This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I found this being used as a source after reading
"Junk Science or the Real Thing? ‘Inference’ Publishes Both." Here is its "about" page
[1] which I see has a rebuttal to criticism by astrophysicist and science writer Adam Becker (see
here).Becker's piece is discussed
here and
here. On my talk page I'm being asked to reconsider - the issue is can this be handled case by case as some famous scientists write for it, and links have been given me:
"On Inference" by
Peter Woit and
"Something I wrote…" by David Roberts for some alternative points of view.
Comments? The article by Roberts response by Sabine Hossenfelder to Woit's post is a bit worrying if it actually means that an author's work might be changed before publication.
Doug Weller
talk 14:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Paul H. ( talk) 17:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Although the editors have every intention of appealing to experts for advice, Inference is not a peer-reviewed journal.
There's new activity at Emotional Freedom Techniques. Not misbehavior, nothing that I'm complaining about; it may even be an improvement. But it should be watched (and I have to absent myself to attend to my paid job). -- Hoary ( talk) 21:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
While reviewing photon sphere with the intent of adding a note about the M87* feature termed a "photon ring" I stumbled upon "The Photon Belt (also called the photon band, photon ring, manasic ring, manasic radiation, manasic vibration, golden ring, or golden nebula)" (Not to be confused with the indie band.) Looks like non-notable nonsense to me. Either that, or the recently imaged black hole is undergoing a spiritual transition as there is literally a ring of photons enveloping it. Thoughts? I plan on adding a redirect from photon ring to photon sphere after updating the latter. Given the extensive usage of "photon ring" in the Event Horizon Telescope papers readers searching for a definition are likely to land on a rather poorly sourced article here instead. -- mikeu talk 18:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, the article started as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt by a long since indef blocked user. -- mikeu talk 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Belt (2nd nomination) -- mikeu talk 10:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
More eyeballs would be appreciated; the relevant article talk page section is here. Neutrality talk 21:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Is HAES a fringe theory or pseudo-science? Is it mainstream? It has certainly entered the mainstream (alongside Fat Acceptance), with multiple opinion pieces in the NY Times and other major publications. I can't find anything from a RS actually calling it a pseudo-science. Though that should not be a shock, as actual scientists are often too busy doing real science than responding to pop theories.
I think the page is a bit neglected and at least needs more to add it to their watch list.
Right now, there's a dispute on NPOV on the talk page:
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
On the Dan Crenshaw article, some editors have edit-warred the following bolded language out of the article:
It is my understanding of WP:FRINGE that the bolded text belongs in the article, as it clarifies to readers that scientists do not disagree that human activity is a primary (versus a minor) contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a RfC on The Wall Street Journal article that relates to the subject of this noticeboard. [17] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 05:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
'Church' to offer 'miracle cure' despite FDA warnings against drinking bleach -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Extra content for the most fringy of my WP:FTN henchmen:
Look at these magnetic therapy products on Amazon:
That last one is extra special. It offers you magnetic therapy without containing any actual magnets. We have discovered Homeopathic magnetic therapy!!! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This Shameless Plug (but I am plugging a proposed improvement to Wikipedia, so shameless plugs are allowed) is because I have a lot of respect for the abilities of my fellow noticeboard regulars. If anyone objects, go ahead and kill this cute little puppy delete this section.
The 2019 redefinition of SI base units is scheduled to happen on 20 May 2019. I would like it to be Today's Featured Article on that day. To make this happen, it needs everything listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (some of which it already has), followed by a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, then a nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Any help improving the article would be greatly appreciated. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
RfC on the WikiLeaks article [18]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Falun Gong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not an article I know anything about, but there seems to be some disagreement with a new editor's edits. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/fringe
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Stargate Project#Defamatory content. I just removed some text added by the same editor, User:Brian Josephson which was sourced to a fringe site. [19] Also see this post about the author of the source. [20] Doug Weller talk 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
A neutral third party is needed to mediate a long ongoing discussion about how to address fringe material in the Richat Structure talk page before it gets out of hand Paul H. ( talk) 15:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This is in the Transhumanist series, so I think is fringeyish. Dunno why it's on my watchlist and I'm having a few twitchy moments watching what I discovered are LSE students using our article to workshop the subject, or something. I have done my usual leadfoot impersonation on Talk, and rather than reverting more workshopping, decided to ask a couple of questions here, viz.
We have people who are good with student projects don't we? Where do I find them? Thanks. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
He says that it is all caused by climate change....
Interestingly, this is one of those cases where YouTube posts a link to Wikipedia to counter the pseudoscience. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please look at the latest edits to this article? I am not really up to speed on political fringe -- I mostly deal with science and medicine fringe. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking over this page ( Thunderbird (cryptozoology), I'm having a hard time making sense of what's going on here. Usually, cryptozoologists graft on to something from the folklore record, and then make all sorts of claims about it, including either explicit or thinly-veiled Young Earth Creationist stuff. The subculture's intense hatred for academics is notorious and well-recorded (plenty of well-cited discussion about it over at cryptozoology, for example).
Yet what seems to be happening at thunderbird (cryptozoology) is that some cryptozoologists, such as Loren Coleman, have decided that the Native Americans have it all wrong ( Thunderbird (mythology)) and, in typical fashion, have decided that here we have a monster to be hunted. And somehow this has yielded a second Wikipedia entry just for the obscure fringe notions of the subculture.
I'm thinking this entire page is simply undue emphasis ( WP:UNDUE) on an obscure fringe theory. I'm also wondering if any of the supposed "sightings" in fact even mention the compound "thunderbird", or if this is something projected on to them by Coleman and crew.
Any idea how to proceed with this? :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
See [23] by User:Banquotruehero. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to waste your time, but we've got a sentence on the above page which reads ""According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency."" I know nothing about the issue really. It's a tough issue because it's an extremely sensitive and political topic.
We've already had some discussion about it here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Russian apartment bombings.
This is all about confirming what historians say in their peer-reviewed publications. It's as simple as that. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (modified)
Discussion regarding whether we may describe a pseudoscience and subculture as, well, a pseudoscience and subculture in an article space over at Talk:Thylacine#Cryptozoology,_Pseudoscience_and_Subculture. If you're not watching this page already, it could definitely use more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit stood for four days before I reverted it.
Watchlist, maybe?
jps ( talk) 02:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a relevant RfC [24] on the MS-13 page which among other things covers the false conspiracy that Democratic politicians support MS-13, a transnational crime gang. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Could I get a few editors to watchlist Hydrogen water. An enthusiastic editor made a problem yesterday, and I expect more to come. Also, would this article be suitable for inclusion on template:Alternative medicine sidebar? - Mr X 🖋 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Following from the recent RfC at Conspiracy theory, I believe things have been resolved for most of the lead section. However, it seems that the definition is still a sticking point, so additional input would be appreciated. Currently, the issue is whether or not the definition should include the phrase "when other explanations are more probable." Sunrise ( talk) 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
In
Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Recent edits on Postwar Property Restitution a couple of editors are asserting that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? is an appropriate source for anti-Jewish violence and Jewish property in post-war Poland. The book is edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (more later), Wojciech Muszyński, and Pawel Styrna (seems to have been Chodakiewicz's student - per his
LinkedIn he has gone on to
Federation for American Immigration Reform). This is published by Leopolis Press which per
[25] - "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press.
. Browsing through worldcat - there are some 5 books listed with Leopolis as a publisher -
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] - 2 of which list Chodakiewicz as the first author. Chodakiewicz himself has been extensively profiled by the SPLC in
2009 and
2017 for his views/writing/speaking on anti-Jewish violence, Jewish property, white genocide, antisemitism, gays, a speech at a far-right
Ruch Narodowy rally, etc. AFAICT the book is generally ignored in mainstream academia - it did receive short and unfavorable reviews - e.g.
here and
here - pointing out that one of the chapters in the book "accuses such historians as [list] of using neo-Stalinist methods in their articles and reviews concerning Poland
.
Icewhiz (
talk) 10:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. ... Furthermore, this Soviet-European-American implant seems to have been a danger to Polish social life since the 1990s. Finally, after a lengthy exposition, the author states that “neo-Stalinism may also be seen as a historiographic offensive bringing turmoil to Polish intellectual, cultural and social life in years following 1989” (p. 246).- should we place this amazing "fact" in articles on American social sciences? IWP is described as
"There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre,10 which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.11from Krzywiec, Grzegorz. "Controversies: Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 565-578.. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
https://www.chron.com/local/prognosis/article/Texas-state-rep-calls-vaccines-sorcery-13826725.php -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is another fringe book by Colin Wilson. I tagged it for notability but then User:FreeKnowledgeCreator removed the tag adding two reviews, both behind a paywall: "'Atlantis and the Sphinix received a mixed review from Norman Malwitz in Library Journal. [1] The book was also reviewed by John Michell in The Spectator. [2]
Malwitz described Wilson's thesis as "unusual", but credited Wilson with presenting his theories in "a sober and readable manner." He considered Wilson's claim that the Sphinx shows signs of water damage and is much older than has been thought to be his most interesting and believable statement. He compared the book to John Anthony West's Serpent in the Sky (1979). [1]"
Maybe that scrapes by(?) but Norman Malwitz is just a senior library in a New York City branch library."The article reports on the presentation of a multimedia-collection about Sikh culture by Jagir Singh Bains for Queens Library's Glen Oaks branch in New York City to Senior librarian Norman Malwitz" [32] who I can see from an Amazon search does a lot of book reviews. I don't see why we should include his comments on the content itself. John Michell is of course a fringe author.
References
Doug Weller talk 10:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Antony C. Sutton - one time Hoover Institute fellow turned conspiracy theorist. Article starts off bad enough, then goes on to explain his belief in a Wall Street-Nazi-Communist-FDR nexus. Later he turned his pen to Skull & Bones, the Federal Reserve, Gold and Cold Fusion. The only sources are his own books and a quick look around didn't spot anything mentions of him aside from by other conspiracy theorists. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 02:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the Andrew Neil page as to how we should describe his views on climate change. [33] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
See the discussion at Talk:Book of Joshua#Gerald Aardsma about a source which the editor discussed in the section above added to both articles. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
(Cross-posted at WT:PHYS, but regulars here may be interested as well.) Please see Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. There was an RfC started, but it should probably be removed as too vague. There are all sorts of back-and-forth claims of conflict of interest, socking, fringe science edorsement, etc. It's a pretty tangled mess, and I don't know this stuff well enough to really help, so I thought I'd post a notice here. It seems related to this bimetric gravity stuff that's been posted about a couple times here recently as well. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
He believes humans will go extinct by 2030 and has a following sells books, shirts etc.. his page is being actively edited by himself and his partner adding promotional material, T-shirt pictures, removing critical sourced material etc. More at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Guy_McPherson. -- Green C 05:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Could benefit from more eyes based on this thread on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wearisome_accusations_from_87.88.187.158_at_Talk:Jean-Pierre_Petit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The lead of Room-temperature superconductor currently mentions some random patent filed by someone who works for the US Navy with a spectacular claim that doesn't even seem to have received much media attention. I think it's clear it doesn't belong there. IMO it probably doesn't belong anywhere in the article. I wonder if the whole "reports" section could do with a more general trim, at least requiring a peer reviewed article where the claim was made (and preferably a secondary source mention of this claim). This would exclude another controversial recent claim made in a pre-print which at least received more attention e.g. [34]. (Our article at least mentions the controversy, but is there any reason to mention such fringe claims at all?) Nil Einne ( talk) 15:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have been keeping an eye on the off-wiki carbosphere and notice stirring are afoot to revise our content (e.g. this). Accordingly there has been an upswell of editing at Low-carbohydrate diet including from new/awakened accounts. More eyes could help. (For those unfamiliar, the fringe theory in play is that carbohydrate is the Great Satan of our diets, and this Truth is suppressed by The Man.) Alexbrn ( talk) 20:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This needs a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amy_Sequenzia. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There has been another decipherment claim, immediately rebutted by Lisa Fagin Davis, who might merit an article here. Might want to keep an eye on this for a while. Mangoe ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
User:JGabbard#Perspectives/Protesting abuses!
I didn't know that http://www.truthwiki.org/ existed before I read the above. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Watch the video. [37] Doug Weller talk 10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
History of chiropractic needs a lot of work. Like TNT-levels of work. The whole thing reads like a high-school essay written by an advocate.
74.70.146.1 ( talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Those knowledgable about fringe topics and authors writing about them may want to weigh in about this. -- Calton | Talk 22:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Jimmy Dore runs a show that "peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes" [40] and Seth Rich conspiracy theories [41] [42] [43]. However, there is gatekeeping going on at the article where we are not allowed to add content that relates to this conspiracy-theory-pedding. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Key quote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This article could benefit from the attention of some knowledgeable editors experienced in handling fringe stuff. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
"Climate change skepticism" or "denial" again. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Ricardo_Duchesne that could use some additional eyes. The discussion concerns how extensively we can cite fringe sources like Occidental Quarterly to describe Duchesne's unorthodox views of history. Nblund talk 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
See here [45]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The Freeman Dyson article contains a lot of content where he delineates his views on climate change (which go against the scientific consensus). [46] The text seems largely self-sourced, which seems inappropriate for someone who is not an expert in the field of climate science. Someone should take a look at the page to make sure it's compliant with WP:FRINGE and that it's not uses as a soapbox for climate change disinformation. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the way diffs are shown it's quite difficult, but I noticed some text changes other than citation ones. Eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 12:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien visitation
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
See [47] note the edit summaries and Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Qualifications of Researchers. Love the "You can't remove citations just because authors are creationists or Bible college graduates." Doug Weller talk 19:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Fresh article now at AfD (may possibly be of interest to some readers here). — Paleo Neonate – 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a RfC on the William Happer page about whether his remarks that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler" belongs in the lede. [50] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The Carolina Bays section of the article about Antonio Zamora needs to be revised as it presents his interpretations, which are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists, "...without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." I would also argue that it lacks neutrality as it presents his interpretations as if they were accepted by mainstream scientists. Paul H. ( talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
".without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." Unfortunately the section was deleted before I had a chance to address your concern. Mr Zamora's paper on the Carolina Bays was published in a peer reviewed journal. As far as I am aware all of the existing theories do not fully explain the creation of the Carolina Bays. Mr Zamoras paper offered an alternative and plausible explanation, although I believe certainly not watertight. He is a serious engineer and scientist and when I started the article I was not aware of his work on the Carolina Bays, I only knew of his pioneering work on automatic spelling correction and chemical abstracts. Ray3055 ( talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists". I am willing add back in the section on his theory and to specifically mention any papers that call his paper 'fringe', I am only aware of one blog that mentioned a problem with the theory, but certainly it did not use the word fringe, and is itself hardly a reliable reference for Wikipedia. Ray3055 ( talk) 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's a perennial topic, about which work is often postponed, but I would be grateful if more people could audit my changes at this article. Without it, my impression was that of undue fringe promotion. There's only one other person at the talk page (who contested my edit and may also have valid points). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 02:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm pretty new so please excuse me if I do anything incorrectly! Two months ago I removed a reference to a study into the effects of atrazine in frogs, from the page on fish physiology. Shortly afterwards my edit was reverted, and a message left on my talk page advising that it shouldn't be removed because I hadn't provided evidence via citations. I can understand why it was reverted as the reason I gave was a bit ambiguous; I should have clearly explained that another reason for removal was that the study in question didn't involve fish or their physiology. I originally gave my reason for removal as relating to the poor quality of the study itself (controversy over the results and lack of data, lack of replication) and the fact that the findings aren't accepted in mainstream science (primarily as the researcher apparently won't release his data, protocols etc.).
The section in question was changed when my edit was reverted, and I'm happier with the new wording. But not completely happy - the new version really doesn't strike me as NPOV, plus it still uses the frog study as a citation (#28).
Could I please ask for some assistance on whether anything needs doing re. the "Effects of pollution" section of this article?
You can see the original comment left on my talk page if you'd like some background. Also, as explained on my talk page I have no COI, which the other editor seems to have concluded when first contacting me.
The truth is that I genuinely have no idea whether atrazine causes problems for any form of life, which ones are affected, how, why, dose/response, etc.
However, I don't think that weak studies that remain unaccepted by the scientific community in general should be used as evidence.
Plus frogs aren't fish.
For anyone who's interested, I've linked to an article on the study and scientist in question. You could possibly argue that this article isn't 100% NPOV (maybe the journalists don't like each other?), nevertheless there is a lot of interesting info and background provided here: [1]
Thanks in advance for any help you can give! Blue-Sonnet ( talk) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
References
DNA teleportation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks like a pretty standard woo article; came across it after seeing it come up here. Look at the opening paragraph of the old revision for what was there for the past month. The reverted edit mentions an additional study which the article should probably mention, but I'm not sure how best to do that. Vahurzpu ( talk) 02:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, I see that overly-credulous articles on supernatural/fringe/paranormal phenomena are often flagged for maintenance here, so I wonder if people here can help with Woman in Black (supernatural). I just closed the AFD on it as "keep" but some keep arguments were concerned that the article is treating the topic in an unduly credulous/in-universe manner and I am thinking this forum might be the right place to ask for assistance with remedying the problem (or stating that it has been resolved). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There is disagreement on if this entry in relation to climate change should be included and if so, how to present it. Input is welcome here. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It has had its short description "Pseudo-scientific hypothesis that posits intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth" removed and a lot of tagging added. These are obviously good faith edits - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#WP:BEFORE. A quick glances does suggest a need to fix the article. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that IP editors tend to mess up the talk page regularly (I tried to improve this), but there's also a particular one now who edit wars there and posted an apparent attack at my talk page yesterday. My patience is a bit exhausted so am posting this here in hope that others watchlist it and/or answer to the latest talk page query. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Something to be on the lookout for [53]. Same as with Hillary and Trump. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Some fringes material has been added to his article that I've fixed, but I'm not happy with the new edits to the "scientific section". Doug Weller talk 15:54, 12 June 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.
This has been raised over at WT:WikiProject Skepticism#State atheism and I'm cross-posting here. From a quick look it seems as if this article takes the approach of listing "atheist" states and then having laundry lists of Bad Things which have happened, possibly promulgating a fallacious line which is problematic from multiple of the WP:PAGs. Views? Alexbrn ( talk) 06:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
TheProemnader, I don't get how you keep on trying to WP:FORUMSHOP with such extreme desperation when you yourself already made an RFC which brought forth numerous and diverse editors - issues were addressed by now and most did not agree with you [54], you have had multiple discussions on the talk page itself which included more numerous and diverse editors - most did not agree with you, you also made an attempt to complain in a WP NoOriginalResearch Noticeboard which brought in even more numerous and diverse editors - no one agreed with you there either [55]. Now you seek even more from another noticeboard too? Clearly a lot of editors have disagreed with your paranoia and conspiracy theory mentality in all of this for a few years now too.
It gets worse when we find that you are very hypocritical in that you support completely unsourced articles like Atheist Atrocities fallacy which clearly was WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:ESSAY and has no mainstream or academic references from any reliable sources. Lets not forget that that article was plagiarized from a cheap blog as I already demonstrated. I cannot believe that you are not complaining about that article!!!
For an article that you say that is low volume and low impact you have certainly put up an obsessive (Herculean) effort of incorrect assertions and heavily biased opinions when they have all been addressed by numerous editors all of which were willing to listen to you. There clearly is no conspiracy here at all. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
First off, I opened none of the inquiries into the article this time around (and my RfC request dates from... a year ago?), so the 'forum shopping' accusation is... misplaced, even more so than it was the first time around. And why the ad hominem instead of addressing the points raised? Lastly, and this is the second time I tell you this, I did not vote to 'keep' that unrelated article as it was, and voiced clearly my reservations with it. In all, this seems a desperate attempt to attract attention to anywhere but the article in question.
TP
✎
✓ 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
PS: This inquiry, and the initial post
on the Wikiproject Skepticism board that probably led to it, demonstrates that the resevations with this article are far from just my own. Cheers.
TP
✎
✓ 01:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I don't get what problem there actually is. There is a great deal of editing of late, and an even great deal of talk page Wall Of Text chatter which doesn't seem to have enough substance to turn off my TL;DR defenses. If there is anything that might be relevant to this noticeboard, it's the faint odor of denialism that surrounds the notion that the article shouldn't be talking about the repression, destruction, and slaughter the various communist governments did in the cause of state atheism. Other than that the whole thing comes across as a WP:OWNERSHIP battle. I don't see anything grossly wrong with the article, and for all the yammering nobody seems to be able to spell out succinctly or at least clearly what the problem is with the article. Mangoe ( talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The article has extensive quotes available for anyone to see now since I verified many of the sources myself in the article and I extracted them, unlike what ThePromenader mentioned (opinions but no quotes for others to verify). Quotes from sources always solve these kinds of issues since the sources speak for themselves. Transparency is important.
There is no objection to verifying sources.
you are trying to take an extremely tendentious approach in insisting that one is not a product of the other unless the source uses exactly the right words.
This is a demand which is unreasonable and leans towards denialism
Find me some decent sources that say these actions were not a product of a state antireligion policy, and then we can talk.
Folks, this is a noticeboard. It is mainly for posting short notices in order to call the attention of fringe-savvy users to certain articles that need it. It is not for having more-than-a-week-long discussions about what to do about that article. (See earlier comment "get a room" above.) And it is definitely not for accusations. Could you please have the discussion about the article on the Talk page of the article - where it will be useful years from now, when people want to know what were the ideas behind the changes made these days - and take the bickering either to your user talk pages or to, I don't know, toilet walls? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Classic promotion of fringe ideas, blah blah blah... More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CB reverted at
[71]. More eyes needed. Stating described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists
is an insult to our intelligence.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's just been changed from the former to the latter, I don't see sufficient sources in the article for either. It's a pretty poor article at the moment. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Someone keeps insisting that the article should cover an event that did not happen, plus the opinion of an unrelated person that it should have happened. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction phenomenon
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction researchers
Help.
jps ( talk) 20:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of words, little meaning. Before I AfD this, does anybody know whether there's any decent sourcing that might redeem this topic? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
In 2014 with John Overdurf, Carson and Marion wrote and published the only full book on DTI available. Sounds like there is only one non-notable book about the topic. The other sources given don’t explicitly deal with it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Recently User:Isabekian, who has made 25 edits in their 7 months here, has been adding material from a reliable source to both of these articles. I've managed to get them to accept that the source doesn't support the use of the word confirmed, but they are still insisting on not mentioning anything about the source saying that the issue as to whether Carahunge was a megalithic observatory is disputed in the source. I could have posted to NPOVN but as this is an archaeological fringe issue I think FTN is more appropriate, and most editors here are at least as well experienced with NPOV issues as editors at NPOVN.
Here is what I posted to their talk page. I thought that I had gone into enough detail to allow them to rewrite the article to meet our policy, but instead they have reverted me and accused me ov violating NPOV and not acting in good faith.
Your text was:
"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs [1], Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava [2]) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical significance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."
That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.
Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.
I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian ( talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone else please either tell me I'm talking nonsense or help this editor learn to comply with our policy? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Timothy Good ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newly created bio of UFO conspiracy theorist. Only content so far is a bibliography and a supposed top secret military document from 1948 that Good apparently hypes as proof of a conspiracy. Worth reviewing and watchlisting. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we may have stumbled upon a new group of UFO-credulous active here at Wikipedia. This may get sticky. jps ( talk) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure I'm comfortable with a solution where Wikipedia allows BLPs to be permatagged. I understand the concern about fighting for naught, but I am more concerned that the relatively poor quality of our UFO content (compared to, say, creationism) is misleading people into thinking there is a there there. On my long list of things to do is to fix the main article. Perhaps I should get back to that. jps ( talk) 21:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Theory,_hypothesis,_proof,_phenomenon,_...
I think there are some words not included at WP:WTA for which we could use some explication. What do you think?
jps ( talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi - just came across Coherent intelligence while doing a bit of NPP. Is this a thing? A google search came up with a few hits for the term, and a lot of them seem to be connected with the Igor Val. Danilov referred to in this article. The sourcing doesn't look great, and the whole thing smelled a bit fringey to me (quantum entanglement in neurons?) so thought I'd come here for a second opinion before doing anything further. GirthSummit (blether) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Scholar | Books | |
---|---|---|
"coherent intelligence" danilow | 0 | 1 (facebook) |
"coherent intelligence" danilov | 0 (1 mentioning Nicholas Daniloff) | 1 book by danilov |
Update: the articles Social reality, Quantum entanglement, Group decision-making, Collective intelligence, Social collaboration, Parapsychology and Extrasensory perception have been updated to include text about CI, audit and copyright-check welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 08:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
A user has been rather zealously over-tagging the article on the premise that they don't believe there's sufficient historical evidence that Jews suffered oppression in Italy, particularly during WWII. This user has also been active trying to redefine Fascism without much success, so I fear the over-tagging is as a result of a fringe POV with regard to the nature of the ideology. Eyes would be appreciated. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Unsure if this is the best noticeboard but since Waldorf is not mainstream, possibly: some criticism has recently been removed, I'm not sure if it was due, etc. Eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Lately, they've been in the news a lot as ground zero for epidemics caused by vaccine refusal. jps ( talk) 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has appeared at the Persecution of Christians article attempting to insert rather WP:PEACOCKed reports suggesting Christianity is experiencing a wide-spread genocide and is the most persecuted religion in the world. Eyes would be appreciated here. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There a new editor active here, and this once again reveals how confusingly-partitioned this topic space is on Wikipedia - whether something belongs in Herbalism or Medicinal plants.
One thing I notice is that "herbalism" is a poorly-defined term. Our article currently starts by defining it (unsourced) as "the study of the botany and use of medicinal plants." Really? I checked the NHS, Harrison's Internal Medicine and even the NCCIH and see herbalism is not well-defined in these. On the other hand, "herbal medicine" (an alternative headword for the article) is well-defined. For example the NHS calls herbal medicines "those with active ingredients made from plant parts, such as leaves, roots or flowers". I think that renaming our herbalism article to "herbal medicine" could be a good step towards clarifying this topic space. Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Lately YouTube somehow suggested this video. Although I knew that boarding schools existed, I had to try to convince myself that this was only a TV "reality show" on the theme. On the other hand, I then found this article (and pass-by deleted a troubling comment from its talk page). What surprised me is that there's no mention of child abuse, I have not looked yet, but would not be surprised to find reliable sources about this. Since the belief that this type of authoritarian and abusive treatment could prevent recidivism is fringe, maybe this noticeboard fits... — Paleo Neonate – 23:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi FTN,
The educology article is nominated for deletion. The nominator, Crossroads1 has identified it as a fringe theory. I'm posting here because I'm not sure if that's true and it could use the eyeballs of people with experience identifying fringe academic concepts on Wikipedia. The article is a lengthy combination textbook/essay, largely written by one author and citing an awful lot of publications written by people involved with the development of this concept (and in journals dedicated to it). In other words, it has some of the hallmarks of an article on a fringe academic concept on Wikipedia. That said, there are indeed also lots of sources that could be independent (some of which are in languages I don't speak or otherwise don't have access to). Opinions welcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, that paper seems to have missed the joke (I can read the text on Google Books and, I can assure you, the book is very much tongue-and-cheek, and I assume the other three books about educology from the 50s and 60s are as well). In any case, Elizabeth Steiner admits that this earlier reference is joking and describes the coining of the term she uses here on p. 14. jps ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of WP:SPAs active here. I wonder if there is some off-wiki coordination. jps ( talk) 20:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
A SPA editor put it up for proposed deletion with the comment, "Only skeptical POV accepted" after re-inserting an image made by the SPA showing "Purported alignments among several mounds in the vicinity of the Face on Mars". -- Ronz ( talk) 16:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what the issues are but it needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 19 June 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.
Just a notice. — Paleo Neonate – 23:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Several BLPs associated with facilitated communication have been active recently. Currently the Amy Sequenzia article is at AfD here (opened 16 June).
It also looks like this has been at ANI recently - one editor has just been topic banned but another section has been opened here. Sunrise ( talk) 00:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a fringe publication with minimal impact, mostly notable for promotion of racist views of intelligence. Currently under discussion here. It doesn't look like a reliable source, but I know there are some preeminent bad-journal hounds here who could probably help demonstrate whether this suspicion is correct. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be a fringe scientist, a lot of OR in his article. I just reverted some and was told " I shall be putting it on again, don't you worry - till it sticks !!!" - see User talk:Rudolf Pohl. He's an anti-Creationist, which is nice, but as his article says, "He subsequently received fierce opposition from the established petrology community. Therefore, he decided to write books, and in 1997 he created his own website and published his findings digitally." Forgot, the editor I've reverted is in touch with Collins, perhaps writing this on his behalf. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This page caught my attention when I discovered that it was incorrectly tagged as {{ in-universe}} rather than {{ fringe theories}}. There is absolutely no scientific perspective whatsoever. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The article is a bit fawning and needs to be toned down (it's really an article on precession of the equinox with added woo). It is definitely a fringe theory because WP:FRINGE is not about the number of adherents, it's about whether there is relevant WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance of claims in the relevant epistemic community. jps ( talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
We can, should, and already do say that astrology is nonsense (Astrology is a pseudoscience that...
); it's absolutely a fringe topic. It would be relatively easy to take a chainsaw to the uncited and badly-cited material, but without an infusion of reliable and independent sources that won't make the article good, just short and full of holes that anyone interested in the topic will notice.
Smowo (
talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Subhash Kak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In April a one edit SPA added a long complaint to the talk page saying that Kak was being treated unfairly and a new editor has now chimed in. Looks like Hindutva vs science. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Additional input is needed on the Sharyl Attkisson page about how to described her coverage of and personal views on vaccines, and what sources to use. There are on-going disputes (that the subject of the article is herself personally involved in on the talk page) as to whether she's promoting fringe claims about vaccines or not. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
When I came across this article, which is barely more than a stub, it was effectively saying that the IDW was a loose agglomeration of academics with no ideological connection. However for an article about academics, the principal citation is Bari Weiss - a second-rate opinion columnist. Now we all know how famously I love political articles being sole-sourced to mass media, but in the absence of any indication this neologism has attracted non-fringe academic interest, I'm tempted to AfD under WP:TOOSOON. Before I throw that particular molotov though, I thought I'd check in here and see if any of the other denizens of political fringe articles can point to any mainstream sociological, anthropological or scholarly literature writers who have covered the concept.
I mean besides Natalie Wynn - She's great and all, but Youtube doesn't really count as an RS. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in a discussion at WP:BLPN#Sharyl Attkisson related to the theory that vaccines can cause autism. R2 ( bleep) 05:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
A fairly inexperienced editor User:Neighborhood Nationalist has arrived at this article and is complaining that "The presentation of an organization’s identify should never be presented by its opposition, that’s an incredible show of bad faith." and stating that they are going to try to give it "some semblance of neutrality" - a not uncommon misunderstaning of NPOV. But this has involved removing the anti-Semitism sidebar and the description of Harry Barnes as a holocaust denier (which he clearly was). Similar problems at other articles, eg [84] but I'm not sure if I can call them fringe. Barnes Review however is I think clearly fringe history. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
An IP keeps slowly but repeatedly removed information from this article which makes Gundry's theories about lectin being the cause of numerous modern diseases seem as if they are accepted by the scientific community when they are not e.g. [85]. I'd appreciate if you could review the content and provide input. SmartSE ( talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the CJR Event on Covering Climate Change and its implications on Wikipedia articles on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion is related to climate change denial. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Climate coverage, starting in September. — Newslinger talk 21:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a great deal of pro-fringe editing, if not outright whitewashing, this year. While the article has never been very good, I'd say 12 Jan looks like a last good version.
Looks like multiple UPEs. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This article by a fringe historian (who backs "the idea that the Greek Dark Ages can be drastically reduced and arose solely from a misreading of key elements of the history of ancient Egypt)" needs attention. His book is used a bit in articles. [86] Doug Weller talk 08:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC) See this as a possible source. [87] Doug Weller talk 08:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It appears that the ongoing war between Team Red and Team Blue has expanded to Talk:RationalWiki. We could really use some more eyes on the page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I am probably overly paranoid but is this article (a kid inventing a fusion reactor, or something along these lines) for real? Such extraordinary claims often are hoaxes or pro-fringe POV-pushing. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Contains Conservapedia. I raised the subject on the Talk page, and I expect resistance to the removal. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
A brief mention of his fringe book on America but no secondary source. See [88]. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In experienced editor adding OR and weasel words and accusing me of censorship. They've had problems before.
"However it is worth noting that all of these civilisations (especially the Aztecs) [1] have also been known to use Datura, [2] [3] a highly poisonous plant entheogen and deliriant which has been linked to psychotic, bizarre, and violent behavior. [4] I'll revert again. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Damn. I reverted by accident without another edit summary and add now User:Barbara (WVS) has restored it. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Stuart Brody against
WP:MEDRS. Brody, Stuart (April 2010). "The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities".
The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 7 (4): 1336–1361.
doi:
10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01677.x. has been advanced in order to
WP:Verify the claim that I feel that this research should be presented in this article in the health effects section, especially as a statement to the contrary (i.e. "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-esteem") is included in this section.
See
Talk:Masturbation#Research presenting a negative correlation between the frequency of masturbation and various mental and physical benefits is not presented in the article. Problem with that source: it is at least
WP:UNDUE if not outright
WP:FRINGE. As I have stated, He wanted to do unto Kinsey, Masters and Johnson what the Intelligent Design movement wants to do unto Darwin.
And And, yes, it fails WP:MEDRS because it is a pathetic attempt at writing a systematic review (you don't review just papers by yourself and by your pals).
To be sure, this applies to other papers by Brody, not the present one.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 07:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Of greatest importance for the present exposition is the extremely low risk of HIV transmission through PVI for healthy persons of reproductive age, ... In contrast, PVI is associated with HIV-relevant immune benefits that were obliterated by condom use [137]. The authors concluded: “Unprotected sexual intercourse might result in alloimmunization stimulated by HLA antigens in seminal or cervicovaginal fluid. Mucosal alloimmunization may reduce infection by HIV-1” (p. 518).
— Brody, 2010
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
And does Brody conflate correlation with causation?
Other sexual behaviors (including when PVI is impaired, as with condoms or distraction away from the penile–vaginal sensations) are unassociated, or in some cases (such as masturbation and anal intercourse) inversely associated with better psychological and physical functioning. Sexual medicine, sex education, sex therapy, and sex research should disseminate details of the health benefits of specifically PVI, and also become much more specific in their respective assessment and intervention practices.
— Brody, 2010
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Being a reliable source is only the beginning. If that reliable source is holding a minority position, then we don't use him.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion and conclusions are more of a polemic against modern sexology than an exploration of the data found in the research.And he is pretty close to AIDS denialism when discussing PVI (in his opinion getting infected with HIV during PVI is as likely as being struck by lightning). According to WP:LUNATICS Wikipedia simply is not a venue for endlessly re-litigating the medical consensus. I take WP:ARBPS very seriously and I am not willing to make any compromises against it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages.
Discussion ongoing on Talk:Cryonics - more eyes would be welcome - David Gerard ( talk) 16:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Always good to know that we don't have to mess about with tinfoil any more. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Upon searching for the article Slavic mythology, I noticed that it had been folded into a redirect for Slavic paganism, a different topic. Looking the article over, I noticed quite a few red flags. First, the very few sources that provide Slavic deities are very murkily mentioned and couched next to cherry-picked theories, many of them quite dubious, and claims of a certain monotheism lurking behind said paganism are provided without context. The whole thing is a mess and seems to be a platform for fringe ideas. More eyes would do this article a lot of good. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Meet the New York couple donating millions to the anti-vax movement --SFGate -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
American Indian creationism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) major changes including turning the lead into an argument about oral history. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, I got the ball rolling with a discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Indian creationism. jps ( talk) 12:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Over at Mapinguari, which I've rewritten from scratch, we've got a couple of cryptozoologist users (one invited from a cryptozoologist board) attempting to present, for example, founding figures of the subculture as simply 'zoologists'. It's the typical sort of shenanigans we see in these corners, but this article is pretty obscure and could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat related to Sahaja Yoga (section above), this currently looks like a big ball of religious woo to me, based largely on primary and/or in-universe sources. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of decent secondary sourcing so not entirely sure what to do with this. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Should the article Post-classical history "imply" or give "any weight" to the transoceanic human contact theory based on sources about potatoes, chickens and word familiarity that some think is fringe science ?
.-- Moxy 🍁 06:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed a bunch of random Youtube videos and website declaring—in bolded comic sans—"THIS IS WHERE WE BEGAN TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA" over at Thylacine#Unconfirmed_sightings (discussion: Talk:Thylacine#Unconfirmed_Sightings_Section:_Very_Poor_Sources). Since this particular FA-class (!) article seems to be a playground for edit warriors and pseudoscience-peddlers, I'm requesting more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time to fix this. Can someone add RS text and clarifications to the Pipes article, noting that Obama is not in fact a Muslim, so that the page is compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure which Wikipedia user this is - but she states she was topic banned for FC and RPM. This article was brought to my attention yesterday where (near the end) she asks for people to "step up" and mentions several AfD discussions. Including one that I had voted on which is why this article was brought to my attention. https://theaspergian.com/2019/07/10/fc-rpm-and-how-wikipedia-became-complicit-in-silencing-non-speaking-autistics/ Sgerbic ( talk) 16:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Expect more to come if no one steps up." So it isn't exactly saying "go vote in the deletion discussion" but it is pretty obvious by the statement "expect more to come if no one steps up". Just sayin' Sgerbic ( talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
With one potential exception, currently Ennedi tiger is entirely sourced to fringe sources, all of them cryptozoologists. I'm looking to rewrite this article, but I have yet to find a single reliable source on the topic. Anyone know of any? :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There's some disagreement about how we should handle this. From the source [Coney, Judith (1999). "Chapter 6: A woman's role in Sahaja Yoga". Sahaja Yoga – Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement. Routledge. pp. 119–144.]:
She has attributed this loss of regard [of women] to the increasing decadence of the age of Kali Yuga and to the machinations of demons who are intent on dragging human beings to hell. However, she views the Western feminist tradition as another route to damnation, on the grounds that it has meant that women try to behave like men rather than being true to their own gender.
An editor is opposing making any mention of demons because it is apparently scandalous. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( Alexbrn) 05:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
We have have the WP:SPA trying to remove cult allegations from the article. More eyes on this would be welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Somebody added a link to this hypothesis on European history to the Ming / Qing Transition article, where it's certainly inappropriate, but something about this article is setting off my fringe theories sense, and I'm not quite versed enough in European history to identify quite what. Eyes on this article might be good. Simonm223 ( talk) 09:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Some whitewashing and something about a 2018 conference in Skanderborg is mentioned in the lead although there are no details about it in the article, there seems to have been an attempt to keep it secret. Look at this in Google translate. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion about whether and how to include repudiations of the fringe views of the subject of the article Patrick_Moore_(consultant). -- JBL ( talk) 21:54, 17 July 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 found this being used as a source after reading
"Junk Science or the Real Thing? ‘Inference’ Publishes Both." Here is its "about" page
[1] which I see has a rebuttal to criticism by astrophysicist and science writer Adam Becker (see
here).Becker's piece is discussed
here and
here. On my talk page I'm being asked to reconsider - the issue is can this be handled case by case as some famous scientists write for it, and links have been given me:
"On Inference" by
Peter Woit and
"Something I wrote…" by David Roberts for some alternative points of view.
Comments? The article by Roberts response by Sabine Hossenfelder to Woit's post is a bit worrying if it actually means that an author's work might be changed before publication.
Doug Weller
talk 14:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Paul H. ( talk) 17:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Although the editors have every intention of appealing to experts for advice, Inference is not a peer-reviewed journal.
There's new activity at Emotional Freedom Techniques. Not misbehavior, nothing that I'm complaining about; it may even be an improvement. But it should be watched (and I have to absent myself to attend to my paid job). -- Hoary ( talk) 21:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
While reviewing photon sphere with the intent of adding a note about the M87* feature termed a "photon ring" I stumbled upon "The Photon Belt (also called the photon band, photon ring, manasic ring, manasic radiation, manasic vibration, golden ring, or golden nebula)" (Not to be confused with the indie band.) Looks like non-notable nonsense to me. Either that, or the recently imaged black hole is undergoing a spiritual transition as there is literally a ring of photons enveloping it. Thoughts? I plan on adding a redirect from photon ring to photon sphere after updating the latter. Given the extensive usage of "photon ring" in the Event Horizon Telescope papers readers searching for a definition are likely to land on a rather poorly sourced article here instead. -- mikeu talk 18:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, the article started as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt by a long since indef blocked user. -- mikeu talk 21:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Belt (2nd nomination) -- mikeu talk 10:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
More eyeballs would be appreciated; the relevant article talk page section is here. Neutrality talk 21:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Is HAES a fringe theory or pseudo-science? Is it mainstream? It has certainly entered the mainstream (alongside Fat Acceptance), with multiple opinion pieces in the NY Times and other major publications. I can't find anything from a RS actually calling it a pseudo-science. Though that should not be a shock, as actual scientists are often too busy doing real science than responding to pop theories.
I think the page is a bit neglected and at least needs more to add it to their watch list.
Right now, there's a dispute on NPOV on the talk page:
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have an opinion on the title/content of this sidebar, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
On the Dan Crenshaw article, some editors have edit-warred the following bolded language out of the article:
It is my understanding of WP:FRINGE that the bolded text belongs in the article, as it clarifies to readers that scientists do not disagree that human activity is a primary (versus a minor) contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a RfC on The Wall Street Journal article that relates to the subject of this noticeboard. [17] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 05:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
'Church' to offer 'miracle cure' despite FDA warnings against drinking bleach -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Extra content for the most fringy of my WP:FTN henchmen:
Look at these magnetic therapy products on Amazon:
That last one is extra special. It offers you magnetic therapy without containing any actual magnets. We have discovered Homeopathic magnetic therapy!!! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This Shameless Plug (but I am plugging a proposed improvement to Wikipedia, so shameless plugs are allowed) is because I have a lot of respect for the abilities of my fellow noticeboard regulars. If anyone objects, go ahead and kill this cute little puppy delete this section.
The 2019 redefinition of SI base units is scheduled to happen on 20 May 2019. I would like it to be Today's Featured Article on that day. To make this happen, it needs everything listed at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (some of which it already has), followed by a nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, then a nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Any help improving the article would be greatly appreciated. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
RfC on the WikiLeaks article [18]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Falun Gong ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not an article I know anything about, but there seems to be some disagreement with a new editor's edits. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/fringe
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Stargate Project#Defamatory content. I just removed some text added by the same editor, User:Brian Josephson which was sourced to a fringe site. [19] Also see this post about the author of the source. [20] Doug Weller talk 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
A neutral third party is needed to mediate a long ongoing discussion about how to address fringe material in the Richat Structure talk page before it gets out of hand Paul H. ( talk) 15:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This is in the Transhumanist series, so I think is fringeyish. Dunno why it's on my watchlist and I'm having a few twitchy moments watching what I discovered are LSE students using our article to workshop the subject, or something. I have done my usual leadfoot impersonation on Talk, and rather than reverting more workshopping, decided to ask a couple of questions here, viz.
We have people who are good with student projects don't we? Where do I find them? Thanks. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
He says that it is all caused by climate change....
Interestingly, this is one of those cases where YouTube posts a link to Wikipedia to counter the pseudoscience. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please look at the latest edits to this article? I am not really up to speed on political fringe -- I mostly deal with science and medicine fringe. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking over this page ( Thunderbird (cryptozoology), I'm having a hard time making sense of what's going on here. Usually, cryptozoologists graft on to something from the folklore record, and then make all sorts of claims about it, including either explicit or thinly-veiled Young Earth Creationist stuff. The subculture's intense hatred for academics is notorious and well-recorded (plenty of well-cited discussion about it over at cryptozoology, for example).
Yet what seems to be happening at thunderbird (cryptozoology) is that some cryptozoologists, such as Loren Coleman, have decided that the Native Americans have it all wrong ( Thunderbird (mythology)) and, in typical fashion, have decided that here we have a monster to be hunted. And somehow this has yielded a second Wikipedia entry just for the obscure fringe notions of the subculture.
I'm thinking this entire page is simply undue emphasis ( WP:UNDUE) on an obscure fringe theory. I'm also wondering if any of the supposed "sightings" in fact even mention the compound "thunderbird", or if this is something projected on to them by Coleman and crew.
Any idea how to proceed with this? :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
See [23] by User:Banquotruehero. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to waste your time, but we've got a sentence on the above page which reads ""According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency."" I know nothing about the issue really. It's a tough issue because it's an extremely sensitive and political topic.
We've already had some discussion about it here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Russian apartment bombings.
This is all about confirming what historians say in their peer-reviewed publications. It's as simple as that. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (modified)
Discussion regarding whether we may describe a pseudoscience and subculture as, well, a pseudoscience and subculture in an article space over at Talk:Thylacine#Cryptozoology,_Pseudoscience_and_Subculture. If you're not watching this page already, it could definitely use more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit stood for four days before I reverted it.
Watchlist, maybe?
jps ( talk) 02:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a relevant RfC [24] on the MS-13 page which among other things covers the false conspiracy that Democratic politicians support MS-13, a transnational crime gang. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Could I get a few editors to watchlist Hydrogen water. An enthusiastic editor made a problem yesterday, and I expect more to come. Also, would this article be suitable for inclusion on template:Alternative medicine sidebar? - Mr X 🖋 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Following from the recent RfC at Conspiracy theory, I believe things have been resolved for most of the lead section. However, it seems that the definition is still a sticking point, so additional input would be appreciated. Currently, the issue is whether or not the definition should include the phrase "when other explanations are more probable." Sunrise ( talk) 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
In
Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Recent edits on Postwar Property Restitution a couple of editors are asserting that Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? is an appropriate source for anti-Jewish violence and Jewish property in post-war Poland. The book is edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (more later), Wojciech Muszyński, and Pawel Styrna (seems to have been Chodakiewicz's student - per his
LinkedIn he has gone on to
Federation for American Immigration Reform). This is published by Leopolis Press which per
[25] - "The holder of the Kościuszko Chair at IWP, Dr. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, is the Publisher of Leopolis Press.
. Browsing through worldcat - there are some 5 books listed with Leopolis as a publisher -
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] - 2 of which list Chodakiewicz as the first author. Chodakiewicz himself has been extensively profiled by the SPLC in
2009 and
2017 for his views/writing/speaking on anti-Jewish violence, Jewish property, white genocide, antisemitism, gays, a speech at a far-right
Ruch Narodowy rally, etc. AFAICT the book is generally ignored in mainstream academia - it did receive short and unfavorable reviews - e.g.
here and
here - pointing out that one of the chapters in the book "accuses such historians as [list] of using neo-Stalinist methods in their articles and reviews concerning Poland
.
Icewhiz (
talk) 10:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"The study scrupulously states that “neo-Stalinism” has certainly been dominant in the American social sciences since the 1960s. ... Furthermore, this Soviet-European-American implant seems to have been a danger to Polish social life since the 1990s. Finally, after a lengthy exposition, the author states that “neo-Stalinism may also be seen as a historiographic offensive bringing turmoil to Polish intellectual, cultural and social life in years following 1989” (p. 246).- should we place this amazing "fact" in articles on American social sciences? IWP is described as
"There is something farcical about the conception of a crusade against the modern world professed by a few researchers from a marginal research centre,10 which is a recruitment pool of the CIA.11from Krzywiec, Grzegorz. "Controversies: Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 565-578.. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
https://www.chron.com/local/prognosis/article/Texas-state-rep-calls-vaccines-sorcery-13826725.php -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is another fringe book by Colin Wilson. I tagged it for notability but then User:FreeKnowledgeCreator removed the tag adding two reviews, both behind a paywall: "'Atlantis and the Sphinix received a mixed review from Norman Malwitz in Library Journal. [1] The book was also reviewed by John Michell in The Spectator. [2]
Malwitz described Wilson's thesis as "unusual", but credited Wilson with presenting his theories in "a sober and readable manner." He considered Wilson's claim that the Sphinx shows signs of water damage and is much older than has been thought to be his most interesting and believable statement. He compared the book to John Anthony West's Serpent in the Sky (1979). [1]"
Maybe that scrapes by(?) but Norman Malwitz is just a senior library in a New York City branch library."The article reports on the presentation of a multimedia-collection about Sikh culture by Jagir Singh Bains for Queens Library's Glen Oaks branch in New York City to Senior librarian Norman Malwitz" [32] who I can see from an Amazon search does a lot of book reviews. I don't see why we should include his comments on the content itself. John Michell is of course a fringe author.
References
Doug Weller talk 10:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Antony C. Sutton - one time Hoover Institute fellow turned conspiracy theorist. Article starts off bad enough, then goes on to explain his belief in a Wall Street-Nazi-Communist-FDR nexus. Later he turned his pen to Skull & Bones, the Federal Reserve, Gold and Cold Fusion. The only sources are his own books and a quick look around didn't spot anything mentions of him aside from by other conspiracy theorists. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 02:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the Andrew Neil page as to how we should describe his views on climate change. [33] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
See the discussion at Talk:Book of Joshua#Gerald Aardsma about a source which the editor discussed in the section above added to both articles. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
(Cross-posted at WT:PHYS, but regulars here may be interested as well.) Please see Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. There was an RfC started, but it should probably be removed as too vague. There are all sorts of back-and-forth claims of conflict of interest, socking, fringe science edorsement, etc. It's a pretty tangled mess, and I don't know this stuff well enough to really help, so I thought I'd post a notice here. It seems related to this bimetric gravity stuff that's been posted about a couple times here recently as well. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
He believes humans will go extinct by 2030 and has a following sells books, shirts etc.. his page is being actively edited by himself and his partner adding promotional material, T-shirt pictures, removing critical sourced material etc. More at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Guy_McPherson. -- Green C 05:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Could benefit from more eyes based on this thread on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wearisome_accusations_from_87.88.187.158_at_Talk:Jean-Pierre_Petit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The lead of Room-temperature superconductor currently mentions some random patent filed by someone who works for the US Navy with a spectacular claim that doesn't even seem to have received much media attention. I think it's clear it doesn't belong there. IMO it probably doesn't belong anywhere in the article. I wonder if the whole "reports" section could do with a more general trim, at least requiring a peer reviewed article where the claim was made (and preferably a secondary source mention of this claim). This would exclude another controversial recent claim made in a pre-print which at least received more attention e.g. [34]. (Our article at least mentions the controversy, but is there any reason to mention such fringe claims at all?) Nil Einne ( talk) 15:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have been keeping an eye on the off-wiki carbosphere and notice stirring are afoot to revise our content (e.g. this). Accordingly there has been an upswell of editing at Low-carbohydrate diet including from new/awakened accounts. More eyes could help. (For those unfamiliar, the fringe theory in play is that carbohydrate is the Great Satan of our diets, and this Truth is suppressed by The Man.) Alexbrn ( talk) 20:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This needs a look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amy_Sequenzia. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There has been another decipherment claim, immediately rebutted by Lisa Fagin Davis, who might merit an article here. Might want to keep an eye on this for a while. Mangoe ( talk) 19:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
User:JGabbard#Perspectives/Protesting abuses!
I didn't know that http://www.truthwiki.org/ existed before I read the above. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Watch the video. [37] Doug Weller talk 10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
History of chiropractic needs a lot of work. Like TNT-levels of work. The whole thing reads like a high-school essay written by an advocate.
74.70.146.1 ( talk) 14:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Those knowledgable about fringe topics and authors writing about them may want to weigh in about this. -- Calton | Talk 22:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Jimmy Dore runs a show that "peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes" [40] and Seth Rich conspiracy theories [41] [42] [43]. However, there is gatekeeping going on at the article where we are not allowed to add content that relates to this conspiracy-theory-pedding. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Key quote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This article could benefit from the attention of some knowledgeable editors experienced in handling fringe stuff. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
"Climate change skepticism" or "denial" again. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Ricardo_Duchesne that could use some additional eyes. The discussion concerns how extensively we can cite fringe sources like Occidental Quarterly to describe Duchesne's unorthodox views of history. Nblund talk 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
See here [45]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The Freeman Dyson article contains a lot of content where he delineates his views on climate change (which go against the scientific consensus). [46] The text seems largely self-sourced, which seems inappropriate for someone who is not an expert in the field of climate science. Someone should take a look at the page to make sure it's compliant with WP:FRINGE and that it's not uses as a soapbox for climate change disinformation. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the way diffs are shown it's quite difficult, but I noticed some text changes other than citation ones. Eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 12:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien visitation
Please comment.
jps ( talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
See [47] note the edit summaries and Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis#Qualifications of Researchers. Love the "You can't remove citations just because authors are creationists or Bible college graduates." Doug Weller talk 19:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Fresh article now at AfD (may possibly be of interest to some readers here). — Paleo Neonate – 00:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a RfC on the William Happer page about whether his remarks that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler" belongs in the lede. [50] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The Carolina Bays section of the article about Antonio Zamora needs to be revised as it presents his interpretations, which are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists, "...without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." I would also argue that it lacks neutrality as it presents his interpretations as if they were accepted by mainstream scientists. Paul H. ( talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
".without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view." Unfortunately the section was deleted before I had a chance to address your concern. Mr Zamora's paper on the Carolina Bays was published in a peer reviewed journal. As far as I am aware all of the existing theories do not fully explain the creation of the Carolina Bays. Mr Zamoras paper offered an alternative and plausible explanation, although I believe certainly not watertight. He is a serious engineer and scientist and when I started the article I was not aware of his work on the Carolina Bays, I only knew of his pioneering work on automatic spelling correction and chemical abstracts. Ray3055 ( talk) 22:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"are considered fringe by many Quaternary geologists". I am willing add back in the section on his theory and to specifically mention any papers that call his paper 'fringe', I am only aware of one blog that mentioned a problem with the theory, but certainly it did not use the word fringe, and is itself hardly a reliable reference for Wikipedia. Ray3055 ( talk) 22:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's a perennial topic, about which work is often postponed, but I would be grateful if more people could audit my changes at this article. Without it, my impression was that of undue fringe promotion. There's only one other person at the talk page (who contested my edit and may also have valid points). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 02:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm pretty new so please excuse me if I do anything incorrectly! Two months ago I removed a reference to a study into the effects of atrazine in frogs, from the page on fish physiology. Shortly afterwards my edit was reverted, and a message left on my talk page advising that it shouldn't be removed because I hadn't provided evidence via citations. I can understand why it was reverted as the reason I gave was a bit ambiguous; I should have clearly explained that another reason for removal was that the study in question didn't involve fish or their physiology. I originally gave my reason for removal as relating to the poor quality of the study itself (controversy over the results and lack of data, lack of replication) and the fact that the findings aren't accepted in mainstream science (primarily as the researcher apparently won't release his data, protocols etc.).
The section in question was changed when my edit was reverted, and I'm happier with the new wording. But not completely happy - the new version really doesn't strike me as NPOV, plus it still uses the frog study as a citation (#28).
Could I please ask for some assistance on whether anything needs doing re. the "Effects of pollution" section of this article?
You can see the original comment left on my talk page if you'd like some background. Also, as explained on my talk page I have no COI, which the other editor seems to have concluded when first contacting me.
The truth is that I genuinely have no idea whether atrazine causes problems for any form of life, which ones are affected, how, why, dose/response, etc.
However, I don't think that weak studies that remain unaccepted by the scientific community in general should be used as evidence.
Plus frogs aren't fish.
For anyone who's interested, I've linked to an article on the study and scientist in question. You could possibly argue that this article isn't 100% NPOV (maybe the journalists don't like each other?), nevertheless there is a lot of interesting info and background provided here: [1]
Thanks in advance for any help you can give! Blue-Sonnet ( talk) 00:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
References
DNA teleportation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Looks like a pretty standard woo article; came across it after seeing it come up here. Look at the opening paragraph of the old revision for what was there for the past month. The reverted edit mentions an additional study which the article should probably mention, but I'm not sure how best to do that. Vahurzpu ( talk) 02:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, I see that overly-credulous articles on supernatural/fringe/paranormal phenomena are often flagged for maintenance here, so I wonder if people here can help with Woman in Black (supernatural). I just closed the AFD on it as "keep" but some keep arguments were concerned that the article is treating the topic in an unduly credulous/in-universe manner and I am thinking this forum might be the right place to ask for assistance with remedying the problem (or stating that it has been resolved). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There is disagreement on if this entry in relation to climate change should be included and if so, how to present it. Input is welcome here. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It has had its short description "Pseudo-scientific hypothesis that posits intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth" removed and a lot of tagging added. These are obviously good faith edits - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#WP:BEFORE. A quick glances does suggest a need to fix the article. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that IP editors tend to mess up the talk page regularly (I tried to improve this), but there's also a particular one now who edit wars there and posted an apparent attack at my talk page yesterday. My patience is a bit exhausted so am posting this here in hope that others watchlist it and/or answer to the latest talk page query. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 04:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Something to be on the lookout for [53]. Same as with Hillary and Trump. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Some fringes material has been added to his article that I've fixed, but I'm not happy with the new edits to the "scientific section". Doug Weller talk 15:54, 12 June 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.
This has been raised over at WT:WikiProject Skepticism#State atheism and I'm cross-posting here. From a quick look it seems as if this article takes the approach of listing "atheist" states and then having laundry lists of Bad Things which have happened, possibly promulgating a fallacious line which is problematic from multiple of the WP:PAGs. Views? Alexbrn ( talk) 06:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
TheProemnader, I don't get how you keep on trying to WP:FORUMSHOP with such extreme desperation when you yourself already made an RFC which brought forth numerous and diverse editors - issues were addressed by now and most did not agree with you [54], you have had multiple discussions on the talk page itself which included more numerous and diverse editors - most did not agree with you, you also made an attempt to complain in a WP NoOriginalResearch Noticeboard which brought in even more numerous and diverse editors - no one agreed with you there either [55]. Now you seek even more from another noticeboard too? Clearly a lot of editors have disagreed with your paranoia and conspiracy theory mentality in all of this for a few years now too.
It gets worse when we find that you are very hypocritical in that you support completely unsourced articles like Atheist Atrocities fallacy which clearly was WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:ESSAY and has no mainstream or academic references from any reliable sources. Lets not forget that that article was plagiarized from a cheap blog as I already demonstrated. I cannot believe that you are not complaining about that article!!!
For an article that you say that is low volume and low impact you have certainly put up an obsessive (Herculean) effort of incorrect assertions and heavily biased opinions when they have all been addressed by numerous editors all of which were willing to listen to you. There clearly is no conspiracy here at all. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
First off, I opened none of the inquiries into the article this time around (and my RfC request dates from... a year ago?), so the 'forum shopping' accusation is... misplaced, even more so than it was the first time around. And why the ad hominem instead of addressing the points raised? Lastly, and this is the second time I tell you this, I did not vote to 'keep' that unrelated article as it was, and voiced clearly my reservations with it. In all, this seems a desperate attempt to attract attention to anywhere but the article in question.
TP
✎
✓ 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
PS: This inquiry, and the initial post
on the Wikiproject Skepticism board that probably led to it, demonstrates that the resevations with this article are far from just my own. Cheers.
TP
✎
✓ 01:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I don't get what problem there actually is. There is a great deal of editing of late, and an even great deal of talk page Wall Of Text chatter which doesn't seem to have enough substance to turn off my TL;DR defenses. If there is anything that might be relevant to this noticeboard, it's the faint odor of denialism that surrounds the notion that the article shouldn't be talking about the repression, destruction, and slaughter the various communist governments did in the cause of state atheism. Other than that the whole thing comes across as a WP:OWNERSHIP battle. I don't see anything grossly wrong with the article, and for all the yammering nobody seems to be able to spell out succinctly or at least clearly what the problem is with the article. Mangoe ( talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The article has extensive quotes available for anyone to see now since I verified many of the sources myself in the article and I extracted them, unlike what ThePromenader mentioned (opinions but no quotes for others to verify). Quotes from sources always solve these kinds of issues since the sources speak for themselves. Transparency is important.
There is no objection to verifying sources.
you are trying to take an extremely tendentious approach in insisting that one is not a product of the other unless the source uses exactly the right words.
This is a demand which is unreasonable and leans towards denialism
Find me some decent sources that say these actions were not a product of a state antireligion policy, and then we can talk.
Folks, this is a noticeboard. It is mainly for posting short notices in order to call the attention of fringe-savvy users to certain articles that need it. It is not for having more-than-a-week-long discussions about what to do about that article. (See earlier comment "get a room" above.) And it is definitely not for accusations. Could you please have the discussion about the article on the Talk page of the article - where it will be useful years from now, when people want to know what were the ideas behind the changes made these days - and take the bickering either to your user talk pages or to, I don't know, toilet walls? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Classic promotion of fringe ideas, blah blah blah... More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CB reverted at
[71]. More eyes needed. Stating described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists
is an insult to our intelligence.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's just been changed from the former to the latter, I don't see sufficient sources in the article for either. It's a pretty poor article at the moment. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Someone keeps insisting that the article should cover an event that did not happen, plus the opinion of an unrelated person that it should have happened. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction phenomenon
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:Alien abduction researchers
Help.
jps ( talk) 20:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of words, little meaning. Before I AfD this, does anybody know whether there's any decent sourcing that might redeem this topic? Alexbrn ( talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
In 2014 with John Overdurf, Carson and Marion wrote and published the only full book on DTI available. Sounds like there is only one non-notable book about the topic. The other sources given don’t explicitly deal with it. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Recently User:Isabekian, who has made 25 edits in their 7 months here, has been adding material from a reliable source to both of these articles. I've managed to get them to accept that the source doesn't support the use of the word confirmed, but they are still insisting on not mentioning anything about the source saying that the issue as to whether Carahunge was a megalithic observatory is disputed in the source. I could have posted to NPOVN but as this is an archaeological fringe issue I think FTN is more appropriate, and most editors here are at least as well experienced with NPOV issues as editors at NPOVN.
Here is what I posted to their talk page. I thought that I had gone into enough detail to allow them to rewrite the article to meet our policy, but instead they have reverted me and accused me ov violating NPOV and not acting in good faith.
Your text was:
"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs [1], Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava [2]) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical significance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."
That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.
Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.
I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian ( talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone else please either tell me I'm talking nonsense or help this editor learn to comply with our policy? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Timothy Good ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newly created bio of UFO conspiracy theorist. Only content so far is a bibliography and a supposed top secret military document from 1948 that Good apparently hypes as proof of a conspiracy. Worth reviewing and watchlisting. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we may have stumbled upon a new group of UFO-credulous active here at Wikipedia. This may get sticky. jps ( talk) 19:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure I'm comfortable with a solution where Wikipedia allows BLPs to be permatagged. I understand the concern about fighting for naught, but I am more concerned that the relatively poor quality of our UFO content (compared to, say, creationism) is misleading people into thinking there is a there there. On my long list of things to do is to fix the main article. Perhaps I should get back to that. jps ( talk) 21:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Theory,_hypothesis,_proof,_phenomenon,_...
I think there are some words not included at WP:WTA for which we could use some explication. What do you think?
jps ( talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi - just came across Coherent intelligence while doing a bit of NPP. Is this a thing? A google search came up with a few hits for the term, and a lot of them seem to be connected with the Igor Val. Danilov referred to in this article. The sourcing doesn't look great, and the whole thing smelled a bit fringey to me (quantum entanglement in neurons?) so thought I'd come here for a second opinion before doing anything further. GirthSummit (blether) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Scholar | Books | |
---|---|---|
"coherent intelligence" danilow | 0 | 1 (facebook) |
"coherent intelligence" danilov | 0 (1 mentioning Nicholas Daniloff) | 1 book by danilov |
Update: the articles Social reality, Quantum entanglement, Group decision-making, Collective intelligence, Social collaboration, Parapsychology and Extrasensory perception have been updated to include text about CI, audit and copyright-check welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 08:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
A user has been rather zealously over-tagging the article on the premise that they don't believe there's sufficient historical evidence that Jews suffered oppression in Italy, particularly during WWII. This user has also been active trying to redefine Fascism without much success, so I fear the over-tagging is as a result of a fringe POV with regard to the nature of the ideology. Eyes would be appreciated. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Unsure if this is the best noticeboard but since Waldorf is not mainstream, possibly: some criticism has recently been removed, I'm not sure if it was due, etc. Eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Lately, they've been in the news a lot as ground zero for epidemics caused by vaccine refusal. jps ( talk) 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has appeared at the Persecution of Christians article attempting to insert rather WP:PEACOCKed reports suggesting Christianity is experiencing a wide-spread genocide and is the most persecuted religion in the world. Eyes would be appreciated here. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There a new editor active here, and this once again reveals how confusingly-partitioned this topic space is on Wikipedia - whether something belongs in Herbalism or Medicinal plants.
One thing I notice is that "herbalism" is a poorly-defined term. Our article currently starts by defining it (unsourced) as "the study of the botany and use of medicinal plants." Really? I checked the NHS, Harrison's Internal Medicine and even the NCCIH and see herbalism is not well-defined in these. On the other hand, "herbal medicine" (an alternative headword for the article) is well-defined. For example the NHS calls herbal medicines "those with active ingredients made from plant parts, such as leaves, roots or flowers". I think that renaming our herbalism article to "herbal medicine" could be a good step towards clarifying this topic space. Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Lately YouTube somehow suggested this video. Although I knew that boarding schools existed, I had to try to convince myself that this was only a TV "reality show" on the theme. On the other hand, I then found this article (and pass-by deleted a troubling comment from its talk page). What surprised me is that there's no mention of child abuse, I have not looked yet, but would not be surprised to find reliable sources about this. Since the belief that this type of authoritarian and abusive treatment could prevent recidivism is fringe, maybe this noticeboard fits... — Paleo Neonate – 23:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi FTN,
The educology article is nominated for deletion. The nominator, Crossroads1 has identified it as a fringe theory. I'm posting here because I'm not sure if that's true and it could use the eyeballs of people with experience identifying fringe academic concepts on Wikipedia. The article is a lengthy combination textbook/essay, largely written by one author and citing an awful lot of publications written by people involved with the development of this concept (and in journals dedicated to it). In other words, it has some of the hallmarks of an article on a fringe academic concept on Wikipedia. That said, there are indeed also lots of sources that could be independent (some of which are in languages I don't speak or otherwise don't have access to). Opinions welcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, that paper seems to have missed the joke (I can read the text on Google Books and, I can assure you, the book is very much tongue-and-cheek, and I assume the other three books about educology from the 50s and 60s are as well). In any case, Elizabeth Steiner admits that this earlier reference is joking and describes the coining of the term she uses here on p. 14. jps ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of WP:SPAs active here. I wonder if there is some off-wiki coordination. jps ( talk) 20:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
A SPA editor put it up for proposed deletion with the comment, "Only skeptical POV accepted" after re-inserting an image made by the SPA showing "Purported alignments among several mounds in the vicinity of the Face on Mars". -- Ronz ( talk) 16:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what the issues are but it needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 19 June 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.
Just a notice. — Paleo Neonate – 23:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Several BLPs associated with facilitated communication have been active recently. Currently the Amy Sequenzia article is at AfD here (opened 16 June).
It also looks like this has been at ANI recently - one editor has just been topic banned but another section has been opened here. Sunrise ( talk) 00:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a fringe publication with minimal impact, mostly notable for promotion of racist views of intelligence. Currently under discussion here. It doesn't look like a reliable source, but I know there are some preeminent bad-journal hounds here who could probably help demonstrate whether this suspicion is correct. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be a fringe scientist, a lot of OR in his article. I just reverted some and was told " I shall be putting it on again, don't you worry - till it sticks !!!" - see User talk:Rudolf Pohl. He's an anti-Creationist, which is nice, but as his article says, "He subsequently received fierce opposition from the established petrology community. Therefore, he decided to write books, and in 1997 he created his own website and published his findings digitally." Forgot, the editor I've reverted is in touch with Collins, perhaps writing this on his behalf. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This page caught my attention when I discovered that it was incorrectly tagged as {{ in-universe}} rather than {{ fringe theories}}. There is absolutely no scientific perspective whatsoever. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The article is a bit fawning and needs to be toned down (it's really an article on precession of the equinox with added woo). It is definitely a fringe theory because WP:FRINGE is not about the number of adherents, it's about whether there is relevant WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance of claims in the relevant epistemic community. jps ( talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
We can, should, and already do say that astrology is nonsense (Astrology is a pseudoscience that...
); it's absolutely a fringe topic. It would be relatively easy to take a chainsaw to the uncited and badly-cited material, but without an infusion of reliable and independent sources that won't make the article good, just short and full of holes that anyone interested in the topic will notice.
Smowo (
talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Subhash Kak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In April a one edit SPA added a long complaint to the talk page saying that Kak was being treated unfairly and a new editor has now chimed in. Looks like Hindutva vs science. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Additional input is needed on the Sharyl Attkisson page about how to described her coverage of and personal views on vaccines, and what sources to use. There are on-going disputes (that the subject of the article is herself personally involved in on the talk page) as to whether she's promoting fringe claims about vaccines or not. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
When I came across this article, which is barely more than a stub, it was effectively saying that the IDW was a loose agglomeration of academics with no ideological connection. However for an article about academics, the principal citation is Bari Weiss - a second-rate opinion columnist. Now we all know how famously I love political articles being sole-sourced to mass media, but in the absence of any indication this neologism has attracted non-fringe academic interest, I'm tempted to AfD under WP:TOOSOON. Before I throw that particular molotov though, I thought I'd check in here and see if any of the other denizens of political fringe articles can point to any mainstream sociological, anthropological or scholarly literature writers who have covered the concept.
I mean besides Natalie Wynn - She's great and all, but Youtube doesn't really count as an RS. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in a discussion at WP:BLPN#Sharyl Attkisson related to the theory that vaccines can cause autism. R2 ( bleep) 05:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
A fairly inexperienced editor User:Neighborhood Nationalist has arrived at this article and is complaining that "The presentation of an organization’s identify should never be presented by its opposition, that’s an incredible show of bad faith." and stating that they are going to try to give it "some semblance of neutrality" - a not uncommon misunderstaning of NPOV. But this has involved removing the anti-Semitism sidebar and the description of Harry Barnes as a holocaust denier (which he clearly was). Similar problems at other articles, eg [84] but I'm not sure if I can call them fringe. Barnes Review however is I think clearly fringe history. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
An IP keeps slowly but repeatedly removed information from this article which makes Gundry's theories about lectin being the cause of numerous modern diseases seem as if they are accepted by the scientific community when they are not e.g. [85]. I'd appreciate if you could review the content and provide input. SmartSE ( talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the CJR Event on Covering Climate Change and its implications on Wikipedia articles on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion is related to climate change denial. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Climate coverage, starting in September. — Newslinger talk 21:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a great deal of pro-fringe editing, if not outright whitewashing, this year. While the article has never been very good, I'd say 12 Jan looks like a last good version.
Looks like multiple UPEs. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This article by a fringe historian (who backs "the idea that the Greek Dark Ages can be drastically reduced and arose solely from a misreading of key elements of the history of ancient Egypt)" needs attention. His book is used a bit in articles. [86] Doug Weller talk 08:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC) See this as a possible source. [87] Doug Weller talk 08:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
It appears that the ongoing war between Team Red and Team Blue has expanded to Talk:RationalWiki. We could really use some more eyes on the page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I am probably overly paranoid but is this article (a kid inventing a fusion reactor, or something along these lines) for real? Such extraordinary claims often are hoaxes or pro-fringe POV-pushing. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Contains Conservapedia. I raised the subject on the Talk page, and I expect resistance to the removal. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
A brief mention of his fringe book on America but no secondary source. See [88]. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In experienced editor adding OR and weasel words and accusing me of censorship. They've had problems before.
"However it is worth noting that all of these civilisations (especially the Aztecs) [1] have also been known to use Datura, [2] [3] a highly poisonous plant entheogen and deliriant which has been linked to psychotic, bizarre, and violent behavior. [4] I'll revert again. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Damn. I reverted by accident without another edit summary and add now User:Barbara (WVS) has restored it. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
References
Stuart Brody against
WP:MEDRS. Brody, Stuart (April 2010). "The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities".
The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 7 (4): 1336–1361.
doi:
10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01677.x. has been advanced in order to
WP:Verify the claim that I feel that this research should be presented in this article in the health effects section, especially as a statement to the contrary (i.e. "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-esteem") is included in this section.
See
Talk:Masturbation#Research presenting a negative correlation between the frequency of masturbation and various mental and physical benefits is not presented in the article. Problem with that source: it is at least
WP:UNDUE if not outright
WP:FRINGE. As I have stated, He wanted to do unto Kinsey, Masters and Johnson what the Intelligent Design movement wants to do unto Darwin.
And And, yes, it fails WP:MEDRS because it is a pathetic attempt at writing a systematic review (you don't review just papers by yourself and by your pals).
To be sure, this applies to other papers by Brody, not the present one.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 07:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Of greatest importance for the present exposition is the extremely low risk of HIV transmission through PVI for healthy persons of reproductive age, ... In contrast, PVI is associated with HIV-relevant immune benefits that were obliterated by condom use [137]. The authors concluded: “Unprotected sexual intercourse might result in alloimmunization stimulated by HLA antigens in seminal or cervicovaginal fluid. Mucosal alloimmunization may reduce infection by HIV-1” (p. 518).
— Brody, 2010
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
And does Brody conflate correlation with causation?
Other sexual behaviors (including when PVI is impaired, as with condoms or distraction away from the penile–vaginal sensations) are unassociated, or in some cases (such as masturbation and anal intercourse) inversely associated with better psychological and physical functioning. Sexual medicine, sex education, sex therapy, and sex research should disseminate details of the health benefits of specifically PVI, and also become much more specific in their respective assessment and intervention practices.
— Brody, 2010
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Being a reliable source is only the beginning. If that reliable source is holding a minority position, then we don't use him.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion and conclusions are more of a polemic against modern sexology than an exploration of the data found in the research.And he is pretty close to AIDS denialism when discussing PVI (in his opinion getting infected with HIV during PVI is as likely as being struck by lightning). According to WP:LUNATICS Wikipedia simply is not a venue for endlessly re-litigating the medical consensus. I take WP:ARBPS very seriously and I am not willing to make any compromises against it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages.
Discussion ongoing on Talk:Cryonics - more eyes would be welcome - David Gerard ( talk) 16:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Always good to know that we don't have to mess about with tinfoil any more. - Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Upon searching for the article Slavic mythology, I noticed that it had been folded into a redirect for Slavic paganism, a different topic. Looking the article over, I noticed quite a few red flags. First, the very few sources that provide Slavic deities are very murkily mentioned and couched next to cherry-picked theories, many of them quite dubious, and claims of a certain monotheism lurking behind said paganism are provided without context. The whole thing is a mess and seems to be a platform for fringe ideas. More eyes would do this article a lot of good. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Meet the New York couple donating millions to the anti-vax movement --SFGate -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
American Indian creationism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) major changes including turning the lead into an argument about oral history. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, I got the ball rolling with a discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Indian creationism. jps ( talk) 12:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Over at Mapinguari, which I've rewritten from scratch, we've got a couple of cryptozoologist users (one invited from a cryptozoologist board) attempting to present, for example, founding figures of the subculture as simply 'zoologists'. It's the typical sort of shenanigans we see in these corners, but this article is pretty obscure and could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat related to Sahaja Yoga (section above), this currently looks like a big ball of religious woo to me, based largely on primary and/or in-universe sources. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of decent secondary sourcing so not entirely sure what to do with this. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Should the article Post-classical history "imply" or give "any weight" to the transoceanic human contact theory based on sources about potatoes, chickens and word familiarity that some think is fringe science ?
.-- Moxy 🍁 06:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed a bunch of random Youtube videos and website declaring—in bolded comic sans—"THIS IS WHERE WE BEGAN TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA" over at Thylacine#Unconfirmed_sightings (discussion: Talk:Thylacine#Unconfirmed_Sightings_Section:_Very_Poor_Sources). Since this particular FA-class (!) article seems to be a playground for edit warriors and pseudoscience-peddlers, I'm requesting more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't have time to fix this. Can someone add RS text and clarifications to the Pipes article, noting that Obama is not in fact a Muslim, so that the page is compliant with WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure which Wikipedia user this is - but she states she was topic banned for FC and RPM. This article was brought to my attention yesterday where (near the end) she asks for people to "step up" and mentions several AfD discussions. Including one that I had voted on which is why this article was brought to my attention. https://theaspergian.com/2019/07/10/fc-rpm-and-how-wikipedia-became-complicit-in-silencing-non-speaking-autistics/ Sgerbic ( talk) 16:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Expect more to come if no one steps up." So it isn't exactly saying "go vote in the deletion discussion" but it is pretty obvious by the statement "expect more to come if no one steps up". Just sayin' Sgerbic ( talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
With one potential exception, currently Ennedi tiger is entirely sourced to fringe sources, all of them cryptozoologists. I'm looking to rewrite this article, but I have yet to find a single reliable source on the topic. Anyone know of any? :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There's some disagreement about how we should handle this. From the source [Coney, Judith (1999). "Chapter 6: A woman's role in Sahaja Yoga". Sahaja Yoga – Socializing Processes in a South Asian New Religious Movement. Routledge. pp. 119–144.]:
She has attributed this loss of regard [of women] to the increasing decadence of the age of Kali Yuga and to the machinations of demons who are intent on dragging human beings to hell. However, she views the Western feminist tradition as another route to damnation, on the grounds that it has meant that women try to behave like men rather than being true to their own gender.
An editor is opposing making any mention of demons because it is apparently scandalous. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( Alexbrn) 05:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
We have have the WP:SPA trying to remove cult allegations from the article. More eyes on this would be welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Somebody added a link to this hypothesis on European history to the Ming / Qing Transition article, where it's certainly inappropriate, but something about this article is setting off my fringe theories sense, and I'm not quite versed enough in European history to identify quite what. Eyes on this article might be good. Simonm223 ( talk) 09:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Some whitewashing and something about a 2018 conference in Skanderborg is mentioned in the lead although there are no details about it in the article, there seems to have been an attempt to keep it secret. Look at this in Google translate. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion about whether and how to include repudiations of the fringe views of the subject of the article Patrick_Moore_(consultant). -- JBL ( talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)