "Dr. Ken Alibek's Immune System Support Formula". [15]
Other RS is a bit less accepting. The LA Times says [16]
And, as Alibek raised fear of bioterrorism in the United States, he also has sought to profit from that fear. By his count, Alibek has won about $28 million in federal grants or contracts for himself or entities that hired him.
How should Wikipedia be using Alibek as a source for these claims? Should the source be used at all? Bon courage ( talk) 08:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
...portions of his testimony and narrative regarding Soviet BW activities carried out by the MOD are considered less authoritative.Should probably find each allegation in a better source and see what is "according to Alibek" or stated with more confidence. For instance the industrial scale production of smallpox is p. 224, chapter 8's discussion of Vector and weaponization of Marburg seems much more assertive. fiveby( zero) 14:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Cow urine ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
"Diesel-cow urine emulsion" seems dubious to me. Anybody familiar with the science of fuels? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
has just warped in, entire. Apart from being a synthetic topic (does any source talk about such 'theories'?), from a quick look, it somehow manages to avoid saying that zoonosis is the hypothesis most supported by scientists. Might need eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage ( talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
A zoonotic spillover event is the possible origin of COVID-19 that is considered most plausible by the scientific community.Sennalen ( talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
COVID-19 zoonosis theories are scientific hypotheses proposing that SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis....I can find no source which matches the term "COVID-19 zoonosis theories" with such a definition. jps ( talk) 14:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Like Origin of COVID-19?Yes, that is what I meant. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
sourced to PMID:33116300, which is impeccable WP:MEDRS. Alternatively, Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (although a litle rough still) explains all about it. Bon courage ( talk) 05:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)The virus is of zoonotic origin and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus.
there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible. [1]
a likely natural origin for the virus with a yet-to-be-identified wild-caught or farmed animal, [2]
are still unknown and subject to intense scientific and political dispute. Although the virus was believed to have most likely spread from a marine food market in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, there is currently no convincing evidence to support this, and controversies still exist. [2]
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors.
Of the three possibilities — natural, accidental, or deliberate — the most scientific evidence yet identified supports natural emergence. More than half of the earliest Covid-19 cases were connected to the Huanan market, and epidemiologic mapping revealed that the concentration of cases was centered there.
Proponents of the accidental laboratory leak theory stress the geographic location of the WIV in the city where the pandemic began. [...] Most scientists refute this theory because there is considerable evolutionary distance between the two viruses. However, the possibility that the laboratory held a different progenitor strain to SARS-CoV-2 that led to a laboratory leak cannot be unequivocally ruled out. [3]
On the one hand, it seems evident that the transmission originated in the Huanan market. But, on the other hand, three fundamental questions remain that have not been definitively answered. First, where did the virus come from? Second, what was the intermediate animal host? And third, why has the virus genome not been reproduced 100% in any of the coronaviruses found in bats? [4]
the WP:RS guidance I shared. If you mean the
opinions of reliable authorsabove, you are missing the
based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracypart. Letters to the editor are not fact-checked by the editor - when you write one, you obviously want them to be published as they are - so they can be as inaccurate as the writer wants them to be, and the reputation of the editor is irrelevant. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thinker78 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided.
"It bothers me that Origin of COVID-19 is almost entirely about investigations"← I think jps's proposed merge could actualy help with that. Bon courage ( talk) 16:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
In an attempt to remove some of the problems of the page, I began an early round of edits and changed the title of the page to Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (allowing for the plural since more than one sense of "origin" is discussed in the sources and the current editorial approach). I'm still not convinced that this page is worth keeping as-is rather than just having the relevant content shunted back to Origin of COVID-19, but my hope is that savvy editors can come together to make the choice more obvious. I do believe the article as written is suffering a bit from bloat and is WP:UNDUE. There is little in the way of organizing the best sources with the most attention paid while marginalizing less important sources. I see some papers that have hundreds of citations with the same amount of attention as papers with fewer than ten citations. Not a good look. jps ( talk) 12:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
References
There's a dispute regarding use of a Piers Corbyn view regarding the Hamas October 7 attack, in which - inter alia - he calls it a false flag Israeli operation. The discussion is here. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Bio of a writer-reporter specializing in UFO fringe conspiracy theories rewritten by an WP:SPA seems to blur the line between fringe and mainstream. Cites text to WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB sources, infers old awards for non-UFO journalism apply to UFO-related work, and introduces a number of WP:TONE problems. Could use a copyedit and WP:FRIND sourcing, but may take a WP:BLOWITUP to sort out which sources actually support a jumble of claims. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a new thread on WP:NPOVN about this, and it is relevant to this board too. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
it's just been heavily edited by a member with major unsourced changes, some contradicting sources I believe. If it isn't fringe, please ignore this. I've given the editor several warnings. Thanks. Note that the changes have been reverted, so I'm only asking for eyes. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
See recent Talk section. Last summer, the article had a short section "Skeptical view" which seemed to contain a skeptical view. Now the whole article looks like a homogenous pap, including the "Skeptical view" part. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
In the Bible, Sanat Kumara is called as the ageless, "the Ancient of Days"cited to a theosophist. This is clearly an "in-universe" view that shouldn't be stated in wikivoice. Then again, I don't think the original version before they started editing is much better honestly. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
A user is trying to add Aseem Malhotra and many other unreliable sources into the lead. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
A user has declared on the talk page that "Kombucha is fermented tea. Nothing more, nothing less" and is tagging content around its potential benefits and harms in a way I am finding it difficult to comprehend/deal with on Talk. More eyes could help. Bon courage ( talk) 17:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Follower of Thomas Szasz. Article has hagiographic elements. - Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
If you spent a lot of time in COVID-related or other articles tagged by WPMED during 2023, please consider signing up at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds We're tracking both most (net) sources added and most (bad) sources removed, and I'm hoping that some of you can give @ Bon courage some proper competition in that latter category. (If you can't figure out the interface, then ping me, and I can add you directly.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Conversion therapy about whether it should include "gender exploratory therapy" and if so, whether it should be defined as conversion therapy. The relevant text being debated is the last two paragraphs of Conversion therapy#Gender identity change efforts (GICE) and the relevant discussion is Talk:Conversion therapy#GET sourcing problems. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
register a charity for anything. See [19] . Sweet6970 ( talk) 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
it is possible to achieve a ban on conversion practices that protects the trans, non-binary and intersex communities, without limiting exploratory therapy.
It is important to note that the references cited in this report do not constitute a comprehensive literature review. It defines GET once, in a glossary which says
it is important to emphasise that the language used is not an indication of a position being taken by the Review, and doesn't comment on it at all anywhere else except to say GIDS doesn't use it, and some people quit over that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encountersto the extent that they would simply refer cases direct to GIDS. These problems have all been well-documented in Time To Think.
evidence on the appropriate management of children and young people with gender incongruence and dysphoria is inconclusive both nationally and internationally., and this is something I believe we should cautious of deviating from in wikivoice.
campaigners are seeking to make the provision of exploratory therapy effectively impossible by ensnaring it in an ill-defined criminal ban on trans “conversion therapy”. This is the nature of this controversy: a political battle over what does or does not count as "conversion therapy", with experts outside the US insisting that exploratory therapy is not conversion, and the NHS moving more in that direction, guided by the interim findings of The Cass Review.
ethical exploratory therapywould never be covered by a ban. As is already noted in Gender exploratory therapy, supporters of GET oppose trans conversion therapy bans.
The ban has been linked to parallel proposals to ban gay conversion therapy; yet the fluidity of gender dysphoria makes it a completely different phenomenon to sexual orientation in young people.Our article on Conversion therapy is clear: conversion therapy includes T, not just LGB.
the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of “exploratory therapy” has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name.
UKCP is not the best sourceI'm sorry, but you don't establish whether an uncontroversial, commonplace therapeutic viewpoint advanced by a regulated charity with a board, trustees, and a well-respected CEO who is the former CEO of the Ethics Committee, is WP:FRINGE by trawling the social media of the chair to see if he's retweeted Peter Hitchens.
absolutely nobody is saying "all exploration is bad"The WPATH statement is criticising the Cass Review for favouring exploratory interventions, criticising the
“psychotherapeutic” approach, and calling
"exploratory therapy"tantamount to conversion. Are WPATH a strong source or not? You can't apply this selectively. Either what both WPATH and Cass describe as "exploratory therapy" is conversion therapy (as your sources argue) or it isn't.
Effective accelerationism is up for DYK, so I took a quick look at it. The only problem that I can see is in terms of framing. This is very much a fringe theory that is being deliberately framed as mainstream, but only because it has received a lot of attention, not because mainstream researchers and academics support it. This is a problem for me. We only see minor criticism, which is corralled in a "Reception" section, giving it the appearance that the concept is not fringe at all but just has some detractors. To me, this is a form of bias. If we had similar articles about related ideas calling for the removal and bypassing of regulation in other sectors, whether it was in building codes, medical testing and drug analysis, air and water quality, or just food inspection, we would automatically recognize it as a fringe theory. Yet somehow, this kind of free market fundamentalism gets a free pass because it is talking about AI. Please, can someone take a look at this. What's disturbing to me the most, is that the source they are using to say it is no longer fringe, says the opposite ("the idea is still fairly fringe"). [24] Viriditas ( talk) 23:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Coriantumr_(son_of_Omer) regarding independence of LDS-adherent publications on LDS topics and how this integrates with N, NPOV, and FRINGE. Namely, can we have a page on a narrow religious topic sourced exclusively to adherents who treat the topic as if it is historically plausible (or is at least derived from ancient testimony rather than recent invention) when the consensus among scientists and historians is that no part of the broader topic is accurate? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this can be saved. I can find American Indian Rock Art. Monograph series of the American Rock Art Research Association (ARARA). Edited by DAVID A. KAISER and JAMES D. KEYSER. The most recent issue features these papers: Volume 44 (2018): . HILBISH, J. F.: Dating western message petroglyphs with Aztec and Maya glyphs. This is by the author of the self-published book. And of course a paper at a conference isn't enough either. But maybe there's a place for some of it? Doug Weller talk 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is becoming a wikibook of original research with no secondary sources to be found. I suggested a TNT, but the article author added more of their research. Additional eyes would be appreciated Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 17:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I have submitted multiple unreliable Theosophy articles to afd:
This is an on-going issue that I have noticed has plagued Wikipedia for a long time. A lot of throwaway accounts have been editing these articles over the years adding unreliable Theosophical sources. These articles are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia, they are poorly sourced violate WP:Fringe and WP:RS and contain no academic historical coverage. We shouldn't be creating articles that are not neutral or have no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Also related, Mental body and Astral body seem to be very fringe and not NPOV, with the normal set of Theosophical only sources. Big Money Threepwood ( talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
New user adding 29,154 bytes of text, most of which do not mention Yusuf ( WP:OR) or are unreliable, claiming the consensus on saturated fat has been overturned. The usual sources being cited including Gary Taubes and paleo diet advocate Steven Hamley. We had similar issues to this recently at the Ancel Keys talk-page where scientific consensus is being ignored. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
MGTOW folks have their knickers in a twist about the article, posting things like "What are the implications about the prevailing conditions if Wikipedia's MGTOW entry is more dramatic than Encyclopedia Dramatica's MGTOW entry?" on the Quora Q&A forum. Apparently we are biased by relying on mainstream journalism and other reliable sources instead of accepting their self-descriptions. The complaints on the talk page have already begun. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Grusch revealed himself to be a full fledged UFO mythicist, from referring to "the phenomenon" to "experiencers" having psychic contact with non human entities to the phenomenon being a "bipedal hominid" and higher dimensional beings to Operation Stargate being a successful remote viewing program which turns a part of the brain into a transceiver. He's a fan of Jacques Vallée and he's forming a company with Garry Nolan (though oddly he calls himself a founder while not appearing anywhere on the company's webpage.)
Anyhoo, the mainstream media, as well as the politicians who threw their lot in with him, are all avoiding the embarrassment of admitting that they believed someone who is so obviously a cook. Consequently there is minimal coverage of his headlong dive down the rabbit hole. But having taken his mask off on the most popular podcast in the world, Grusch does not have a right of privacy about his WP:ABOUTSELF statements. The guiding principle here is WP:PARITY. But as usual, those who want to pretend they are protecting WP:PRIMARY refuse to recognize to keep embarrassing things off the page. The exact same tactic was used to keep D. Gary Young's worst medical malpractices off his page. It's a frustratingly cynical ploy that smacks of bad faith. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine
There is currently an editing war claiming that osteopathic manipulative medicine practiced by physicians in the United States is pseudoscience. This is a fringe theory that some editors refuse to remove from the article and have failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that it is indeed pseudoscience.
Here are some sources that outline the benefits of osteopathic manipulative medicine
The Lymphatic System: An Osteopathic Review
Osteopathic Manipulation Treatment
The Elephant in the Room: Does OMT Have Proved Benefit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eko321 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Bon courage ( talk) 06:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)I received an excellent undergraduate medical education and am proud to be a DO, but I cannot continue to support an antiquated system of healthcare that is based on anecdote or, in some cases, pseudoscience. As a medical school student, I was taught to critically analyze problems and practice evidence-based medicine. When it came to courses in osteopathic principles and practices, however, my peers and I were asked to put aside our critical, evidence-based medical skills and accept the tenets of OMT on faith. When we questioned such esoteric practices as craniosacral therapy and energy field therapy, we were told that “we needed to believe.” Likewise, when less than 5% of the class “felt” the craniosacral rhythm, the rest of the class was derided for a lack of faith—to the point that ejection from the medical school was threatened. When we complained that some students were using barbeque strikers to stimulate invisible “energy fields,” we were told that in time, we would come to understand and believe.
Sensational cruft cited to search engine results, blogs, Facebook groups, and Youtube videos being justified because "Wikipedia has no firm rules". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This is now at Wikipedia Third Opinion when it is very clear from the Talk page that WP:FRINGE is at issue. An editor with about two months experience is tendentiously edit warring to remove skeptical sources from the article and add credulous interpretations from primary sources, justified by massive WP:WALLSOFTEXT on the Talk page. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not "walls of text" as a strategy of war or subversion, I thought you could read the text as it is my response. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 00:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC) In neither reversion I returned the same content I tried to adapt to the expectations of Rjjiii (ii) Talk:Westall_UFO#4_January_2023 "Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and using inline citations" 00:07, 7 January 2024. With LuckyLouie reversion I haven't added any more disagreeable information and limited my response to only that which is proven obviously, also removing those parts which the sources don't show which suprising is quite a few informations as shown at Talk:Westall_UFO#7_January_2024 "23:49, 7 January 2024", to stabilize the content to the expected standard of reference to content being a true representation. I didn't provide a sceptical position because the sources don't provide that position. I'm not an advocate I just obeyed the sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 01:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) The article as it is now is stable as far as I am concerned; the sources to content have representation so this allows all involved editors to discuss the reality of the article instead of being deceived and proceeding from a false position. I don't intend to make any more changes unless with discussion, I thought this could proceed as to how LuckyLouie thinks the sources can't be used to represent the statements of the involved individuals. Whether or not someone should believe their statements it is interesting to see what they stated, and to allow people to decide for themselves the reality, instead of judging that they are wrong as FRINGE would indicate. Obviously no proof is available but by stating isn't proven is fringe or extrordinary does not prove it is not the reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 01:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC) WP:FRNG "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.". Obviously the sources of the supposed incidents don't have a sceptical view so ignoring their views is simply to discount the evidence from the sources as if the "Explanations" argue away the possibility of the things they state being true. The explanations part of the artilce is not satisfactory as a explanation against the details of the statements. It is a false representation to provide the sceptical position if the statements of the sources of the incidents aren't obviously currently disproven. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
It is a false representation to provide the sceptical position if the statements of the sources of the incidents aren't obviously currently disproven.Ignoring its problematic logic, this statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the policies and guidelines that underlie what content is, and is not, included in Wikipedia articles. I strongly suggest that you read about Wikipedia's policy of sourcing requirements here, and also the guideline here that describes how fringe material is handled. Wikipedia articles do not necessarily include The Truth, only material that is verifiable in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The Wikipedia policy of WP:CONSENSUS, which I note is not in your favor at the article Talk page, should also be read because it describes the basic model of how editors, through collaborative discussion, determine article content. Lastly, regarding such discussions, please read the Wikipedia policy here about how to engage with other editors. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 09:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The article is kind of a daunting mess. Given the nature of the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, the lack of analysis and critique published by independent secondary expert sources is surprising. Most newspaper coverage seems to be WP:SENSATIONAL mystery-monging and jumping on the "Australia's Roswell" bandwagon. The "Further information" section at the bottom is loaded with conspiracy junk, non-notable YouTube videos, and other WP:ELNO - all formatted as citations. This could take some work. ( @ User:SGerbic, yup, still trying!) - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
"Consipiracy junk" is nonsense you haven't looked at the sources to state that. "non-notable YouTube videos" isn't very probable as it is possible to corroborate the contents of the Kible video as I showed at 03:12, 6 January 2024 Princeton corroborates source 4 "brother-in-law" which is to state that although kirk (which is the Princton source) merely copied from Basterfiald and Clarke he didn't determine that Basterfiald and Clarke were a worthless source as you seem to be implying, which matters since "kirk" is Professor Emeritus Experimental High-Energy Physics Department of Physics Princeton University as I indicated at Talk:Westall UFO#7 January 2024 14:07, 8 January 2024. And why would you state non-notable, since obviously the Youtube video of JE McDonald in which he is interviewed stating "I've investigated about 50 or 60 cases since I came down to New Zealand and Australia extremely interesting UFO sightings", as shown here ref.16 plus the absolutely certain same voice of the interviewer in the Youtube video at 16 couldn't be classed as the apparent non-notable evidently by " James E. McDonald". You comments have a perplexing lack of observation of the actual reality of the sources, your dispariging comments are a presumed reality.
Correct my mis-apprehension of your meaning: "mystery-monging", so you have the proof that the entire accounts of the sources are absolutely and covincingly discredited: where are the sources for me and other editors to be similarly convinced: if you would like to show the counter argument to how their extrordinary claims are so obviously extraordinarily false then show how this is proven, beause I didn't find such a proof just your suspicion and persuasve use of language to attempt to discredit the sources, unless you have a contrary proof.
I requested someone review the edits I made 23:49, 7 January 2024 & 14:35, 8 January 2024, for the purposes of peer-review, which no-one has so far done. I tried to begin a discussion of the sources, you seem to think policy discounts my using the sources so state where in policy it is the sources shouldn't be used.
Dunn, Matthew (6 January 2016). "The Westall 'UFO' incident still remains a mystery 50 years after it occurred"
Lucadou-Wells, Cam (7 April 2016). "Westall sighting remains a mystery"
Sharpe, Matthew (3 April 2016). "Westall '66: 50 years on, still stranger than fiction"
Natarsha Belling, Terry Peck (21 January 2016). Melbourne UFO Mystery: 50 Years On, Shane Ryan (investigator)
Paul Smith (22 March 2022). Phenom Westall '66 - A Suburban UFO Mystery
are the sources: please share with me and any other interested editors how the accounts are so obviously disproven, since you obviously know how they are by mentioning "The Roswell incident is a collection of events and myths surrounding the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon, near Roswell, New Mexico.". I didn't use the sources to confirm anything extraterrestrial or secret military simply to restate the claims of the sources as rerepresentation of their realities since I didn't find obvious indications of deluded, conspiracy theory or any other charge or claim against the sources. Unless I see the evidence that these sources shouldn't think mystery then your claims are just slander against the reputation of legitaimately employed journalists and an investigator currently employed by Australian parliament Canberra. Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
You didn't indicate the exact relevant part of WP:ELNO so I had to presume that "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." is the expeccted reference (although I don't know); which isn't applicable as I didn't use the sources to state or imply anything more than the sources themselves state, which is the subject of the article not: if the sources of the article Westall state something which is extraordinarily improbable in known reality, the laws of physics, the current ctate of physics. The subject matter is ufology not physics. The videos which show interviews with the soures look authentic to me: so they can't be "factually inaccurate material" as they are the facts of the acounts of the sources. If ELNO applied I would be: seeing a different version of the sources which distorted their accounts, but I didn't find that, obviously, as the sources give videos which are convincing. As to whether the sources are "unverifiable research", the sources give accounts of what happened either in typeface or video and names of individuals are given in video interviews.
Your argument excludes WP:ELNO: "except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting" even if your position with regards were true, the position of the article is to represent the information, whatever is available in sources, on the supposed events of the day which is Westall. Your criticisms amount to Original research here that you make a variety of claims as to the no-value state of the sources but that is all you do, make claims without showing exactly how those claims could be easily supported by the evidence. Please show exactly how your position is agreeable then this argument could be ended immediately by the obvious reality which I so obviously have no evidence to prove to myself of (unless I should be convinced by your "loaded" and offensive response which you so obviously execute on this page to the expected conclusion of ceasing any further inclusion to the article), regards Simpul skitsofreeneea ( talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
"Consipiracy junk" is nonsense you haven't looked at the sourcesand
You comments have a perplexing lack of observation of the actual realityand
your claims are just slanderand
your "loaded" and offensive response) are not only unhelpful, they could lead to you being blocked. You are also displaying WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON behavior, which could also get you blocked. As has already been explained to you, Wikipedia policies determine what is and isn't included in Wikipedia articles. There are no Wikipedia policies that obligate editors to provide "proof," to you or anyone else, that something WP:SENSATIONAL didn't happen. Our chosen avocation here - and by "our" I mean you, me, and all editors - starts with populating articles with reliably sourced content. Experienced editors in good standing are balking at your desired content because it is apparently not reliably sourced. You should be trying to better understand their positions, rather than engaging in personal attacks. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
1894: Dr Freud is inhaling ignited tobacco smoke containing the psychoactive nicotine from about 20 cigars every day. Possibly true, but what exactly has that got to do with the supposed subject of the article? Bizarre... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I've posted what sources I can find on the talk pageThanks Rjjiii, can you repost these at the bottom of the article Talk page? I lost them in the mess of WP:SOUP. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Should this article be split into the actual proposal and the conspiracy theory? Lumping them both in together seems bizarre and WP:COATRACKy to me. -- GnocchiFan ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
There has been an renewed uptick of interest in this recently, with the suggestion that Japanese primary research in some way validates the clinic's products. Relatedly, I notice a supposed Burynski 'success story' being added [27] to Brainstem_glioma. More eyes helpful. Bon courage ( talk) 09:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Zhou Yusen could do with attention, it's a new article and the sources are a primary source, the National Review and NY Post, a PerthNow page which is syndicated DailyMail content, and an article by Sharri Markson who is a lab leak conspiracy theorist. The current wording of the article seems heavily skewed towards promoting lab leak conspiracy theories. The external links section links to multiple unreliable sources. (I'm also not sure if Zhou Yusen is notable enough to need a page, from a quick search most of the coverage seems to come from conspiracy theorists and unreliable sources, but a deeper dive might turn up some better ones). JaggedHamster ( talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=America_B.C.%3A_Ancient_Settlers_in_the_New_World&diff=1196827934&oldid=1147349167]. This was done by User:BOZ. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
most of the scientific world rejected Fell's work as pseudoscience? – Austronesier ( talk) 22:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilly Juice.
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why this article is allowed to exist in its present form, and apparently has been for over a decade? This is the kind of gibberish that gets Wikipedia a reputation for being a hypertrophied blog that self-identifies as an encyclopedia without actually being one in any meaningful sense.
Not that I'm suggesting you should't have a list of the major pseudosciences. Of course you should. Pseudoscience matters. If you're seriously ill, being treated with remedies based on pseudoscience rather than seeing a proper doctor may kill you. And if pseudoscientific ideas about climate change influence the policies of enough major governments, it may even kill the planet! So yes, by all means let's have a list of significant pseudoscientific topics!
The trouble is, you don't have one. What you've got instead is - well, look at the title, and then think about what it actually means. And then read the introduction to the article itself:
"This is a list of topics that have, either currently or in the past, been characterized as pseudoscience by academics or researchers. ... These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices—efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning."
If we untangle that hairball of weasel words, what it's basically saying is that this a list of things which have at any time in recorded history been described using the word "pseudoscience" by any person who either had academic qualifications, possibly in a relevant field, or didn't have any qualifications at all, and was either making a serious point or just having a laugh. By the way, is "practices-efforts" a real word?
And then it gets worse!
"Other ideas presented here are entirely non-scientific, but have in one way or another impinged on scientific domains or practices."
Now, the definition of pseudoscience, and I'm quoting Wikipedia itself here, is "unscientific claims wrongly presented as science", and it's hard to see how something which is entirely non-scientific can be presented, however wrongly, as science. But remember, this is not a list of things which are pseudoscience; it's a list of things which have been characterized as pseudoscience by anyone at any time for any reason. Which would seem to me to include an impossibly vast number of topics, but fortunately the persons responsible for this brain-dead drivel didn't do very much research before getting bored and going off to play with their Batman Lego.
Talking of research, if you can call it that, it's pretty obvious how this article was "researched". The authors gathered a few likely-looking texts, mostly published by Prometheus Books and/or written by Michael Shermer, ran a wordsearch for "pseudoscience", and listed every single thing described in those books using that word. Then they wrote that idiotic intro to justify the inclusion of things even they could dimly grasp weren't altogether relevant, and retitled the article to be on the safe side. Perhaps it should be retitled again, to something like "List of stuff described as woo-woo by CSICOP"? Because it would be near as dammit the same article, and it would be much clearer what it was about and how useful it was.
Seriously, look at this list! Cold Fusion isn't listed as a pseudoscience even though it's inarguably a very significant example thereof because none of the books these children let a machine read for them specifically "characterized" that topic as such, but one specific alleged cold fusion device called an E-Cat does merit inclusion. Are we to therefore assume that Cold Fusion in general is perfectly valid science, apart from one obscure scam by some fellow who built a contraption called an E-Cat? Are we likewise to assume that Scientology as such isn't pseudoscientific at all, apart from two specific practices (or perhaps they're practices-efforts?), Dianetics, which is basically just pop psychotherapy, and the Purification Rundown, which advances the only mildly cranky idea that vitamins and saunas can cure drug addiction? And everything else that lot get up to is less scientifically unorthodox than those two mildly odd activities?
It's true that almost every entry has a link to a page describing it in more detail, so you can click the link and read a page hopefully written by an adult which will probably tell you whether or not the topic is relevant and/or important, but if you have to look up every entry on the list to find out whether it ought to be on the list, what use is the list? And how do you follow the non-existent link to something like Cold Fusion which isn't listed at all, unless you happen to notice that an E-Cat, whatever that is, has some connection with it?
Do you have access to a reasonably advanced AI? You might try asking it to rewrite this article, because although it has no mind at all, it'll do a far better job than some little boys who are too lazy to do any proper research and too stupid to see why they should. Because it'll be using exactly the same method as they did but far more efficiently, since its database will be many orders of magnitude larger. So instead of mindlessly listing every trivial use of a certain word in a few books, it'd be able to determine whether a scientific consensus exists that a thing is pseudoscientific, and will thus include only the topics that matter, such as Cold Fusion, while omitting nonsense like Rumpology, which is included here not because it was ever in any way important or has even the remotest connection with science, but because it gets a passing mention in The Skeptic's Dictionary so onto the list it jolly well goes!
Also, a reasonably efficient piece of software would be able to break up inconvenietly long lists using subheadings somewhat better than these kiddiwinks could. It looks very much as though they once got a brief glimpse of a real encyclopedia and understood that very long lists should be subdivided in this way, but didn't have the slightest idea how to do it, never mind why. It would also probably know that "practices-efforts" isn't really a word.
Or even better, you could dispense with both the quasi-smart machine and the authentically dumb humans and scrap the whole sorry mess, then start again with a title such as "List of major pseudoscientific ideas" and write an article that fits the title instead of the other way round. That way you might end up with something that would be much more useful to your readers, and much less embarrassing to you. 86.130.233.248 ( talk) 15:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Once upon a time, I suggested that List of pseudosciences was a better title. I was overruled. C'est la vie. But maybe now the time is ripe to revisit that question. I've grown past caring. Be WP:BOLD, 86, and start an account and an AfD! jps ( talk) 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RS/N#Yoga Journal as a Reliable Source which may be of interest to participants here. Bon courage ( talk) 10:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Guy invented laws for ghosts. Article may profit from more eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
WSJ confirms lab leak. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
In 2023, Public was credited by the Wall Street Journal for publicly identifying three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were allegedly working on Coronaviruses and had taken ill near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.[53]
Diana Walsh Pasulka ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article uncritically parrots some pretty WP:ECREE claims about "base reality" to alien abductions. Pasulka is one of those academics who seems to be teetering off the edge of the limb they climbed out on. Are there sources we can use to show the WP:MAINSTREAM does not accept her fantastical beliefs as being, y'know, based in "base reality"?
jps ( talk) 16:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
So, where is the issue?I suggest that the answer can be found by reading WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 20:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Article uncritically parrots some pretty WP:ECREE claims about "base reality" to alien abductions.That is the issue. I once again suggest reading WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I attempted to write the synopsis for the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19. User:Bon courage deleted the book synopsis per WP:FRINGE, then gave me a less than useful explanation. It's longstanding precedent that book synopses are cited by the book itself, why wouldn't this book qualify? 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. (my underlining)
Workshopping of a possible addition of a synopsis continues. I am all but spent. If others who have sanguine heads about themselves would see it fit to make some judgement calls about this, I would be most appreciative. jps ( talk) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I have found reasonable evidence of falsification of history in Azeri Wikipedia pages about Armenia.Which include fake claims of Armenians committing a genocide against Turks and Azeris, other fake claims include a claim that the territory of Armenia was historical Azeri land. These false claims are supported by the Azeri government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrafiq ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This is about making stuff up. See [30]. Seen Talk:Anthroposophy, wherein others made the same point (look for posts of 1 November 2023), I came to believe that most citations by SamwiseGSix are phony. Meaning the WP:RS fail to WP:V the claims they're WP:CITED for. SamwiseGSix cited a bunch of sources, putting his own opinions in their mouth. He might not understand what we mean by WP:V, but that's not a reason for allowing his citations to stay in the article.
Herbermann, Charles George (2015-10-02). The Catholic Encyclopedia. Arkose Press. ISBN 978-1-343-86075-9. is an 80-pages booklet. It is not a 16-volumes encyclopedia. So, it does not have a volume 13, nor a volume 14. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
In Germany, the group's country of origin, the Roman Catholic Church totally rejects the Christian Community.Why can't we just remove the offending text and if SamwiseGSix returns and objects take it from there? fiveby( zero) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
making stuff upand
putting his own opinions in their mouthseem like appropriate descriptions. Need to check all the Steiner related edits and revert probably, don't know what is the most economical way to deal with the user. fiveby( zero) 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
what has this to do with "Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded", what is this thread about? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Heise holds the Jews responsible for the World War (Entente-Freimaurerei und Weltkrieg 32-33, 84, 262, 295, etc.), warns repeatedly against “Jewish capitalists” (e.g. 286), claims that the Roosevelts are Jewish and that their real name is Rosenfeld (285), that Woodrow Wilson's wife is Jewish (296), that the news agencies are controlled by Jews (306), that the Jews control Britain and the Empire is a plaything of the Zionists (122-127), and that Bolshevism is an Anglo-Jewish invention (253). Heise invokes Steiner and anthroposophy throughout the book, at one point praising Steiner as the alternative to “Jewish thinking” (297). The book draws heavily on ariosophist sources as well. Heise’s work continues to find anthroposophist admirers; Ursula Marcum, for example, writes: “What makes Heise’s book special is his treatment of Jewish influence in world affairs.” Marcum, “Rudolf Steiner: An Intellectual Biography,” 408. See also the extremely positive reviews of Heise’s book in Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus no. 47 (1920) and Das Reich January 1919, 474.
Someone (a newbie) erasing WP:PSCI-compliant statements from Rudolf Steiner. More eyes needed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
...and he immediately had to flee to Switzerland[33] looks like invention. fiveby( zero) 15:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what what a "condom report' is [34] , also see User talk:Mcorrlo#January 2024 Doug Weller talk 17:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I've interacted with that user over on pt.wiki and can confirm he has pushed the ALIENS ARE HERE agenda over there (and maybe other strange beliefs, perhaps ghost stuff? Not sure ATM). Also, IIRC, he was immune to arguments, and just got his way as I gave up trying to reason with him. pt.wiki is pretty bad. VdSV9• ♫ 02:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Source here. Probably worth updating a few articles.
Heh.
jps ( talk) 17:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
[35] [36] Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This might be useful somewhere. [1] Doug Weller talk 14:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Although this is an article about a religious belief, it is using archaeology for proof. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
but don't think i can because of that sucky OR policy. There's some that can be cut based on misuse of sources, and i think critics Vogel and the Tanners are really not much help at all and probably doing more harm than good. fiveby( zero) 07:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)One has to assume, it seems to me, that when the members of Lehi’s party heard the local name for "the place that was called Nahom" they associated the sound of that local name with the term Nahom, a Hebrew word that was familiar to and had meaning for them.
Fringe but you'd never guess it from the short lead if you didn't know the people involved. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Gunnar Kaiser ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled onto this article on a German Covid skeptic I'd never heard of. Looks like it suffers from some rather extreme WP:FALSEBALANCE. The poor quality of the English (and 13,068 byte initial edit) suggests it was a Google Translate copy/paste from a German-language article. Interestingly, Kaiser's article on German-language Wikipedia has long since been deleted. No longer a BLP since the subject passed away last year. 3700 views in the past month. Thoughts on what to do with this? Generalrelative ( talk) 14:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
One IP and the user JayBeeEll are removing the infobox calling Template:Infobox pseudoscience use as " disinfobox". I think that this is wrong and asking here for more eyes to resolve the dispute. Cheers! Ixocactus ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Might be in the wrong here, but need a second set of eyes/opinions. 10k section in Deism on “Deism in Nazi Germany” feels to me entirely disproportionate to the page, but two editors are insisting on its inclusion and size therein. Hyperbolick ( talk) 02:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion about fringe publications that could use more people to have a look. Page history, Discussion. -- mfb ( talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
FYI
Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 13:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know how closely the average FTN editor follows climate change news. Nevertheless, I would assume there's a better-than-average chance that last summer, you would have seen headlines such as Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests
That was based on a paper in Nature Communications - normally a reliable, mainstream source. Yet, in this case, the conclusion was very far outside of the scientific consensus - you can see a summary of just how far in these commentaries from scientists here and here. At times, cutting-edge research can overturn consensus - but in this case, the opposite happened, as the paper applied its modelling to what has long been outdated data. Science Media Center had requested comment from scientists on this matter (including lead authors of the other AMOC papers, like Levke Caesar or Niklas Boers): I have been following SMC for a while, and I have never seen a climate change paper prompt over a dozen responses there - let alone for several to criticize it in really stark terms.
You might also find it interesting that this paper had just two authors (in climate science, papers on major topics typically have 5-10, even when it's other modelling studies - i.e. here and some can have several dozen, like here), and that they are apparently siblings, according to The Conversation article. Now, the brother, Peter Ditlevsen, has apparently chosen to directly edit the way their paper is covered in our article. As you can see from history, the edits were first done through an IP address (curiously, from Bayonne, France, even though the authors are based at the University of Copenhagen), then, after I removed their whitewashing, the exact same thing was done through a newly created account, "Pditlev", which even uses "we" in the edit summary.
The way I understand policy, this is WP:COI at the very least. I am still not particularly experienced on the administrative side of things, so I would appreciate involvement of more experienced editors. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Does a PROFRINGE source belong in the {{ press}} header at Talk:Race and intelligence? How about when we're pretty sure it's written by someone we've banned from editing Wikipedia for disrupting the topic area? The question has turned into something of a battleground, unfortunately. Cool heads are invited to help bring down the temperature at Talk:Race and intelligence#Removal of Quillette quote. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
For the interested, Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Removal_of_Quillette_quote now closed. We'll see if there's a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages are unindexed–– appears to be incorrect. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
His zero-point energy stuff needs physicist eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for a bit, and some review of the article generally and assistance with developing the lead in particular would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 03:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The lead seems to argue in favor of fringe explanations. Although maybe I'm reading it wrong (many of the sources are in Italian) which is why I'm listing it here at FTN. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
May need more egyptologists. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
IP says it is him, complains a lot on the Talk page. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Does Havana Syndrome even exist? It is not clearly a "syndrome", as opposed to a delusion. Nangaf ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a big dispute at WP:NORN#Bicameral mentality about this concept and the book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Bringing it hear because the person who is probably using OR is also arguing that the articles support the concept unduly. For those unfamiliar with this concept, the lead for the first article says "Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by Julian Jaynes who argued human ancestors as late as the ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but as the consequences of actions of gods external to themselves. The theory posits that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind, and that the breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in human". Doug Weller talk 07:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
RedHuron is a student editor who changed Feng shui significantly through two huge edits [47] [48].
I've reverted the changes to the lede prior to those edits [49].
The other changes need a careful review. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This Hindutva activist believes that caste system was created by the western world and firecracker as an Indian invention. Need attention of more editors here given the current dispute where I am involved. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 07:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable sources being edit-warred in, it seems. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:29, 19 February 2024 (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.
I suggest restoring the content that can be found in these diff's at Karen Black, Gail Brown, Hunter Carson and Theodore McKeldin. Very basic, standard content that you would naturally expect to be included. But it seems that a certain somebody is recklessly determined to suppress it, [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] which is so bizarre to me.
My stance is that the content never had any reason to be removed in the first place. On February 10, I tried to start a discussion at Black's talk page, but couldn't get any editors to participate. I also brought it up at the Administrators' Noticeboard, again getting absolutely nowhere. Attempts to get the conversation going were shut down before any kind of resolution could be reached.
Your guess is as good as mine why 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B / 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE / 80.136.196.48 repeatedly blanks basic content and keeps putting a COI (conflict of interest) tag on the pages. Talk about chaos. There is no conflict of interest (the IP-switching editor seems to be suggesting this family is so irrelevant, that anyone who makes a substantial contribution to their pages must have a "close connection"). As a result of the inexplicable content wipeouts and meritless COI tags, each page is now incomprehensible and dishonors its subject. The pages were fine until the multi-IP editor came along and started making trouble.
This is an open-and-shut matter. Please remove the unwarranted COI tags and restore the content; then add protection and assign watchdogs to the four pages to prevent this madness from reoccurring. Deep Purple 2013 ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)