This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I don't think I am alone in noticing an upsurge in antivax editing issues on Wikipedia, in line with the real-world rise of antivaxers. Well, the WHO has also taken notice. ANTI-VAX MOVEMENT LISTED BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AS ONE OF THE TOP 10 HEALTH THREATS FOR 2019, according to newsweek. This is depressing and reinforces the need to keep these articles science-based. Guy ( Help!) 13:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories."-- tronvillain ( talk) 15:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Longtime board watchers may remember this person who took extreme umbrage to Wikipedia's use of sources that identified her as a vaccine denier. Well, she hasn't let up with the vaccine denial. I note that our articles haven't really caught up to dealing with this new round of nonsense.
jps ( talk) 01:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
See Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies. Key quote:
As our article on Alternative medicine says, "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in others the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
JzG is defending content that I do not believe to be supported by the sources, and attributing my disagreement to lack of knowledge on my part. This debate will go nowhere without more editors weighing in. Tornado chaser ( talk) 20:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, [3] TC says " [4] Here I remove claims of fake news promotion that are cited to an op-ed without proper attribution, further, this op ed says the anti-vax movement in Texas is 'a collection of fake news...' and while it says TFVC is part of the antivax movement, it doesn't directly accuse them of using fake news in their advocacy."
The edit he refers to is here: [5]
The source is [6]
The source says
So, is it true that the above passage doesn't directly accuse TFVC of using fake news in their advocacy? The key is in the word "story". The source says that Texans for Vaccine Choice (along with other antiaxers) concocted a story. It goes on to say that the story is a collection of fake news, half- truths, and conspiracy theories, which have been cleverly strung together to create a faux narrative.
My conclusion is that Tornado chaser is attempting to portray Texans for Vaccine Choice in a far more positive light than the sources do. If someone wants to file an ANI report or arbitration enforcement request calling for a topic ban, I will support it. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 09:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That's interesting, but it is not the issue that Tornado Chaser raised here. - Bilby ( talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
the rate of Texas students opting out of at least one vaccine at least doubling in around five yearsbit in the lead. Admittedly, it is a bit difficult to tell when opening a thread to a talk page comment, which itself is in a thread that seems to meander among issues. GMG talk 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The word "controversy" in the title is problematic for a number of reasons, it seems plausible that a better title could be found. Please weigh in with suggestions. Guy ( Help!) 14:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Saw on today's "Did you know..." "that pharmacologist Li Lianda won a national science award for his research on the traditional Chinese medical concept of blood stasis?"
Uh... WP:MEDRS, please? The Sciencenet.cn is merely reprinting from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, which exists to promote TCM. Bensky and Gamble's Chinese Herbal Medicine is from Eastland Press, a publisher of works on Osteopathy.
Traditional Chinese Medicine isn't traditional (in its current form), some of its more prominent practices (including acupuncture and Cupping therapy) aren't really Chinese, and it is by and large not really medicine.
This isn't to say that sources in Chinese or by Chinese authors can't be used: but they have to be science-based, not propaganda that romanticizes stop-gap measures implemented by Mao for political purposes. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal.
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure this topic (in these articles) is being dealt with fully in accord with WP:FRINGE. I've had a go at cleaning up the first two, but note that "Information-theoretic death" - with its ludicrous definition - seems to be a concept coined by an Alcor board member and restricted to the cyronics bubble (the term has no mention throughout PUBMED-indexed material). The Alcor article itself seems rather credulous and in-universe (its "patients" are "in suspension" ... right).
More eyes could be useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope someone here might want take a shot at rewriting this article about a conspiracy theorist. Here's the lede: -- Ronz ( talk) 04:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Anthony J. Hilder is an American activist, author, film maker, talk show host, broadcaster and former actor. In the late 1950s to the mid 1960s he was also a record producer, producing music in mainly the surf genre. He is also the step-son of actress Dorothy Granger. In Later years Hilder has been vocal about certain issues relating to the New World Order agenda and the banking establishment. He has produced a number of films relating to the subjects as well as appearing in productions by other film makers relating to similar subject.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_J._Hilder_(2nd_nomination).
I'm not clear why this article was allowed to be remade in the first place. jps ( talk) 12:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
After removing one unrelated ref as well as a citation to a self-described poetry fanzine claimed in the article to be a "philosophy journal", I redirected preferentialism to preference utilitarianism yesterday. My edits were reverted by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) today. The article's topic is in no way notable. Dean Mamas is a cosmology crank who has been promoting a tired light cosmology for at least a decade now.
The edits of the IP and the two IPs from the same 47.201.x.x range directly preceding mine show a clear fringe agenda, so I'm not going to engage any further before having had uninvolved participation.
Editors wishing to judge Mamas's crank factor for themselves are invited to email me a request for a copy of his Physics Essays "paper" claiming that quasars and GRBs are caused by matter-antimatter annihilation. Paradoctor ( talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I tagged it for speedy per WP:DENY. jps ( talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Mamas has a PhD in Physics, is a Phi Beta Kappa, and has a long publication record. Do Not Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 2019-01-25T02:54:23 (UTC)
Heru-Maaket Neb-ShakaRa ( talk · contribs) is adding unsourced material to Kemetism and to Ausar Auset Society. I gave him/her a welcome message explaining that they'd been reverted for adding unsourced but they've continued. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:G. Edward Griffin - it seems that "someone besides me" needs to tell the IP what's what. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
[ https://quwave.com/defender.html ]
I, of course, prefer the product described at [ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ] and believe the the TRUTH found at [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]... :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ut queant laxis
resonare fibris
Mira gestorum
famuli tuorum,
Solve polluti
labii reatum,
Sancte Iohannes.
Pernimius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having been topic banned from the Shroud of Turin (and posting lies about what a topic ban includes on his talk page [13] [14] [15]) has decided to "fix" our "biased" coverage of intelligent design. [16] [17] The topic has changed, but the behavior has not. Do we need to go back and ask that the topic ban be extended to all of pseudoscience? More eyes are needed on this situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
See [19] - a book on the geology of the Atlantic that starts with exploration by the Celts, Chinese, you name it. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments/criticism about the quality of the article BGR-34 are welcome over the article-talk-page as are bold improvements:-) Also, do you see any conflict with MEDRS? ∯WBG converse 17:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Disappearance of Frederick Valentich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the spirit of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I don't think long transcripts belong in the article. Several versions exist on the web, obviously edited to heighten the mystery, and the version being used is a possible WP:COPYVIO. Also this seems to contradict a cited source. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Prodigy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I've moved this proposal from a userspace of a retired user to WP-space as I think it is worth having discussed in more detail. jps ( talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
A couple of issues here. First, the article has been recently edited by an account names "Sergiocanavero" (as reported at WP:COIN#Sergio Canavero); secondly that we seem to lack neutral good sources for reporting on his "work", which is currently sourced to some dodgy journals. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
New Age raw food crank who believes cancer can be cured by eating a raw food diet. Virtually no reliable stuff out there on this guy. Article was using fraudulent references (that do not mention Kulvinskas) that I removed. Can someone submit for deletion? What a terrible article. 2605:3E80:700:10:0:0:0:BE7 ( talk) 17:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We're having a somewhat productive working session about adding some content on work done on the vernix caseosa into this article. However, on the discussion page I came across a peculiar issue where a paper in Scientific Reports written by AAH proponents seems to have a statement that fails verification! But we're not necessarily supposed to fact check papers like this, so it up against WP:V in a sense. In any case, I started a discussion about this issue here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Errors/mistakes_in_reliable_sources and thought I would cross-post here since it potentially involves fringe theories.
jps ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course, Nature itself disappoints me on occasion.Heresy! I'll see to it that your shilling payments from big pharma, NASA and the GMO lobby are cancelled for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Big discussion about whether sources say that lack of evidence is one of the defining qualities of conspiracy theories. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Another TCM horror. Recent IP activity, so could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk)
@ Bishonen: see what Wikipedia's done to me. When I arrived here I was as innocent as a spring lamb. Now I am tyrannically repressing a whole culture's secret knowledge of how bruising people can cure myriad illnesses! Alexbrn ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a valid (fringe) article topic here... but it needs to be reviewed. As a first step, I would suggest a change of title to: “Accusations of US support for ISIS” (or similar)... just so it is not in WPs voice. Blueboar ( talk) 12:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Only to those who never step outside the bubble of the US establishment narrative. 110.74.199.28 ( talk) 15:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This pretty much explains everything we see on Wikipedia: [20] I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This page has been moved from Cathleen Ann O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) I think, but I can't tell as there is no history. The page has been moved, but as I am incompetent I cannot recover things. Could somebody competent take a look? Thanks. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This whole bio could use some work. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
A new article, Nebraska Rainwater Basins, which is a duplicate of Rainwater Basin has been created with emphasis on fringe theory by Davias and others of them being created by an imaginary Saginaw Bay impact. I thought of proposing a speedy delete review for it because of the duplication, but am unfamiliar with how to do it. Fortunately, there is a formal paper in progress about the so-called impact crater. Paul H. ( talk) 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
An IP wants to change the lay summary:
To:
There is clear consensus that the definition of alternative medicine is a lack of credible evidence (aka Minchin's Law) and the technical defintiin borders on WP:WEASEL in the context of the lede in this article. This is in the context of years of low-level POV-pushing by believers in colloidal silver as the Miracle Drug "They" Don't Want You To Know About. Silver Medical Use Recognition Fanatics, if you like. Guy ( Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Just stumbled over this article about a medium. Apparently she "found out" a lot of unexpected things when talking with dead people, and most of them were in Wikipedia's voice. I NPOVed a few, but probably all that fiction should not be in the article. More eyes would probably not hurt. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
What's the criteria for adding someone's published works to their bio? Because someone's added a lot. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Attempts to add a YouTube upload of a Sharyl Atkisson segment pushing a debunked antivax claim here: Talk:Vaccines and autism § Attkisson. Guy ( Help!) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Requesting for a list of high-quality sources about both the articles. Both seem to be written from a TRUEBELIEVER perspective and there's not an iota of any criticism or the declaration that it's a pseudoscience (barring the generic infobox, which plays the spoilsport).
Sorry about this, but eyes needed at Robert K. G. Temple ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Sirius Mystery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nommo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A new editor has been making major changes, deleting sourced text and adding a lot of details unsourced text. These have all been clearly aimed at a fringe pov. I've reverted all but these. Could someone else please have a look? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this can be considered fringe - needs a serous rewrite to meet NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
A reference to the book Predisposed: Liberals,Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences by John Hibbing, Kevin Smith, and John Alford was deleted from the article conservatism on the unsupported assertion that it was "self-promotion". I restored it and, as I learned more about the book, added references to it to several articles to which is is relevant. My references to the book were deleted by User:Beyond My Ken, with the claim that the subject matter of the book is fringe. I would like to contest that deletion.
All three authors of the book are university professors. John Hibbing has written five scholarly books, is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship; Kevin Smith has written more than ten books and authored more than fifty articles published in refereed journals; John Alford has published more than forty articles in refereed journals, and is a winner of the CQ Press Award honoring the outstanding paper in legislative politics, presented at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
The book was widely and favorably reviewed, for example, "The reviews are clearly presented, making the nature of studies and results accessible to nonexperts. The book includes the "Left/Right 20 Questions Game" for readers to test their own predispositions." Summing Up: Recommended. Undergraduate collections. - J. M Stonecash, emeritus, Syracuse University, in CHOICE"; "Destined to cause a stir, this book is by far the best source for what has emerged as an important new wave in the study of mass politics. In exploring how differences in people's biology, physiology, and cognitive makeup map onto politics, it provides a bracing sense of just how deeply our political differences run. Accessibly written and rigorously argued, it will provide a fascinating read for anyone interested in politics. ―Marc J. Hetherington, Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University"; and "A wonderful example of theoretically informed experiments demonstrating the genetic, physiologic, and cognitive underpinnings of political predispositions. Biopolitics has come of age. ―Milton Lodge, Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, SUNY at Stony Brook"
It is hard to understand how anyone could consider this "fringe". I request that the citations be restored. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The recent article in The Atlantic suggests that the information in the book has "caught on". The (brief) material I posted was not a "general description of the book", nor was it a "mundane synopsis" of the book. It was a statement of the main results of the research reported in the book. I chose to bring the discussion here because you, Beyond My Ken, advised me to bring it here. You offered me two options, this one seemed most appropriate since you said the subject was "fringe". You find it "interesting" that "they" (me) chose to take your advice. ??? Rick Norwood ( talk) 01:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
-- So, for anyone who reads the above, Fringe? Or Not Fringe? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are some sources to look at: [24] [25] [26] This is so far out of my area of expertise that I don't quite know what to make of these sources. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Rick Norwood, the claim "most people posting above agree it is not fringe" is not accurate. So far I see a bunch of people discussing that question, which is not that same thing as agreeing with your position on the question. I for one am still listening to the arguments on both sides. We haven't even been discussing this for a full day, so your claim that we have arrived at a consensus is premature. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at Talk:Conspiracy theory over the opening paragraph. The proposer, whose past history includes advocacy of 9/11 conspiracies, wishes to remove the long-standing consensus wording to the effect that conspiracy theories are definitionally false. Guy ( Help!) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
According to Buzzfeed [30], YouTube are demonetising all anti-vaccine channels and videos, and introducing an information panel. Anti-MMR videos already get a panel with a link to the Wikipedia article, so it's likely we'll see the same for, e.g., HPV vaccine. The Buzzfeed article specifically references our article on vaccine hesitancy (formerly vaccine controversies, but moved recently, see above) and our reflection of the WHO's identification of vaccine hesitancy as a top ten global health threat. This is likely to trigger a furious backlash, obviously. Guy ( Help!) 23:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Allopathic medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) really needs some attention. In particular, take a look at User talk:Hob Gadling#Your recent reversion of sourced changes at Allopathic medicine and tell me whether I am seeing WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, or whether something else is going on that I am missing. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
What the heck is this? ∯WBG converse 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Vaccine controversies was recently moved to Vaccine hesitancy, while I think vaccine hesitancy is a good article to have, I don't think it replaces an article about controversies related to vaccines, and the current vaccine hesitancy article contains some material that I think would be better suited to "vaccine controversies", I have created Draft:Vaccine controversies, based on an old revision of vaccine controversies that I made some changes to. I hope to eventually expand the hesitancy article and create the controversies article so we have 2 distinct articles, any assistance or advice is welcome. Tornado chaser ( talk) 06:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A herbal tea and famous fake cancer cure - there's a new editor at work who has a different take. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
David Strickel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bio of a non notable prosperity religion guru. Was rejected at AfC but WP:SPA published it anyway. I’d send it to speedy deletion if I knew what criteria code applied. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines § Requested move 19 February 2019.
The proposal is to move the article back to "thiomersal controversy", in line with the anti-vaccination narrative. Guy ( Help!) 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I published an article about ex-ghost hunter and now scientific skeptic Kenny Biddle about a year ago and it was deleted for lack of notability. It has been a year since then, and Biddle was covered in a NYT article about a sting operation done where a "psychic medium" was caught doing hot reading. What brings me here is that in the debate (see here) about resurrecting the Biddle article (see here), an editor has dismissed the NYT article this NYT article as fringe. When I pointed out that it is the exact opposite of fringe, he said: "Anti-FRINGE is an interesting twist on FRINGE. It still needs FRINGE type care." So, can someone here explain what "FRINGE type care" means and why it would apply to the NYT article or Biddle at all? Feel free to chime in on the debate page as well. RobP ( talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (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.
Not sure whether here or WP:RSN is the best place for this. Can I ask people to take a look at Resignation_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI#Controversies_over_the_Act_of_Resignation? It seems conspiracy theory tinged to me alleging, among other things, that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation may have been because he was subjected to intimidation, harassment or even death threats(!) The three "sources" used to support the section are
"WHEN THE DEMOCRATS NOMINATED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN 2008 I CALLED HIM IN A POST ON ABYSSUM THAT YEAR “THE PIED PIPER OF CHICAGO”"
"THE United States HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF CIVIL WAR SINCE THE ELECTION OF Donald Trump TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE United States. SO FAR THE LEFT HAS NOT RESORTED TO VIOLENCE TO HAVE ITS WAY, BUT IF TRUMP IS ABLE TO REPLACE JUSTICE GINSBURG WITH A CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE BE PREPARED FOR VIOLENCE. THE RUSH TO LEGALIZE INFANTICIDE NOW"
"NATACHA JAITT, ACCUSER OF Gustavo Vera WHO IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL, FOUND DEAD IN ARGENTINA Whistleblower Found Dead: Accused Gustavo Vera, Close Friend of Pope Francis, of Human Trafficking"
Which really doesn't inspire confidence in its reliability.
I removed the section and pointed the ip who is adding the material to WP:BRD and WP:SPS, but they just respond with accusations of vandalism and personal attacks, restoring the material. Valenciano ( talk) 08:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize the so-called Nazi gun control argument - which holds that gun regulations in the Third Reich helped to facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust - as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
If reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize something as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory, are we allowed to state that in Wiki voice? An editor, VwM.Mwv, on the Nazi gun control argument article claims that this is not neutral, in part because "There's no such thing as a "fact-checker"". [32] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I am usually one of the first to call a fringe theory what it is, but I honestly have reservations about this one. The whole argument hangs on a couple of things. First, did the Nazis disarm Jews? Yes. See Disarmament of the German Jews. Would things have turned out differently if the Jews were better armed? Almost certainly not, but I am reluctant to call something that is based upon "X would have been different if Y had been different" as fringe. Fringe does not equal "speculation that is probably wrong". We do know that some Jews fought. The best-known example of this would be the Bielski partisans, but as far as I can tell the Bielski partisans had few problems getting guns, using the tried and true method of gathering the guns and ammunition from dead soldiers. Would more Jews have fought if they hadn't been disarmed? Probably not (but speculation is generally not fringe). Our section on The Holocaust#Jewish resistance says "there was practically no resistance" and our article on Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe says "few Jews were able to effectively resist the Final Solution militarily". It's not as if the railroad terminals had big signs saying "line up here for the death camps" and the death camps had big signs that said "the showers are actually gas chambers". The Nazis made a reasonable effort to keep what they were doing secret from the Jews.
I am also concerned with the fact that most of the discussion on this has been from pro-gun and anti-gun activists. What do the historians say"? Well, we have one source that says "the historians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich". That doesn't sound like it fits very well with our "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" definition.
I say that we present the conclusions of the historians who have commented on this in their own voices, but without calling the idea fringe. Probably wrong, yes. Fringe, no. I just don't see it as meeting our criteria. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
On a side note, isn't "legitimize outright murder on a large scale – without any legal proceedings whatsoever" wrong? [33] The Nazi's passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"Ben Carson Is Wrong on Guns and the Holocaust" [ [34]]
Highgate Vampire ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The vampire-hunting bishop named in the article now adding unsourced argumentation against detractors and rivals to the text. I’ve reverted once, but this situation may eventually need administrative remedies. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I've just removed a couple of photos added today and replied to the editor on the talk page where he challenges an academic source because he thinks the investigation was poor. Eyes and maybe another reply would be useful. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Additional eyes on Judeopolonia please. An editor believes it is correct to describe this as "an idea positing future Jewish domination" rather than "an antisemitic conspiracy theory positing future Jewish domination of Poland" (cited to a couple of academic books and from a quick search it seems there is little trouble finding more). I'll also note they added unsourced (+ a 1941 CIA report, Czerniakow diary (died 1942), and Ringelblum (died 1944)) to Ewa Kurek (a BLP born in 1951) - diff - who is known for rather fringey views regarding Jews, ghettos, and fun. [35] [36] [37] [38] Icewhiz ( talk) 14:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Just nominated for deletion. See here.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have just removed a tremendous amount of synthesis and unrelated material from the article Coloniality of gender: (Original version: [40]) It seems to me that the article still has fundamental problems worth bringing up here: although the body is mainly general information about the pre- and post-colonial status of women in various countries, the lead asserts that
The idea of gender itself was believed to be introduced by Western colonizers as a way to distinct two dualistic social categories which are men and women.The colonizers had introduced the idea of gender itself into Indigenous groups as this was originally a colonial concept which was made to organize production, territory and behavior. The desire for the colonizer to put forth the idea of gender onto an Indigenous group was to have control over their labor, authority, influence their subjectivity and ideas of sexuality.
I think it's pretty fringe to say that the idea of gender is an invention of colonialists and unknown to (all?) indigenous groups. Should the article be renamed to something like "Women and colonialism", and the gender-theory material discarded? Cheers, gnu 57 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Editor input is requested at Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you. Leviv ich 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I only glanced at it after removing a recent major expansion of the lede, but it appears there are basic BLP and FRINGE violations. My impression, especially of the Selected Books section, is much of it places popular responses (out of their FRINGE context) over science. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, there's now a NPOVN discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake, where scientism is the concern of some editors. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you know "the Inquisition had science on its side" and "Galileo was a bad scientist"? Somebody puts lots of text on the Talk page in order to turn the article inside out. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Should Category:Researchers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy contain conspiracy theorists? Barr McClellan is just one example.
I think it shouldn't, it should only contain serious scholars, but maybe there are other users here who have more experience with that subject... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Subtle body has just had some major changes sourced to Blavatsky. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I received a courtesy notification from an editor that they are planning a major copy editing of the article and advised them to tread carefully if they plan to make substantive changes. [41] I am noting that there has been some editing going on there recently. We may want to keep an eye on this given the history of PROFRINGE editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Terrible article, mainly just puts forward a bunch of fringe ideas using primary sources. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
...By someone who doesn't undersand the difference between metrology and measurement. Please AfD it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Types of scientific fallacy somehow feels wrong. It contains Category:Cognitive biases Category:Scientific misconduct, Category:Pathological science and Category:Pseudoscience. Also a few articles like Just-so story and Hume's four Idols. There were more articles and categories in it, but I removed those that were already in subcategories.
So, the category contains things that are science gone wrong. But almost none of them are fallacies per se. I do not know what to do with it. The category is from 2007, but it seems to stick out like a sore thumb. Is there a better name for it, or could its contents be moved somewhere else that fits better? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have a question about how much coverage a fringe theory in a generally not very well discussed topic area merits on Wikipedia.
The source in question is this one and the article I am wondering about is Coropuna. The theory discussed in the source envisages that during the last ice age glaciers in the tropics reached the ocean; there is no support for this in all other sources I've consulted on glaciations (for the Pleistocene glaciations) which all have the glaciers end far from the sea. However, the source has a few cites to itself, not that few by the standard of the topic.
I am wondering if this should be documented in the article as a notable fringe view or not documented at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy's Ruler. Describes an astronomical distance measurement that implicates a non-standard cosmology. -- mikeu talk 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that the context is scattered among other threads. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Moberly–Jourdain incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article about a book called The Adventure published in 1911 by two women who claimed to have traveled back in time and seen the ghosts of Marie Antoinette and others. Under the header of Some explanations, our article presents "what is now called a time slip" on par with natural explanations. I believe the distinction between fringe claims (time travel, ghosts, etc) and mainstream understandings (natural explanations) should not be vague, ambiguous, or completely absent. Sadly, my efforts to correct this and add non-fringe clarifications have been rejected [44]. Also why is this identified as an "Incident"? Shouldn't our article title be The Adventure, since the book is what WP:RS identify as notable? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I had a go at it. The article was, surprisingly, in somewhat better shape than I had remembered when I asked for a GA-reassessment (and despite an acrimonious discussion resulted in no consensus and not even a single !vote for keeping or delisting). I fixed some obvious WP:ASSERT problems and tried to neutralize the more audacious claims and prose. jps ( talk) 15:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
References
A user and his corresponding IP has entered a good deal of original research and pseudoscientific nonsense about consciousness into an article on quantum physics. [46] Can someone with knowledge of quantum physics help to separate the wheat from the chaff? Or maybe a wholesale revert is preferable. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
BEMER Therapy, a new article, says it "is an alternative medical treatment method." May need looking at. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
light bulbs are going to kill you, don't you know? makes you blind, makes you craaaazeeee health claim I wrote a bunch of stuff on the effects of blue light technology page before I made an account as mitigation toward all the scare marketing but I'm still a bit concerned about the other ones and cant really see much of a justification for a lot of the health claims on those pages. As background, I just did simple math with references to point out that researchers have been basically frying rats eyeballs out of their heads with welding mask tier near-UV bright lights and comparing it to green light as some sort of proof that you need magic glasses to stop your eyeballs from falling out because they used the wrong equipment to check the light levels.
The basic problem is that people doing the research are in ergonomics departments which use colorimeters because until recently they were studying office space light levels and i guess nobody told them how they work. Verify references ( talk) 03:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should start to pare down this mess of articles. To that end, I proposed a merge of Effects of blue light technology and High-energy visible light. They are both about essentially the same subject (and the latter article title should conceivably just be redirected to blue or violet, fercryingoutloud.
As I removed a bit of EMF paranoia from one of the articles, I discovered that we have TWO articles on essentially the same topic: Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health. So I propose we merge those too.
Help is appreciated from all you wonderful people.
jps ( talk) 16:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Mountain157 has persistently attempted to edit Tartary to assert over the past few days that Tartary was a historical country, and has recently claimed in Talk:Tartary that the reason the country of Tartary is completely unmentioned in modern academia was because of a conspiracy to suppress its existence. Midnight-Blue766 ( talk) 01:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Patrick Moore, currently described with the disambiguation "environmentalist" on Wikipedia, is best known for being for anything the environmental movement is generally against, all the while backing industry-friendly talking points, many of them quite fringe (comically, such as claiming one could drink a quart of glysophate without harm, only to refuse to do so). His apparently false claims about his former Greenpeace involvement ( see the organization's statement on him) provide him cover to claim to be yet so concerned about the environment, especially when sources like Wikipedia claim he's an "environmentalist".
Predictably, this is red meat for his intended audience: the petroleum industry, and America's right wing, "environmentalist" figures in the orbit of the Trump Administration (resulting in Fox News articles like " Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit'" and Breitbart articles like "Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’" (link blacklisted)). This is deeply fringe stuff.
Moore himself appears to have been involved with the article under a few different names (for example, [50], [51], and [52]). This article needs far more eyes, particularly this talk page section on what to change the article's name to. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Moore is now asking his Twitter followers to edit his Wikipedia page. :bloodofox: ( talk) 14:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Modern Monetary Theory fails to clarify to readers that it is a marginal idea within economics and the article fails to cite "reliable sources... that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner", as WP:FRINGE instructs us to do. Most of the article reads like a personal essay, and the article cites a lot of working papers by heterodox economists. The lede to the article is a word salad that fails to clearly explain what MMT is. Furthermore, there also appears to be gatekeeping going on in the article, as one editor removed the IGM Economic Experts Panel survey of leading economists, which showed unanimous rejection of MMT by leading economists. [57] This is a problematic article which is not compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Raised at WP:RSN#Is Margaret Barker a reliable source for the Book of Enoch or Seven Archangels?. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There has been an uptick in activity trying to push a POV that this individual is not pushing Fringe science and promoting supplements that are claimed to mitigate the effects of ingested radioisotopes. Additional eyes will be helpful. -- VViking Talk Edits 17:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A student enrolled in a college editing course needs help understanding WP:OR. They have WP saying that Kirlian photography "introduced the use of technology and cameras as a method to find evidence of ghosts during paranormal investigations“, when there isn't any sources for that connection. Also they are rather fond of large scale cut-and-paste from other articles. Another voice appreciated here. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Although there is criticism in the article, there's no mention of his Hindutva views. An IP added some sources on the talk page a while ago, and it was brought to my attention today so I've added another. No time quite yet to work on it. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate some more eyes on this page, which is about a clinic offering complementary therapies for cancer patients, and its talk page. It has been argued that we should provide balance to reliably-sourced criticism by a qualified oncologist by allowing content sourced to a TV report that doesn't name the clinic and to a fundraising blog, and also that anyone who criticises complementary therapies is necessarily non-neutral. I have tried to discuss the issue, but, quite frankly, I am finding this too stressful to deal with further. Phil Bridger ( talk) 12:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
See WP:NORN#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? and particular Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
How does this stuff get by AFC? [60] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negro-Egyptian languages. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This is about [61]. My claim is that Gertoux is WP:FRINGE: he seeks legal remedy against "the great French academic conspiracy against Christian fundamentalism" (although many Catholics, Eastern-Orthodox and Protestants would not recognize him as a Christian). On the internet there are details about his PhD candidature and how he accused his own professors of discrimination. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
About
[62] mentioned before and
[63]. The deleted arguments are in secondary sources: Robert J. Wilkinson (2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Brill. p. 93, 94.
ISBN
9789004288171., Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek".
Open Theology. 1: 56–88. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help), Didier Mickaël Fontaine (2007). Le nom divin dans le nouveau testament (in French). Editions L'Harmattan.
ISBN
2296176097. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help), and Didier Fontaine (2009). S. Pizzorni (ed.). Il nome di Dio nel Nuovo Testamento. Perché è scomparso dai testi greci nel I e II secolo? (in Italian). Translated by S. Appiganesi. Azzurra 7.
ISBN
8888907106. (primary source is not a self-publishing source Gertoux, Gerard (2002). The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH which is pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its story. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
ISBN
0761822046. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) and its French version, Gérard Gertoux (1999). Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens. L'Harmattan.
ISBN
9782738480613.). Thanks in advance.
Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (
talk) 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! In mulling over which noticeboard to use, I considered RSN as well as BLPN, because of related issues, but it seems to me that "pandeism" and the specific "experts" being invoked here are actually fringe territory, so have at it. Hyperbolick is here claiming that "experts" are admissible, such as those cited by "biblefalseprophet.com" and Rousas John Rushdoony of the " Chalcedon Foundation", even in blog form, for supporting extraordinary claims about the doctrine of pandeism, as well as extraordinary biographical claims about such figures as Pope Francis and Barack Obama. I don't know about you, but when I see poorly-formatted rants on low-rent websites named "biblefalseprophet", red flags go up and I consider whether we are dealing with fringey beliefs here. Furthermore, there are some WP:SYNTH issues with the way he is citing the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia comments on Pantheism and Deism to support assertions about Pandeism in particular. Hyperbolick is a passionate and dedicated proponent of Pandeism, and all his edits (as well as edits on previous accounts) are focused in this topic area. He does not seem interested, so far, in discussion or examination of the applicable policies and guidelines. I would appreciate a few more eyes on the topic, and voices in the discussion, to build some consensus here and resolve this amicably. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
publishing crap. Ancient humans who had 12 strand DNA used sun crystals for propulsion of their rockets and special clothing for their space-suits....... ∯WBG converse 11:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
A COI editor has been working on Cryonics and has asked for help at User talk:Mbark22#Help me!. Maybe needs watching. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Some help needed please. I know we have had discussions over the years about using Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic magazine (UK, Australia and USA) as well as Skeptoid as reliable sources. I thought I had these discussions bookmarked and probably do but it is in a sea of bookmarks. Can someone please point me to the final decision. From time to time I run into people saying that they are "just blogs" which is obviously incorrect. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you know that the snow that paralyzed Atlanta, Georgia in January of 2014 was not really snow? It was some sort of weird engineered chemical that didn't melt, and scorched when held to a flame! Here is a video where our fearless investigator risks his life by trying to set fire to a snowball with a bic lighter. What will happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmT3wcu8Ed0
Bonus science: How Microwaving Grapes Makes Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrtk-pyP0I
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that text related to a dubious authorship dispute, which received publicity recently in the New York Times, has been getting excessive weight in the article. Beginning with the aggressive efforts of an SPA, the authorship of the song was actually listed in the lead sentence as "disputed" even though this fringe theory has not even been mentioned in scholarship on Rodgers and Hart, much less given any credence whatever. I searched Newspapers.com and Google Books and found no mention of it. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Location hypotheses of Atlantis seems to have accumulated quite a large amount of cruft. While historic speculation about the location might be notable many of the referenced "theories" do not appear to be. Numerous dubious "references" [66] and broken links [67] to unreliable sources among many other issues. -- mikeu talk 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
May need a purge or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh my. The Google search atlantis location has as the top result the pull quote "According to Michael Hübner, Atlantis core region was located in South-West Morocco at the Atlantic Ocean." -- mikeu talk 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
IP editor is objecting to use of QuackWatch to source the fact that this health-guru of yesteryear was a heavy smoker. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Needs some eyes. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This needs cleaning up, it's being rewritten from an LDS perspective. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There's currently a debate going in that determines of Anita is a tropical cyclone or subtropical cyclone. It's widely known that Anita is a tropical cyclone, but sources added by User:Livia Dutra states that the storm was actually subtropical and never transitioned into a tropical cyclone. The user added some sources that appears to be reliable, but I feared that those sources violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:SPS. What do you all think? INeed Support :3 23:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Need more eyes at Answers in Genesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- recently protected for three days because of edit warring, protection about to expire. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Pre–Big_Bang_physics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled across this stub today which appeared to be a poorly executed POV-fork in my judgment. ( White hole cosmology is an Answers in Genesis argument, incidentally.) I think the easiest thing to do is to redirect to our main article on the subject, so I did that: [68]. Hopefully no one objects, but thought I would post here for transparency.
jps ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Arctic sea ice decline, in particular this series of edits by XavierItzm, which puts a lot of emphasis on purportedly failed predictions of "sea ice-free summers" in the Arctic? [69] The section seems intended to highlight how climate scientists are alarmist and repeatedly fail to predict the climate. I don't know enough about the section to gauge whether the text is compliant with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
See [70]. Not fringe? Doug Weller talk 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
New article uses some combination of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE in an attempt to to connect science with various religious miracles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Based on some of the things the fellow has written, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Michael Jones may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Arbitration Committee
Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.
My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.
I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.
There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.
I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.
If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!
Mbark22 ( talk) 01:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Five-Percent Nation is a New Religious Movement [71] [72] (although the article doesn't call it one and I think they deny it) with categories and a portal that are relevant to it being related to Islam and religion. I'm having a problem with OR and NPOV as are others, see the talk page. Twelve Jewels of Islam may need to be a redirect, and Supreme Understanding needs work. The article on its founder Clarence 13X seems better. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
On 12 March I received a rather disquieting tweet from the subject of this article. The exchange can be seen here. This gained me a number of new twitter followers who seemed to approve of Wilson's tweet ("go get him!").
Our article is still pretty dire and the content in question possibly undue anyway - but Wilson seems very keen for our article to carry material countering press reports about anti-vaccination comments she made. To my mind the heavy use of her own blog to this end is unduly self-serving. Having been warned-off, I shall leave the content question to others.
As a "PS" I received a further tweet saying "a Group of media academics and I have been attending to the article repeatedly To update the information" [73] which piqued my interest. Whatever the state of the article, it cannot be right for article content to be decided by coordinating WP:MEAT and twitter. No WP:COI disclosures have been made. I notice in recent times the accounts Writingtask and Fransplace seem to have focused on the content Wilson is complaining about.
This may need to go to another noticeboard, but thoughts welcome - this reminds me of a couple of incidents in the past years where there have been issues with decisions about fringe content/BLP being taken off-wiki rather than thrashed-out transparently here. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
[74] :( -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
POV and unsourced, although the editor vehemently disagrees. [76] Doug Weller talk 14:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Jason Colavito has a column Graham Hancock to Archaeologists: "You Guys Are the Pseudoscientists".
Jason says "With the publication of America Before this week, Graham Hancock has launched a major publicity push, larger than the one accompanying Magicians of the Gods four years ago and rivaling his media ubiquity in the late 1990s. According to his U.S. publisher, St. Martin’s, the American part of his marketing campaign will include an initial print run of 125,000 copies, a fourteen-city national book tour, a national media tour, a marketing campaign aimed at scholars and college instructors (!), a featured-title selection at TheHistoryReader.com, and “extensive history blog outreach.” They even offer mail-in prizes, giving early buyers an enamel lapel pin of the book’s logo." See also this. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
For info. I wanted to publicise this AfD debate in a neutral manner to get independent eyes on the discussion, but then I thought bugger that, and came here. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about the Republican Party and whether it rejects the scientific consensus on climate change on Republican Party (United States). Editors are disputing that the Republican party and numerous GOP party members reject climate change (even though RS extensively document that this is the case and these RS are cited in the article) by citing the lack of any mention of climate change in the GOP official platform and by citing how Republican Senators voted for a statement recognizing that climate change is real (but also overwhelmingly rejecting a statement that humans significantly contribute to climate change). [77] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There was a question above about what the loudest republicans believe vs what the party believes. The party as a whole decided on a platform before the last election. The only place it mentions climate change is here:
From the Republican Party Platform:
Compare this with the Democratic Platform from the same year:
So the actual republican party platform doesn't actually deny climate change, but does question whether it is as important as the Democrats say it is. I personally am pretty much with the democrats on this, with the exception of not believing climate change to be more important than nuclear proliferation. The Paris agreement? Not so much. None of the major industrialized nations implemented the policies they agreed on and none have met their pledged emission reduction targets. Which just might have something to do with the lack of any enforcement mechanism or penalty for failure. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Some alleged "ascended master" theosophist whose existence as a real person is doubtful. IPs keep deleting the categories, and the writing in the article is a bit weird. Anybody know more? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
"Immersed up to her neck in a dark viscous liquid, Sulfiya smiles in delight, confident that the fetid substance will cure her painful condition.
Sulfiya, a Russian woman in her 60s, has travelled to Azerbaijan's north-western city of Naftalan in the hope that crude oil baths at a local sanatorium will end her years of suffering from polyarthritis, a disease affecting the joints...."
Source: [79]
There's an going attempt to get Patrick Moore (consultant) switched back to Patrick Moore (environmentalist) over here. Environmentalist was clearly widely rejected on the talk page. Keep also in mind that both Moore himself and his many Twitter followers have been plaguing this entry since Moore asked them to do so and especially since Trump tweeted a promotion of Moore's anti-climate science and pro-industry comments. A major proponent of fringe ecology pseudoscience, this guy is as much an environmentalist as an ExxonMobil CEO is, folks. Sometimes a duck is a duck, and this certainly needs more eyes from users watching this board. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
A cult? A religion? Certainly a load of hooey within scope of this Project. There has been a ton of editing activity here recently and more eyes could help. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The main issues:
I've seen multiple editors try to remove the designation that it's a New Religious Movement. It's sourced, and a pretty neutral term, so I don't think it should be controversial to designate it as such. So far I've seen an IP and a SPA do this. I know we should assume good faith, but I do suspect this is an attempt to white-wash the article. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the big problems is that the article has too few people watching it, so the page tends to be ran by proponents of the religion. I've noticed a few SPA and IPs outright trying to white-wash it and remove information on the page that's cited. We need more people to add the page to their watchlist. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The lead (and more) changed today,
Scholars are broadly agreed that the Exodus story was composed in the 5th century BCE.[5] The traditions behind it can be traced in the writings of the 8th-century BCE prophets,[6][7] but it has no historical basis.[8] Instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.[9]
became
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel, and instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.[5][6] This, however, does not mean that the Exodus narrative lacks any historicity.[7] Scholars are broadly agreed that the Exodus story in its final form was composed by the 5th century BCE,[8] but the traditions behind it are older and can be found in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets.[9][10] It is unclear how far beyond that the tradition might stretch.[11] Scholars posit that the Exodus narrative may have developed from collective memories of the Hyksos expulsions of Semitic Canaanites from Egypt, possibly elaborated on to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt.[11][12][13]
If someone wants to look into that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I don't think I am alone in noticing an upsurge in antivax editing issues on Wikipedia, in line with the real-world rise of antivaxers. Well, the WHO has also taken notice. ANTI-VAX MOVEMENT LISTED BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AS ONE OF THE TOP 10 HEALTH THREATS FOR 2019, according to newsweek. This is depressing and reinforces the need to keep these articles science-based. Guy ( Help!) 13:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles of improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories."-- tronvillain ( talk) 15:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Longtime board watchers may remember this person who took extreme umbrage to Wikipedia's use of sources that identified her as a vaccine denier. Well, she hasn't let up with the vaccine denial. I note that our articles haven't really caught up to dealing with this new round of nonsense.
jps ( talk) 01:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
See Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies. Key quote:
As our article on Alternative medicine says, "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in others the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
JzG is defending content that I do not believe to be supported by the sources, and attributing my disagreement to lack of knowledge on my part. This debate will go nowhere without more editors weighing in. Tornado chaser ( talk) 20:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
In this edit, [3] TC says " [4] Here I remove claims of fake news promotion that are cited to an op-ed without proper attribution, further, this op ed says the anti-vax movement in Texas is 'a collection of fake news...' and while it says TFVC is part of the antivax movement, it doesn't directly accuse them of using fake news in their advocacy."
The edit he refers to is here: [5]
The source is [6]
The source says
So, is it true that the above passage doesn't directly accuse TFVC of using fake news in their advocacy? The key is in the word "story". The source says that Texans for Vaccine Choice (along with other antiaxers) concocted a story. It goes on to say that the story is a collection of fake news, half- truths, and conspiracy theories, which have been cleverly strung together to create a faux narrative.
My conclusion is that Tornado chaser is attempting to portray Texans for Vaccine Choice in a far more positive light than the sources do. If someone wants to file an ANI report or arbitration enforcement request calling for a topic ban, I will support it. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 09:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That's interesting, but it is not the issue that Tornado Chaser raised here. - Bilby ( talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
the rate of Texas students opting out of at least one vaccine at least doubling in around five yearsbit in the lead. Admittedly, it is a bit difficult to tell when opening a thread to a talk page comment, which itself is in a thread that seems to meander among issues. GMG talk 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The word "controversy" in the title is problematic for a number of reasons, it seems plausible that a better title could be found. Please weigh in with suggestions. Guy ( Help!) 14:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Saw on today's "Did you know..." "that pharmacologist Li Lianda won a national science award for his research on the traditional Chinese medical concept of blood stasis?"
Uh... WP:MEDRS, please? The Sciencenet.cn is merely reprinting from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, which exists to promote TCM. Bensky and Gamble's Chinese Herbal Medicine is from Eastland Press, a publisher of works on Osteopathy.
Traditional Chinese Medicine isn't traditional (in its current form), some of its more prominent practices (including acupuncture and Cupping therapy) aren't really Chinese, and it is by and large not really medicine.
This isn't to say that sources in Chinese or by Chinese authors can't be used: but they have to be science-based, not propaganda that romanticizes stop-gap measures implemented by Mao for political purposes. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal.
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure this topic (in these articles) is being dealt with fully in accord with WP:FRINGE. I've had a go at cleaning up the first two, but note that "Information-theoretic death" - with its ludicrous definition - seems to be a concept coined by an Alcor board member and restricted to the cyronics bubble (the term has no mention throughout PUBMED-indexed material). The Alcor article itself seems rather credulous and in-universe (its "patients" are "in suspension" ... right).
More eyes could be useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope someone here might want take a shot at rewriting this article about a conspiracy theorist. Here's the lede: -- Ronz ( talk) 04:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Anthony J. Hilder is an American activist, author, film maker, talk show host, broadcaster and former actor. In the late 1950s to the mid 1960s he was also a record producer, producing music in mainly the surf genre. He is also the step-son of actress Dorothy Granger. In Later years Hilder has been vocal about certain issues relating to the New World Order agenda and the banking establishment. He has produced a number of films relating to the subjects as well as appearing in productions by other film makers relating to similar subject.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_J._Hilder_(2nd_nomination).
I'm not clear why this article was allowed to be remade in the first place. jps ( talk) 12:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
After removing one unrelated ref as well as a citation to a self-described poetry fanzine claimed in the article to be a "philosophy journal", I redirected preferentialism to preference utilitarianism yesterday. My edits were reverted by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) today. The article's topic is in no way notable. Dean Mamas is a cosmology crank who has been promoting a tired light cosmology for at least a decade now.
The edits of the IP and the two IPs from the same 47.201.x.x range directly preceding mine show a clear fringe agenda, so I'm not going to engage any further before having had uninvolved participation.
Editors wishing to judge Mamas's crank factor for themselves are invited to email me a request for a copy of his Physics Essays "paper" claiming that quasars and GRBs are caused by matter-antimatter annihilation. Paradoctor ( talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I tagged it for speedy per WP:DENY. jps ( talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Mamas has a PhD in Physics, is a Phi Beta Kappa, and has a long publication record. Do Not Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.182.47 ( talk) 2019-01-25T02:54:23 (UTC)
Heru-Maaket Neb-ShakaRa ( talk · contribs) is adding unsourced material to Kemetism and to Ausar Auset Society. I gave him/her a welcome message explaining that they'd been reverted for adding unsourced but they've continued. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Talk:G. Edward Griffin - it seems that "someone besides me" needs to tell the IP what's what. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
[ https://quwave.com/defender.html ]
I, of course, prefer the product described at [ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ] and believe the the TRUTH found at [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]... :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ut queant laxis
resonare fibris
Mira gestorum
famuli tuorum,
Solve polluti
labii reatum,
Sancte Iohannes.
Pernimius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having been topic banned from the Shroud of Turin (and posting lies about what a topic ban includes on his talk page [13] [14] [15]) has decided to "fix" our "biased" coverage of intelligent design. [16] [17] The topic has changed, but the behavior has not. Do we need to go back and ask that the topic ban be extended to all of pseudoscience? More eyes are needed on this situation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
See [19] - a book on the geology of the Atlantic that starts with exploration by the Celts, Chinese, you name it. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments/criticism about the quality of the article BGR-34 are welcome over the article-talk-page as are bold improvements:-) Also, do you see any conflict with MEDRS? ∯WBG converse 17:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Disappearance of Frederick Valentich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the spirit of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I don't think long transcripts belong in the article. Several versions exist on the web, obviously edited to heighten the mystery, and the version being used is a possible WP:COPYVIO. Also this seems to contradict a cited source. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Prodigy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I've moved this proposal from a userspace of a retired user to WP-space as I think it is worth having discussed in more detail. jps ( talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
A couple of issues here. First, the article has been recently edited by an account names "Sergiocanavero" (as reported at WP:COIN#Sergio Canavero); secondly that we seem to lack neutral good sources for reporting on his "work", which is currently sourced to some dodgy journals. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
New Age raw food crank who believes cancer can be cured by eating a raw food diet. Virtually no reliable stuff out there on this guy. Article was using fraudulent references (that do not mention Kulvinskas) that I removed. Can someone submit for deletion? What a terrible article. 2605:3E80:700:10:0:0:0:BE7 ( talk) 17:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We're having a somewhat productive working session about adding some content on work done on the vernix caseosa into this article. However, on the discussion page I came across a peculiar issue where a paper in Scientific Reports written by AAH proponents seems to have a statement that fails verification! But we're not necessarily supposed to fact check papers like this, so it up against WP:V in a sense. In any case, I started a discussion about this issue here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Errors/mistakes_in_reliable_sources and thought I would cross-post here since it potentially involves fringe theories.
jps ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course, Nature itself disappoints me on occasion.Heresy! I'll see to it that your shilling payments from big pharma, NASA and the GMO lobby are cancelled for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Big discussion about whether sources say that lack of evidence is one of the defining qualities of conspiracy theories. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Another TCM horror. Recent IP activity, so could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk)
@ Bishonen: see what Wikipedia's done to me. When I arrived here I was as innocent as a spring lamb. Now I am tyrannically repressing a whole culture's secret knowledge of how bruising people can cure myriad illnesses! Alexbrn ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a valid (fringe) article topic here... but it needs to be reviewed. As a first step, I would suggest a change of title to: “Accusations of US support for ISIS” (or similar)... just so it is not in WPs voice. Blueboar ( talk) 12:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Only to those who never step outside the bubble of the US establishment narrative. 110.74.199.28 ( talk) 15:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This pretty much explains everything we see on Wikipedia: [20] I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This page has been moved from Cathleen Ann O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) I think, but I can't tell as there is no history. The page has been moved, but as I am incompetent I cannot recover things. Could somebody competent take a look? Thanks. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
This whole bio could use some work. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
A new article, Nebraska Rainwater Basins, which is a duplicate of Rainwater Basin has been created with emphasis on fringe theory by Davias and others of them being created by an imaginary Saginaw Bay impact. I thought of proposing a speedy delete review for it because of the duplication, but am unfamiliar with how to do it. Fortunately, there is a formal paper in progress about the so-called impact crater. Paul H. ( talk) 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
An IP wants to change the lay summary:
To:
There is clear consensus that the definition of alternative medicine is a lack of credible evidence (aka Minchin's Law) and the technical defintiin borders on WP:WEASEL in the context of the lede in this article. This is in the context of years of low-level POV-pushing by believers in colloidal silver as the Miracle Drug "They" Don't Want You To Know About. Silver Medical Use Recognition Fanatics, if you like. Guy ( Help!) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Just stumbled over this article about a medium. Apparently she "found out" a lot of unexpected things when talking with dead people, and most of them were in Wikipedia's voice. I NPOVed a few, but probably all that fiction should not be in the article. More eyes would probably not hurt. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
What's the criteria for adding someone's published works to their bio? Because someone's added a lot. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Attempts to add a YouTube upload of a Sharyl Atkisson segment pushing a debunked antivax claim here: Talk:Vaccines and autism § Attkisson. Guy ( Help!) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Requesting for a list of high-quality sources about both the articles. Both seem to be written from a TRUEBELIEVER perspective and there's not an iota of any criticism or the declaration that it's a pseudoscience (barring the generic infobox, which plays the spoilsport).
Sorry about this, but eyes needed at Robert K. G. Temple ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), The Sirius Mystery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nommo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A new editor has been making major changes, deleting sourced text and adding a lot of details unsourced text. These have all been clearly aimed at a fringe pov. I've reverted all but these. Could someone else please have a look? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this can be considered fringe - needs a serous rewrite to meet NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
A reference to the book Predisposed: Liberals,Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences by John Hibbing, Kevin Smith, and John Alford was deleted from the article conservatism on the unsupported assertion that it was "self-promotion". I restored it and, as I learned more about the book, added references to it to several articles to which is is relevant. My references to the book were deleted by User:Beyond My Ken, with the claim that the subject matter of the book is fringe. I would like to contest that deletion.
All three authors of the book are university professors. John Hibbing has written five scholarly books, is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship; Kevin Smith has written more than ten books and authored more than fifty articles published in refereed journals; John Alford has published more than forty articles in refereed journals, and is a winner of the CQ Press Award honoring the outstanding paper in legislative politics, presented at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
The book was widely and favorably reviewed, for example, "The reviews are clearly presented, making the nature of studies and results accessible to nonexperts. The book includes the "Left/Right 20 Questions Game" for readers to test their own predispositions." Summing Up: Recommended. Undergraduate collections. - J. M Stonecash, emeritus, Syracuse University, in CHOICE"; "Destined to cause a stir, this book is by far the best source for what has emerged as an important new wave in the study of mass politics. In exploring how differences in people's biology, physiology, and cognitive makeup map onto politics, it provides a bracing sense of just how deeply our political differences run. Accessibly written and rigorously argued, it will provide a fascinating read for anyone interested in politics. ―Marc J. Hetherington, Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University"; and "A wonderful example of theoretically informed experiments demonstrating the genetic, physiologic, and cognitive underpinnings of political predispositions. Biopolitics has come of age. ―Milton Lodge, Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, SUNY at Stony Brook"
It is hard to understand how anyone could consider this "fringe". I request that the citations be restored. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The recent article in The Atlantic suggests that the information in the book has "caught on". The (brief) material I posted was not a "general description of the book", nor was it a "mundane synopsis" of the book. It was a statement of the main results of the research reported in the book. I chose to bring the discussion here because you, Beyond My Ken, advised me to bring it here. You offered me two options, this one seemed most appropriate since you said the subject was "fringe". You find it "interesting" that "they" (me) chose to take your advice. ??? Rick Norwood ( talk) 01:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
-- So, for anyone who reads the above, Fringe? Or Not Fringe? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are some sources to look at: [24] [25] [26] This is so far out of my area of expertise that I don't quite know what to make of these sources. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Rick Norwood, the claim "most people posting above agree it is not fringe" is not accurate. So far I see a bunch of people discussing that question, which is not that same thing as agreeing with your position on the question. I for one am still listening to the arguments on both sides. We haven't even been discussing this for a full day, so your claim that we have arrived at a consensus is premature. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at Talk:Conspiracy theory over the opening paragraph. The proposer, whose past history includes advocacy of 9/11 conspiracies, wishes to remove the long-standing consensus wording to the effect that conspiracy theories are definitionally false. Guy ( Help!) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
According to Buzzfeed [30], YouTube are demonetising all anti-vaccine channels and videos, and introducing an information panel. Anti-MMR videos already get a panel with a link to the Wikipedia article, so it's likely we'll see the same for, e.g., HPV vaccine. The Buzzfeed article specifically references our article on vaccine hesitancy (formerly vaccine controversies, but moved recently, see above) and our reflection of the WHO's identification of vaccine hesitancy as a top ten global health threat. This is likely to trigger a furious backlash, obviously. Guy ( Help!) 23:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Allopathic medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) really needs some attention. In particular, take a look at User talk:Hob Gadling#Your recent reversion of sourced changes at Allopathic medicine and tell me whether I am seeing WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, or whether something else is going on that I am missing. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
What the heck is this? ∯WBG converse 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Vaccine controversies was recently moved to Vaccine hesitancy, while I think vaccine hesitancy is a good article to have, I don't think it replaces an article about controversies related to vaccines, and the current vaccine hesitancy article contains some material that I think would be better suited to "vaccine controversies", I have created Draft:Vaccine controversies, based on an old revision of vaccine controversies that I made some changes to. I hope to eventually expand the hesitancy article and create the controversies article so we have 2 distinct articles, any assistance or advice is welcome. Tornado chaser ( talk) 06:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A herbal tea and famous fake cancer cure - there's a new editor at work who has a different take. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
David Strickel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bio of a non notable prosperity religion guru. Was rejected at AfC but WP:SPA published it anyway. I’d send it to speedy deletion if I knew what criteria code applied. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 03:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Thiomersal and vaccines § Requested move 19 February 2019.
The proposal is to move the article back to "thiomersal controversy", in line with the anti-vaccination narrative. Guy ( Help!) 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I published an article about ex-ghost hunter and now scientific skeptic Kenny Biddle about a year ago and it was deleted for lack of notability. It has been a year since then, and Biddle was covered in a NYT article about a sting operation done where a "psychic medium" was caught doing hot reading. What brings me here is that in the debate (see here) about resurrecting the Biddle article (see here), an editor has dismissed the NYT article this NYT article as fringe. When I pointed out that it is the exact opposite of fringe, he said: "Anti-FRINGE is an interesting twist on FRINGE. It still needs FRINGE type care." So, can someone here explain what "FRINGE type care" means and why it would apply to the NYT article or Biddle at all? Feel free to chime in on the debate page as well. RobP ( talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (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.
Not sure whether here or WP:RSN is the best place for this. Can I ask people to take a look at Resignation_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI#Controversies_over_the_Act_of_Resignation? It seems conspiracy theory tinged to me alleging, among other things, that Pope Benedict XVI's resignation may have been because he was subjected to intimidation, harassment or even death threats(!) The three "sources" used to support the section are
"WHEN THE DEMOCRATS NOMINATED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN 2008 I CALLED HIM IN A POST ON ABYSSUM THAT YEAR “THE PIED PIPER OF CHICAGO”"
"THE United States HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF CIVIL WAR SINCE THE ELECTION OF Donald Trump TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE United States. SO FAR THE LEFT HAS NOT RESORTED TO VIOLENCE TO HAVE ITS WAY, BUT IF TRUMP IS ABLE TO REPLACE JUSTICE GINSBURG WITH A CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE BE PREPARED FOR VIOLENCE. THE RUSH TO LEGALIZE INFANTICIDE NOW"
"NATACHA JAITT, ACCUSER OF Gustavo Vera WHO IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL, FOUND DEAD IN ARGENTINA Whistleblower Found Dead: Accused Gustavo Vera, Close Friend of Pope Francis, of Human Trafficking"
Which really doesn't inspire confidence in its reliability.
I removed the section and pointed the ip who is adding the material to WP:BRD and WP:SPS, but they just respond with accusations of vandalism and personal attacks, restoring the material. Valenciano ( talk) 08:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize the so-called Nazi gun control argument - which holds that gun regulations in the Third Reich helped to facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust - as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
If reliable sources overwhelmingly characterize something as a "false" "debunked" fringe theory, are we allowed to state that in Wiki voice? An editor, VwM.Mwv, on the Nazi gun control argument article claims that this is not neutral, in part because "There's no such thing as a "fact-checker"". [32] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I am usually one of the first to call a fringe theory what it is, but I honestly have reservations about this one. The whole argument hangs on a couple of things. First, did the Nazis disarm Jews? Yes. See Disarmament of the German Jews. Would things have turned out differently if the Jews were better armed? Almost certainly not, but I am reluctant to call something that is based upon "X would have been different if Y had been different" as fringe. Fringe does not equal "speculation that is probably wrong". We do know that some Jews fought. The best-known example of this would be the Bielski partisans, but as far as I can tell the Bielski partisans had few problems getting guns, using the tried and true method of gathering the guns and ammunition from dead soldiers. Would more Jews have fought if they hadn't been disarmed? Probably not (but speculation is generally not fringe). Our section on The Holocaust#Jewish resistance says "there was practically no resistance" and our article on Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe says "few Jews were able to effectively resist the Final Solution militarily". It's not as if the railroad terminals had big signs saying "line up here for the death camps" and the death camps had big signs that said "the showers are actually gas chambers". The Nazis made a reasonable effort to keep what they were doing secret from the Jews.
I am also concerned with the fact that most of the discussion on this has been from pro-gun and anti-gun activists. What do the historians say"? Well, we have one source that says "the historians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich". That doesn't sound like it fits very well with our "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" definition.
I say that we present the conclusions of the historians who have commented on this in their own voices, but without calling the idea fringe. Probably wrong, yes. Fringe, no. I just don't see it as meeting our criteria. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
On a side note, isn't "legitimize outright murder on a large scale – without any legal proceedings whatsoever" wrong? [33] The Nazi's passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"Ben Carson Is Wrong on Guns and the Holocaust" [ [34]]
Highgate Vampire ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The vampire-hunting bishop named in the article now adding unsourced argumentation against detractors and rivals to the text. I’ve reverted once, but this situation may eventually need administrative remedies. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I've just removed a couple of photos added today and replied to the editor on the talk page where he challenges an academic source because he thinks the investigation was poor. Eyes and maybe another reply would be useful. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Additional eyes on Judeopolonia please. An editor believes it is correct to describe this as "an idea positing future Jewish domination" rather than "an antisemitic conspiracy theory positing future Jewish domination of Poland" (cited to a couple of academic books and from a quick search it seems there is little trouble finding more). I'll also note they added unsourced (+ a 1941 CIA report, Czerniakow diary (died 1942), and Ringelblum (died 1944)) to Ewa Kurek (a BLP born in 1951) - diff - who is known for rather fringey views regarding Jews, ghettos, and fun. [35] [36] [37] [38] Icewhiz ( talk) 14:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Just nominated for deletion. See here.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have just removed a tremendous amount of synthesis and unrelated material from the article Coloniality of gender: (Original version: [40]) It seems to me that the article still has fundamental problems worth bringing up here: although the body is mainly general information about the pre- and post-colonial status of women in various countries, the lead asserts that
The idea of gender itself was believed to be introduced by Western colonizers as a way to distinct two dualistic social categories which are men and women.The colonizers had introduced the idea of gender itself into Indigenous groups as this was originally a colonial concept which was made to organize production, territory and behavior. The desire for the colonizer to put forth the idea of gender onto an Indigenous group was to have control over their labor, authority, influence their subjectivity and ideas of sexuality.
I think it's pretty fringe to say that the idea of gender is an invention of colonialists and unknown to (all?) indigenous groups. Should the article be renamed to something like "Women and colonialism", and the gender-theory material discarded? Cheers, gnu 57 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Editor input is requested at Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC). Thank you. Leviv ich 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I only glanced at it after removing a recent major expansion of the lede, but it appears there are basic BLP and FRINGE violations. My impression, especially of the Selected Books section, is much of it places popular responses (out of their FRINGE context) over science. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, there's now a NPOVN discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake, where scientism is the concern of some editors. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you know "the Inquisition had science on its side" and "Galileo was a bad scientist"? Somebody puts lots of text on the Talk page in order to turn the article inside out. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Should Category:Researchers of the assassination of John F. Kennedy contain conspiracy theorists? Barr McClellan is just one example.
I think it shouldn't, it should only contain serious scholars, but maybe there are other users here who have more experience with that subject... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 03:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Subtle body has just had some major changes sourced to Blavatsky. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I received a courtesy notification from an editor that they are planning a major copy editing of the article and advised them to tread carefully if they plan to make substantive changes. [41] I am noting that there has been some editing going on there recently. We may want to keep an eye on this given the history of PROFRINGE editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Terrible article, mainly just puts forward a bunch of fringe ideas using primary sources. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
...By someone who doesn't undersand the difference between metrology and measurement. Please AfD it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Category:Types of scientific fallacy somehow feels wrong. It contains Category:Cognitive biases Category:Scientific misconduct, Category:Pathological science and Category:Pseudoscience. Also a few articles like Just-so story and Hume's four Idols. There were more articles and categories in it, but I removed those that were already in subcategories.
So, the category contains things that are science gone wrong. But almost none of them are fallacies per se. I do not know what to do with it. The category is from 2007, but it seems to stick out like a sore thumb. Is there a better name for it, or could its contents be moved somewhere else that fits better? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have a question about how much coverage a fringe theory in a generally not very well discussed topic area merits on Wikipedia.
The source in question is this one and the article I am wondering about is Coropuna. The theory discussed in the source envisages that during the last ice age glaciers in the tropics reached the ocean; there is no support for this in all other sources I've consulted on glaciations (for the Pleistocene glaciations) which all have the glaciers end far from the sea. However, the source has a few cites to itself, not that few by the standard of the topic.
I am wondering if this should be documented in the article as a notable fringe view or not documented at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy's Ruler. Describes an astronomical distance measurement that implicates a non-standard cosmology. -- mikeu talk 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that the context is scattered among other threads. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Moberly–Jourdain incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article about a book called The Adventure published in 1911 by two women who claimed to have traveled back in time and seen the ghosts of Marie Antoinette and others. Under the header of Some explanations, our article presents "what is now called a time slip" on par with natural explanations. I believe the distinction between fringe claims (time travel, ghosts, etc) and mainstream understandings (natural explanations) should not be vague, ambiguous, or completely absent. Sadly, my efforts to correct this and add non-fringe clarifications have been rejected [44]. Also why is this identified as an "Incident"? Shouldn't our article title be The Adventure, since the book is what WP:RS identify as notable? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I had a go at it. The article was, surprisingly, in somewhat better shape than I had remembered when I asked for a GA-reassessment (and despite an acrimonious discussion resulted in no consensus and not even a single !vote for keeping or delisting). I fixed some obvious WP:ASSERT problems and tried to neutralize the more audacious claims and prose. jps ( talk) 15:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
References
A user and his corresponding IP has entered a good deal of original research and pseudoscientific nonsense about consciousness into an article on quantum physics. [46] Can someone with knowledge of quantum physics help to separate the wheat from the chaff? Or maybe a wholesale revert is preferable. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
BEMER Therapy, a new article, says it "is an alternative medical treatment method." May need looking at. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
light bulbs are going to kill you, don't you know? makes you blind, makes you craaaazeeee health claim I wrote a bunch of stuff on the effects of blue light technology page before I made an account as mitigation toward all the scare marketing but I'm still a bit concerned about the other ones and cant really see much of a justification for a lot of the health claims on those pages. As background, I just did simple math with references to point out that researchers have been basically frying rats eyeballs out of their heads with welding mask tier near-UV bright lights and comparing it to green light as some sort of proof that you need magic glasses to stop your eyeballs from falling out because they used the wrong equipment to check the light levels.
The basic problem is that people doing the research are in ergonomics departments which use colorimeters because until recently they were studying office space light levels and i guess nobody told them how they work. Verify references ( talk) 03:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should start to pare down this mess of articles. To that end, I proposed a merge of Effects of blue light technology and High-energy visible light. They are both about essentially the same subject (and the latter article title should conceivably just be redirected to blue or violet, fercryingoutloud.
As I removed a bit of EMF paranoia from one of the articles, I discovered that we have TWO articles on essentially the same topic: Mobile phone radiation and health and Wireless electronic devices and health. So I propose we merge those too.
Help is appreciated from all you wonderful people.
jps ( talk) 16:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Mountain157 has persistently attempted to edit Tartary to assert over the past few days that Tartary was a historical country, and has recently claimed in Talk:Tartary that the reason the country of Tartary is completely unmentioned in modern academia was because of a conspiracy to suppress its existence. Midnight-Blue766 ( talk) 01:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Patrick Moore, currently described with the disambiguation "environmentalist" on Wikipedia, is best known for being for anything the environmental movement is generally against, all the while backing industry-friendly talking points, many of them quite fringe (comically, such as claiming one could drink a quart of glysophate without harm, only to refuse to do so). His apparently false claims about his former Greenpeace involvement ( see the organization's statement on him) provide him cover to claim to be yet so concerned about the environment, especially when sources like Wikipedia claim he's an "environmentalist".
Predictably, this is red meat for his intended audience: the petroleum industry, and America's right wing, "environmentalist" figures in the orbit of the Trump Administration (resulting in Fox News articles like " Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit'" and Breitbart articles like "Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’" (link blacklisted)). This is deeply fringe stuff.
Moore himself appears to have been involved with the article under a few different names (for example, [50], [51], and [52]). This article needs far more eyes, particularly this talk page section on what to change the article's name to. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Moore is now asking his Twitter followers to edit his Wikipedia page. :bloodofox: ( talk) 14:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Modern Monetary Theory fails to clarify to readers that it is a marginal idea within economics and the article fails to cite "reliable sources... that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner", as WP:FRINGE instructs us to do. Most of the article reads like a personal essay, and the article cites a lot of working papers by heterodox economists. The lede to the article is a word salad that fails to clearly explain what MMT is. Furthermore, there also appears to be gatekeeping going on in the article, as one editor removed the IGM Economic Experts Panel survey of leading economists, which showed unanimous rejection of MMT by leading economists. [57] This is a problematic article which is not compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Raised at WP:RSN#Is Margaret Barker a reliable source for the Book of Enoch or Seven Archangels?. Doug Weller talk 10:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There has been an uptick in activity trying to push a POV that this individual is not pushing Fringe science and promoting supplements that are claimed to mitigate the effects of ingested radioisotopes. Additional eyes will be helpful. -- VViking Talk Edits 17:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A student enrolled in a college editing course needs help understanding WP:OR. They have WP saying that Kirlian photography "introduced the use of technology and cameras as a method to find evidence of ghosts during paranormal investigations“, when there isn't any sources for that connection. Also they are rather fond of large scale cut-and-paste from other articles. Another voice appreciated here. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Although there is criticism in the article, there's no mention of his Hindutva views. An IP added some sources on the talk page a while ago, and it was brought to my attention today so I've added another. No time quite yet to work on it. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate some more eyes on this page, which is about a clinic offering complementary therapies for cancer patients, and its talk page. It has been argued that we should provide balance to reliably-sourced criticism by a qualified oncologist by allowing content sourced to a TV report that doesn't name the clinic and to a fundraising blog, and also that anyone who criticises complementary therapies is necessarily non-neutral. I have tried to discuss the issue, but, quite frankly, I am finding this too stressful to deal with further. Phil Bridger ( talk) 12:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
See WP:NORN#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? and particular Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
How does this stuff get by AFC? [60] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negro-Egyptian languages. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This is about [61]. My claim is that Gertoux is WP:FRINGE: he seeks legal remedy against "the great French academic conspiracy against Christian fundamentalism" (although many Catholics, Eastern-Orthodox and Protestants would not recognize him as a Christian). On the internet there are details about his PhD candidature and how he accused his own professors of discrimination. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
About
[62] mentioned before and
[63]. The deleted arguments are in secondary sources: Robert J. Wilkinson (2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions. Brill. p. 93, 94.
ISBN
9789004288171., Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek".
Open Theology. 1: 56–88. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help), Didier Mickaël Fontaine (2007). Le nom divin dans le nouveau testament (in French). Editions L'Harmattan.
ISBN
2296176097. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help), and Didier Fontaine (2009). S. Pizzorni (ed.). Il nome di Dio nel Nuovo Testamento. Perché è scomparso dai testi greci nel I e II secolo? (in Italian). Translated by S. Appiganesi. Azzurra 7.
ISBN
8888907106. (primary source is not a self-publishing source Gertoux, Gerard (2002). The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH which is pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its story. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
ISBN
0761822046. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) and its French version, Gérard Gertoux (1999). Un historique du nom divin: un nom encens. L'Harmattan.
ISBN
9782738480613.). Thanks in advance.
Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (
talk) 13:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! In mulling over which noticeboard to use, I considered RSN as well as BLPN, because of related issues, but it seems to me that "pandeism" and the specific "experts" being invoked here are actually fringe territory, so have at it. Hyperbolick is here claiming that "experts" are admissible, such as those cited by "biblefalseprophet.com" and Rousas John Rushdoony of the " Chalcedon Foundation", even in blog form, for supporting extraordinary claims about the doctrine of pandeism, as well as extraordinary biographical claims about such figures as Pope Francis and Barack Obama. I don't know about you, but when I see poorly-formatted rants on low-rent websites named "biblefalseprophet", red flags go up and I consider whether we are dealing with fringey beliefs here. Furthermore, there are some WP:SYNTH issues with the way he is citing the Catechism and Catholic Encyclopedia comments on Pantheism and Deism to support assertions about Pandeism in particular. Hyperbolick is a passionate and dedicated proponent of Pandeism, and all his edits (as well as edits on previous accounts) are focused in this topic area. He does not seem interested, so far, in discussion or examination of the applicable policies and guidelines. I would appreciate a few more eyes on the topic, and voices in the discussion, to build some consensus here and resolve this amicably. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
publishing crap. Ancient humans who had 12 strand DNA used sun crystals for propulsion of their rockets and special clothing for their space-suits....... ∯WBG converse 11:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
A COI editor has been working on Cryonics and has asked for help at User talk:Mbark22#Help me!. Maybe needs watching. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Some help needed please. I know we have had discussions over the years about using Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic magazine (UK, Australia and USA) as well as Skeptoid as reliable sources. I thought I had these discussions bookmarked and probably do but it is in a sea of bookmarks. Can someone please point me to the final decision. From time to time I run into people saying that they are "just blogs" which is obviously incorrect. Sgerbic ( talk) 20:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you know that the snow that paralyzed Atlanta, Georgia in January of 2014 was not really snow? It was some sort of weird engineered chemical that didn't melt, and scorched when held to a flame! Here is a video where our fearless investigator risks his life by trying to set fire to a snowball with a bic lighter. What will happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmT3wcu8Ed0
Bonus science: How Microwaving Grapes Makes Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrtk-pyP0I
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that text related to a dubious authorship dispute, which received publicity recently in the New York Times, has been getting excessive weight in the article. Beginning with the aggressive efforts of an SPA, the authorship of the song was actually listed in the lead sentence as "disputed" even though this fringe theory has not even been mentioned in scholarship on Rodgers and Hart, much less given any credence whatever. I searched Newspapers.com and Google Books and found no mention of it. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Location hypotheses of Atlantis seems to have accumulated quite a large amount of cruft. While historic speculation about the location might be notable many of the referenced "theories" do not appear to be. Numerous dubious "references" [66] and broken links [67] to unreliable sources among many other issues. -- mikeu talk 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
May need a purge or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh my. The Google search atlantis location has as the top result the pull quote "According to Michael Hübner, Atlantis core region was located in South-West Morocco at the Atlantic Ocean." -- mikeu talk 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
IP editor is objecting to use of QuackWatch to source the fact that this health-guru of yesteryear was a heavy smoker. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Needs some eyes. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This needs cleaning up, it's being rewritten from an LDS perspective. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There's currently a debate going in that determines of Anita is a tropical cyclone or subtropical cyclone. It's widely known that Anita is a tropical cyclone, but sources added by User:Livia Dutra states that the storm was actually subtropical and never transitioned into a tropical cyclone. The user added some sources that appears to be reliable, but I feared that those sources violates WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:SPS. What do you all think? INeed Support :3 23:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Need more eyes at Answers in Genesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- recently protected for three days because of edit warring, protection about to expire. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Pre–Big_Bang_physics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled across this stub today which appeared to be a poorly executed POV-fork in my judgment. ( White hole cosmology is an Answers in Genesis argument, incidentally.) I think the easiest thing to do is to redirect to our main article on the subject, so I did that: [68]. Hopefully no one objects, but thought I would post here for transparency.
jps ( talk) 14:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Arctic sea ice decline, in particular this series of edits by XavierItzm, which puts a lot of emphasis on purportedly failed predictions of "sea ice-free summers" in the Arctic? [69] The section seems intended to highlight how climate scientists are alarmist and repeatedly fail to predict the climate. I don't know enough about the section to gauge whether the text is compliant with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
See [70]. Not fringe? Doug Weller talk 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
New article uses some combination of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE in an attempt to to connect science with various religious miracles. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Based on some of the things the fellow has written, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Michael Jones may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Arbitration Committee
Thank you for pointing out where I have gone wrong. My apologies, I am new to this.
My reason for joining was to learn how to create an article for our non-profit arts foundation. A colleague of mine has had dealings with the Cryonics Institute in the US. I was talking to him about how I intend to create a Wikipedia article and that I was learning how to do it. I then had an email from one of the people at the Cryonics Institute asking me if I could assist them, purely voluntary.
I did not realize that the subject of complementary and alternative medicine fell into a special category and I underestimated the sensitivity of the subject and its controversial content.
There is no conflict of interest as I am not doing this for myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I do not have any external relationship with the institute or its members.
I was just asked if I can make the following changes: Replace corpse with body - I don't see the problem here as the definition of a corpse is a dead body "Corpse and cadaver are both medical/legal terms for a dead body. ... Although cadaver is the older word, it has come to refer in particular to a dead body used for medical or scientific purposes". Removing the sentence containing the word 'quackery' seems acceptable as by your own definition "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". From what I have read the Institute is neither fraudulent nor an ignorant pretender. The other changes follow the same reasoning as above.
If you believe that I am treading on thin ice then please tell me and I'll walk away from helping the Institute!
Mbark22 ( talk) 01:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Five-Percent Nation is a New Religious Movement [71] [72] (although the article doesn't call it one and I think they deny it) with categories and a portal that are relevant to it being related to Islam and religion. I'm having a problem with OR and NPOV as are others, see the talk page. Twelve Jewels of Islam may need to be a redirect, and Supreme Understanding needs work. The article on its founder Clarence 13X seems better. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
On 12 March I received a rather disquieting tweet from the subject of this article. The exchange can be seen here. This gained me a number of new twitter followers who seemed to approve of Wilson's tweet ("go get him!").
Our article is still pretty dire and the content in question possibly undue anyway - but Wilson seems very keen for our article to carry material countering press reports about anti-vaccination comments she made. To my mind the heavy use of her own blog to this end is unduly self-serving. Having been warned-off, I shall leave the content question to others.
As a "PS" I received a further tweet saying "a Group of media academics and I have been attending to the article repeatedly To update the information" [73] which piqued my interest. Whatever the state of the article, it cannot be right for article content to be decided by coordinating WP:MEAT and twitter. No WP:COI disclosures have been made. I notice in recent times the accounts Writingtask and Fransplace seem to have focused on the content Wilson is complaining about.
This may need to go to another noticeboard, but thoughts welcome - this reminds me of a couple of incidents in the past years where there have been issues with decisions about fringe content/BLP being taken off-wiki rather than thrashed-out transparently here. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
[74] :( -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
POV and unsourced, although the editor vehemently disagrees. [76] Doug Weller talk 14:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Jason Colavito has a column Graham Hancock to Archaeologists: "You Guys Are the Pseudoscientists".
Jason says "With the publication of America Before this week, Graham Hancock has launched a major publicity push, larger than the one accompanying Magicians of the Gods four years ago and rivaling his media ubiquity in the late 1990s. According to his U.S. publisher, St. Martin’s, the American part of his marketing campaign will include an initial print run of 125,000 copies, a fourteen-city national book tour, a national media tour, a marketing campaign aimed at scholars and college instructors (!), a featured-title selection at TheHistoryReader.com, and “extensive history blog outreach.” They even offer mail-in prizes, giving early buyers an enamel lapel pin of the book’s logo." See also this. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
For info. I wanted to publicise this AfD debate in a neutral manner to get independent eyes on the discussion, but then I thought bugger that, and came here. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about the Republican Party and whether it rejects the scientific consensus on climate change on Republican Party (United States). Editors are disputing that the Republican party and numerous GOP party members reject climate change (even though RS extensively document that this is the case and these RS are cited in the article) by citing the lack of any mention of climate change in the GOP official platform and by citing how Republican Senators voted for a statement recognizing that climate change is real (but also overwhelmingly rejecting a statement that humans significantly contribute to climate change). [77] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There was a question above about what the loudest republicans believe vs what the party believes. The party as a whole decided on a platform before the last election. The only place it mentions climate change is here:
From the Republican Party Platform:
Compare this with the Democratic Platform from the same year:
So the actual republican party platform doesn't actually deny climate change, but does question whether it is as important as the Democrats say it is. I personally am pretty much with the democrats on this, with the exception of not believing climate change to be more important than nuclear proliferation. The Paris agreement? Not so much. None of the major industrialized nations implemented the policies they agreed on and none have met their pledged emission reduction targets. Which just might have something to do with the lack of any enforcement mechanism or penalty for failure. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Some alleged "ascended master" theosophist whose existence as a real person is doubtful. IPs keep deleting the categories, and the writing in the article is a bit weird. Anybody know more? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
"Immersed up to her neck in a dark viscous liquid, Sulfiya smiles in delight, confident that the fetid substance will cure her painful condition.
Sulfiya, a Russian woman in her 60s, has travelled to Azerbaijan's north-western city of Naftalan in the hope that crude oil baths at a local sanatorium will end her years of suffering from polyarthritis, a disease affecting the joints...."
Source: [79]
There's an going attempt to get Patrick Moore (consultant) switched back to Patrick Moore (environmentalist) over here. Environmentalist was clearly widely rejected on the talk page. Keep also in mind that both Moore himself and his many Twitter followers have been plaguing this entry since Moore asked them to do so and especially since Trump tweeted a promotion of Moore's anti-climate science and pro-industry comments. A major proponent of fringe ecology pseudoscience, this guy is as much an environmentalist as an ExxonMobil CEO is, folks. Sometimes a duck is a duck, and this certainly needs more eyes from users watching this board. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
A cult? A religion? Certainly a load of hooey within scope of this Project. There has been a ton of editing activity here recently and more eyes could help. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The main issues:
I've seen multiple editors try to remove the designation that it's a New Religious Movement. It's sourced, and a pretty neutral term, so I don't think it should be controversial to designate it as such. So far I've seen an IP and a SPA do this. I know we should assume good faith, but I do suspect this is an attempt to white-wash the article. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 05:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the big problems is that the article has too few people watching it, so the page tends to be ran by proponents of the religion. I've noticed a few SPA and IPs outright trying to white-wash it and remove information on the page that's cited. We need more people to add the page to their watchlist. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The lead (and more) changed today,
Scholars are broadly agreed that the Exodus story was composed in the 5th century BCE.[5] The traditions behind it can be traced in the writings of the 8th-century BCE prophets,[6][7] but it has no historical basis.[8] Instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.[9]
became
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel, and instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel.[5][6] This, however, does not mean that the Exodus narrative lacks any historicity.[7] Scholars are broadly agreed that the Exodus story in its final form was composed by the 5th century BCE,[8] but the traditions behind it are older and can be found in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets.[9][10] It is unclear how far beyond that the tradition might stretch.[11] Scholars posit that the Exodus narrative may have developed from collective memories of the Hyksos expulsions of Semitic Canaanites from Egypt, possibly elaborated on to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt.[11][12][13]
If someone wants to look into that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)