This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Current we've got two users adding a variety of Wikiproject spam to the user talk page promoting WP:PROFRINGE views ( Cryptozoology, as usual) of what is a typical folklore motif ( diff from a rather telling revert form @ Rp2006:). None of these topics, including cryptozoology, receive any mention in the article. Note that one of these Wikiprojects is Wikiproject Skepticism—cryptozoologists commonly employ a tactic wherein their 'theories' are framed in line with 'cryptozoology explanation' vs. 'skeptics', painting experts as simple killjoys or pointless doubting Thomases, rather than, well, experts. In folklore studies and other fields of anthropology (and biology), cryptozoology is of course just flatly considered a pseudoscience—no 'skepticism' framing necessary. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Be judicious in making such placements by carefully reviewing the scope of the project. Information about the project's scope is often available on the WikiProject's main page, and sometimes also on documentation associated with the template. All editors should avoid tagging an article with a disruptive number of WikiProject banners. If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Virus and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be added to Talk:Toy. If you are uncertain that the placement will be welcomed, leave a note on the project's talk page instead of placing the banner yourself.
- If you place a banner for a WikiProject in which you do not participate, and one of its regular participants removes it, do not re-add the banner without discussion.
Just to let you know, WikiProject banners are pretty innocuous things. I think it is reasonable to remove them and discuss, but it's not worth a large argument. For example, WP:WikiProject Alternative Views inclusion on certain talkpages was mildly annoying to me, but in the end its application to certain pages where it did not belong did not really do that much for the content which is what matters, ultimately. jps ( talk) 21:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've suggested the addition of a section on this to our article and have provided some sources. See Talk:Pseudoarchaeology#Section needed on racism in pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Amy Lansky promotes the fraudulent CEASE therapy and other quack cures for autism, and is an ardent antivaxer, but this is not in the article despite being her primary claim to fame. If anyone is aware of sources that would help me fix that, please pitch in. Guy ( help!) 10:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but doesn't fraud imply intent? I have no doubt there are homeopaths who intend to deceive, but I think some might be victims of self-deception as well. It's hard to know which is which. OTOH, maybe we're using "fraudulent" as a stand-in for "without basis", in which case, carry on! jps ( talk) 18:45, 11 February 2020 (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.
Race and intelligence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danger, Will Robinson!
But also, check out a WP:Local consensus abrewing on the talkpage about adding "F*A*C*T*S" to the lede about how IQs differ among the races.
Sockpuppets may be around.
Yuck.
jps ( talk) 18:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The actual scientific consensusis that race is a social construct with some limited, but inconsistent, ties to biology. The definitions of these "groups" you are talking about are poor and frequently challenged by biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. Somehow these experts are not accepted as experts in the field of "racial psychometrics" or whatever the latest euphemism is, so they get ignored. This is classic pseudoscience. These racial categories are constructed based on convenience. The scientific method is applied to unscientific premises, and the results are misrepresented as meaningful. Afterwords, anyone who points out these errors can be dismissed as ignoring the "evidence". Grayfell ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
race as subspeciesis a talking point straight out of the Third Reich. ( Personal attack removed) jps ( talk) 23:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [5]. NightHeron ( talk) 12:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
And now at deletion review here, — Paleo Neonate – 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No BLPs yet there, but various articles were added in a new subsection of the skeptic's watchlist. Help welcome to add important ones I missed. — Paleo Neonate – 18:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
More eyes, please. I removed a lot of material that was self-sourced or drawn from unreliable sources (e.g. lewrockwell.com), but I am being reverted. This is analogous to the recent situation at Knights of Columbus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where much of the article was self-sourced. Happily we're now past that on the KofC article, but it looks like the Mises article might be headed for the same months-long fight. Guy ( help!) 08:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
We have a problem at
Siddha medicine (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
and
Unani medicine (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
With a POV-pushing
Sea Lion. Help is needed.
Told you, dude. Sea lions. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox of Bryan Caplan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article appropriate? RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan.
RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan. Guy ( help!) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought about nominating for AfD but am requesting input first. I can't access the Skeptical Inquire article (subscription needed) so am not sure of the coverage extent there, although it would still be just a skeptical source about fringe, their main topic. There are a few news article where he's just mentioned among various other people. There are only two possible indicators of notability in the article: the Randi prize (that is more like a trout, and also just a skeptic having noticed him that year) and the only coverage that's more than a mention is in Guesses, Goofs & Prophetic Failures: What to Think When the World Doesn't End (about 3 pages). Online there's a lot of self-promotion using social media as well as in-universe fringe sites mentioning him. Disclosure: I'm now a contactee, an unknown editor called my attention to the article. — Paleo Neonate – 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking over Beast of Buchan, I've stripped most of the obvious WP:RS fails/ WP:FRINGE stuff out of it (including the usual link to pirated PDFs...), but the article likely needs further looking over. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Anybody tell me what the heck I'm looking at here? I can't brain it. GMG talk 16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'm seeking advice regarding this UFO incident.
Since it has been confirmed by several reputable sources (including the U.S. Navy) and multiple eyewitness am I correct in thinking that the SKEPTIC angle should be considered fringe in this case?
The article is not very clear and a substantial section is dedicated to reporting absurd skeptic views that even contradict the official navy reports.
I've cleaned it up a little trying to give the article a slightly more balanced tone (see edit history) but there is a lot that should be done.
Also the article conflates multiple events/video releases together in multiple points. The video of this incident was released together with 2 other videos (both from a subsequent event) that have also been confirmed by the U.S. Navy. A page for the other event don't exist or if it does I cannot find it for some reason.
Opinions? Thanks -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok I understand people here are used to being in attack mode against armies of trolls and pseudo science guys. I will try to state better my question.
I am NOT - REPEAT - NOT talking about the fact that the objects were “aliens”. No proof exists of this and no source states it other than speculation.
I’m talking of the fact that the encounter HAPPENED and was of an UNEXPLAINED aerial PHENOMENA(not hallucinations/fake/error/easily explainable as stated by “skeptics”). Since this fact seems incontrovertible given the overwhelming consensus based on the amount of proof from multiple witnesses on record/sources/technologies and official confirmation (occurring only recently). Previous marginal SKEPTICAL SPECULATION regarding the accuracy of the event should be proportionally treated. This is the point and in my understanding conforms with wp:fringe guidelines. I hope my request is more clear now(The article should separate the two topics in its treatment and I will do it if I have the time).— Gtoffoletto ( talk) 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, when they publish credulity about UFOs like this, it's not hard for us to request that a paper with zero citations published by them shouldn't be considered worthy of Wikipedia's attention. jps ( talk) 16:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is in a great state right now! If you have anything you think needs to be changed, I am open to reading your carefully explained and well-sourced suggestions. See you at the talkpage. jps ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
you even called the "skeptical views" section "mainstream". What the hell is that even supposed to mean...
I'm glad you asked.
jps (
talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll add that the section in question isn't limited to the views of avowed skeptics; it contains many relevant technical experts and academics with no connection to organized skepticism, so labeling it as "skeptical views" was a misleading description. WRT what are considered "mainstream" views, Wikipedia doesn't shift that definition in response to sudden media flaps and hyperbolic publicity surrounding reported UFOs. In the case of ufology, we can only mirror the bulk of scholarly opinion on the subject, which hasn't changed in any significant way in the last 20 or 30 years [6]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry guys: white flag. I tried to engage and be reasonable but the behaviour of a small(?) "gang" within this group stifles all attempts at discussion and constructive editing. The result has been blind reverts eliminating all contributions indiscriminately. Wikipedia should be a positive environment. Yet I've never had a more exhausting and frustrating experience editing on Wikipedia in more than 10 years and was forced to file my first ever admin report for edit warring. I'm not sure if anything will come out of it but the approach you have with new contributors in the space is completely unhinged and not WP:CIVIL. You accused me of being a tin foil hatter (which I am absolutely not). Then you accused one contributor I was having a constructive discussion with of being one himself ( User:Keldoo). It's deranged. I'm sure you come from the best of intentions (fighting hordes of lunatics probably forged those behaviours) but you have lost sight of the goal here and I really believe you are damaging Wikipedia as a result. I'm sorry about this and worry this is not the first time someone gives up on editing the pages you preside over. The discussions of the last week have been a waste for all of us. I really think simply reverting ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary would have saved us a lot of useless fighting and helped us reach consensus. But few of you seem to believe it should even be taken into account (one admin even pointedly asked me if I was aware that ROWN is "just" an essay). I hope you take this into account in the future when you come across the edits of other contributors. Maybe our discussion will not be for nothing after all. Cheers! -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 20:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The Albert Ostman appears to have quite a few fringe sources supporting it. While performing a sweep of fringe sources through Wikipedia today, I noticed that there appears to be a lot more there than I currently have time to dig through. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I was on a {{ rs?}} tagging spree in relation to Journal of Scientific Exploration / Society for Scientific Exploration (not done yet) and voiced a concern at that talk page after tagging some sources. I didn't delete the material and there was at least one other supporting citation that I didn't tag, so possibly there's still merit for a mention in some form. Since it's relevant to this noticeboard I thought I'd ask other editors to evaluate and/or improve. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: tagging over (including sometimes specifying that the journal caters to pseudoscience when an article mentioned that an author was publishing in it without criticism). I noticed that some of the sources were scientifically skeptical, some from Bauer and a few others. A number of others were to support ideas about reincarnation or UFOs, etc. In case anyone is interested, here are links to some articles I noticed that may be promotional: Satwant Pasricha, Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, Reincarnation and Biology, Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Neurognosis (all sources by a single author). — Paleo Neonate – 03:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
And about the above article, considering the lack of response on its talk page or here, I boldly removed three questionable sources (also one from Independent Institute) and consider this solved unless it's reverted, — Paleo Neonate – 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Some work being done on Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This combined fringe physics, UFOs, and government pork barrel projects. What fun. I also cannot believe it, but apparently I agree with Donald Trump about this whole thing.
Wow.
jps ( talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Back in the states for a bit recently, I noticed absolutely relentless ads promoting Shen Yun. For those of you have not yet been pummeled by their ads or have yet to enounter an expose about the group: In short, like the ultra-right wing and relentlessly pro-Trump Epoch Times (cf. New York Times, New Republic, etc.), Shen Yun is essentially a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong. Shen Yun espouses the group's usual anti-evolution, anti-atheist, and anti-communism (and anti-socialist, more broadly) views, as well as presents a, well, creative interpretation of Chinese history and culture ( Here's fairly recent and very high profile expose from the New Yorker).
I've just made some modifications to our Shen Yun article, but it needs far more eyes, particularly given the extreme lengths that the organization appears to be willing to go to promote itself and its fringe views. The article badly needs a solid vetting of its sources and its presentation, at the very least. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
creative interpretation of Chinese history and culturein the article seems the most likely problem that could apply, but I see none of that. Ensuring the opinions and beliefs of the group are accurately described with due weight looks like a matter for WP:NPOVN.— eric 15:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Manna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi fellows. Synce yesterday I am struggling with someone that compares Manna with Bread fruit. This sounds very fringe. The editor insists to put a blogpost that I suspect is published by the same person that edited the article, but now I'm afraid of WP:3RR. Some help is welcomed. Ixocactus ( talk) 02:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Searching for the most important paths relevant for quantum particles, Feynman noticed that such paths were very irregular on small scales, i.e. infinite and non-differentiable.No, the path integral isn't about finding the "most important paths", and the idea that typical paths are non-differentiable goes back to Brownian motion.
This means that in between two points, a particle can have not one path, but an infinity of potential paths.This is trivially true for any two points in a plane.
The principle of relativity says that physical laws should be valid in all coordinate systems.No, it doesn't.
This principle has been applied to states of position (the origin and orientation of axes), as well as to the states of movement of coordinate systems (speed, acceleration).Acceleration is not inertial motion. And so on.
I mean, I tried to clean the thing up all those years ago. The rabble just wouldn't let me. Maybe the time is now to try again. jps ( talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: the article's main creator has reverted the stubbification and been reverted in turn. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
New article; the topic may well be wiki-notable, but it's definitely written from an enthusiast's POV, and I'm concerned about the quality of the sourcing. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits by a new WP:SPA look distinctly fringe to me, but I am not an expert on this. Guy ( help!) 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
As this article appears to have been written by a believer, it's impossible to tell that acupuncture is bollocks. Guy ( help!) 22:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Was looking at Institute for Historical Review links and started playing around with quarry [12]. Anyone got a list of fringe websites that should not be linked to except for maybe a few whitelist entries?— eric 18:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I am bringing attention to the Request for Comment going on in the Talk page of the Indigenous Aryans article. The topic of the RfC is:
Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below?
(The suggested wording is available at the Request for Comment.) BirdValiant ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Per the recommendations of users on this board, I've joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology and started converting it from a pro-pseudoscience organizational platform into a means of covering the pseudoscience from an objective, academically-minded point of view. I am now wondering if there are any other pseudoscience-focused WikiProjects out there that I don't know of? I assume there has never been a WikiProject Young Earth Creationism or a WikiProject Flat Earth Theory, correct? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
On the subject of Astrology, 2A01:CB04:4FE:F700:343D:F97B:1ADD:E5AC ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is identifying many of the articles related to Hindu astrology, many of which have a completely in-world perspective. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm encountering a huge emphasis on "skeptic" Benjamin Radford's opinions and commentary on the folklore topic Ogopogo, so much so that it entirely dominates the article. Radford appears to have no training whatsoever in folklore studies (eg. he is not a folklorist or any other kind of anthropologist), and Radford appears to be making a lot of ungrounded claims about "sightings" of what is otherwise a typical sea monster motif (eg. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, etc.). What is the WP:RS status of the WP:RS status for so-called "skeptics" on fringe topics? It seems to me that swapping one non-expert opinion out for another results in more problems, and implies a false dichotomy of "believer" versus "skeptic", which is not at all how experts in anthropology handle these topics. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
May possibly give too much weight to Jerry Fodor philosopher & co arguments based on the book itself... — Paleo Neonate – 06:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I always assumed the term whistleblower applied to someone who brought forth information that is based in reality, rather than claims of government conspiracy to cover up involvement with aliens. Maybe I'm wrong? Lazar has been lately promoted as a whistleblower in conjunction with recent media appearances. And some media outlets covering the PR campaign have used the word as a hook, albeit in scare quotes. So now (perhaps in a spate of WP:RECENTISM), it has been inserted into the lead sentence of our article, replacing a much more encyclopedic lead sentence. This has triggered an ongoing edit war with people retaliating by adding the word "criminal" to the first sentence, ostensibly to describe Lazar's various legal troubles. And, there are other recent WP:FRINGE problems:
Maybe someone with WP:BLP experience can help sort it out. In any case, more eyes needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The word "whistleblower" has floated in and out of Lazar's article. I, perhaps ill-advisedly, added "supposed whistleblower" and "convicted criminal" to the lede for the sake of having descriptors (he was previously described only as an "American"). I'm not particularity passionate about retaining my additions. Keldoo ( talk) 19:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thought to be the moon, now said to be the world. Probably not fringe, but then why publish through Cambridge Scholars Press/Publishing and a SCIRP open access journal? Side question, I thought we didn't allow copyright tags on images such as the one at Early world maps#Leonardo Da Vinci Globe? And although File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says © Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by the editor adding it, Davidguam ( talk · contribs) who created the article on the globe. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The ostrich egg globe is since 2018 internationally accepted as the Da Vinci Globefrom Hunt–Lenox Globe added by Davidguam ( talk · contribs) is telling. I cannot find a copy of the The Portolan Journal article, and it's not very comforting how the Washington Map Society is pushing this on their site. Everything in that article should be "according to Missinne..." Reliability and POV issues, possible copyright and COI, WP:TNT is probably the best option. fiveby ( talk) 23:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It is discussed by the academic world @ Doug Weller: On May 31st at the Faculty of Geography at the University of Barcelona: On August 28th at the International Conference organised by the Royal Geographical Society in London On October 31th at the International Conference organised by the University Library of Straßburg in France. On October 31st at the international academic and cultural center Spui25 in Amsterdam: on November 20th at the Academy Petrarca in Arezzo,Tuscany. on November 21st, at the University of Florence On December 5h 2019, Rome, at the International Conference on Travels and Modernity at the University ROMA III. On February 18th 2020, Vienna. Austrian Academy of Sciences, organised by the Friends of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
The usual. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
A New York Times article on Youtube's systemic promotion of fringe theories is making the rounds today ( Nicas, Jack. 2020. "Can YouTube Quiet Its Conspiracy Theorists?" March 2, 2020. The New York Times.). One of the figures it mentions is Patrick Michaels, a fossil-industry funded climate "skeptic", which Youtube's algorithms promote to users. Michaels's page does not make the fact that he is a fringe proponent explicit, which further serves Google's promotion of his views on YouTube. Michaels's article could use a lot more eyes from users from this board. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be an agribusiness front group, and the article is not great. It could do with some help from anyone who is familiar with its areas of public debate, notably wild horse slaughter. I cut out some stuff that basically looked like both sides lobbing bricks at each other - a neutral description of its actual position would be appreciated. Guy ( help!) 13:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There's some evidence of COI editing at this article on an anti-science science group. The Controversies section seems designed to frame them as valued experts in their chosen fields, and I suspect cherry-picking. Is anyone familiar with this group? Guy ( help!) 12:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Quack bio. No sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Much of the obvious insanity was removed from this article years ago, but recently some questions were asked on the talk page as to whether it's still too credulous.
Is ball lightning a "Unexplained" phenomena? A "supposed" phenomena? Or perhaps just category of potentially related observations?
This thread might be of interest to people here : /info/en/?search=Talk:Ball_lightning#Not_science
ApLundell ( talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this oddly named article covered by the Fringe and alternative medicine sanctions? I haven't found any anti-vac talk pages with notices. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate change realist" rather than "climate change denier". Guy ( help!) 11:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative...
Naomi Seibt, a 19 year old climate change skeptic and self proclaimed climate realist, speaks during a workshop...
A 19-year-old German climate change sceptic who has been described by her supporters as “the antidote to Greta Thunberg”
proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic"
Slatersteven, " Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier", what does this mean? Are you saying the source in the WaPo describe her as a "denier"? Where?-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
None of which is relevant, wp:soap applies to all of us. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Including attributed statements as to what she calls herself is fine, but we've resolved the debate about the synonym between climate change skepticism and climate change denial some time ago. Easy to see by clicking on this wikilink: climate change skepticism.
So we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, assert that she is a "climate change skeptic". Of course, we also are under no obligation to assert in Wikipedia's voice that she is a "climate change denier" (and really should be cognizant of sourcing requirements if that's something editors think should be done). However, we absolutely can make it clear that there is an ideological category into which she falls and we certainly can link to the appropriate articles and categories as source warrant. jps ( talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been a recent attempt to add some information here about a recent-ish book which seems a bit fringey, using a lot of sources which seem questionable to me. Additional opinions would be welcome as to whether I'm being too harsh, or if this is really no good. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 16:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
References
THR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Synchronicity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:PROFRINGE edit-warring. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Editors consider that anti-abortion propaganda film Unplanned should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but the plot section is seen by others (notably me) as violating NPOV by giving undue weight to anti-abortion propaganda. Guy ( help!) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Plot synopses can be used as WP:SOAPboxes. It is important to make it clear that while the movie may be striving for a cinema verite look, there are choices made in the depictions of abortions and related events that do not coincide with reality. This film is no Triumph of the Will in terms of notice of its individual scenes, for example, so it is not really a fair comparison as the WP:MAINSTREAM critique of Triumph of the Will is readily apparent so there is little danger in violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:SOAP if editors are diligent. In this scenario, there may be some strong arguments to excise certain long descriptions of plot elements if no one independent of the filmmakers has commented upon them. jps ( talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
There are definitely some problems at that article. E.g., I had to remove the claim that a WP:MAINSTREAM OB-GYN's explanation of the inaccuracies in the film's portrayal was "false" [37]. This is not only a fringe belief regarding fetal pain, it's also an egregious WP:BLP violation. I gave an extremely stern warning to the user who did this [38], but I suggest some scrutiny of this user's edits if to see if more of this is going on. There are a number of discretionary sanctions notices on that user's talkpage, but not particularly recent, so someone might want to do that as well. jps ( talk) 11:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
One question, give an example of a fringe theory in the plot that is not questioned in the critical response section? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the "whole film is bollocks" is what our sources say. There are serious doubts as to the veracity of what is being claimed to be "based on a true story" or whatever, but there are some interesting self-reflective points in the movie as well where they, for example, admit that there are register problems with the way some anti-abortion activists have behaved at clinic protests. The film also condemns the killing of George Tiller in a somewhat hamfisted but still unequivocal fashion. Of course, nuanced critiques are simply not going to be easy to come-by here, and that's kinda my point with wondering how much detail the plot should have. Obviously a full transcript is not needed. jps ( talk) 15:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The movie's plot should be included regardless of whether or not it includes WP:FRINGE content. The policy is not intended to ban all mentions of fringe ideas. Instead, per WP:NFRINGE, notable fringe ideas can get coverage in their own article or even in articles on mainstream ideas, insofar as the coverage is in accordance with due weight, neutrality, and notability. And it's hard to argue that the plot of an otherwise notable film is not notable. Indeed, MOS:FILM implies that a plot summary is a standard part of articles on films. Jancarcu ( talk) 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I just read http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/new-owner-of-skinwalker-ranch-previously-advocated-for-mormon-pseudohistory] and that led me to [42]. Some of the people associated with this Ancient Historical Research Foundation may seem reliable on their own if one didn't know about their association with this group. Their home page [43] also has some legitimate news articles, which helps them look respectable. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
SPA Cjbaiget ( talk · contribs) is editing New Chronology (Fomenko) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko. Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories. See also New Chronology (Fomenko)#Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter. I'll ping the other editors involved: @ Carlstak, Lebob, and Ymblanter: you might also wish to take part here. Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology" which I find mentioned in only two pages, a website on private museums in Russia and our article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Carlstak, Lebob, Ymblanter, and Doug Weller: Cjbaiget ( talk) 18:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Both of the above users have received recent arbitration discretionary sanctions alerts on the topics of complementary and alternative medicine as well as pseudoscience and fringe science.
Background: Siddha medicine and its twin brother Ayurveda medicine are forms of ancient Indian folk medicine that is said to have been conveyed by Lord Shiva to his wife Parvati, who passed it on to her son Nandi, who gave it to Siddhas. The word Siddha denotes one who has achieved some extraordinary powers (siddhi). [44]
A key part of Siddha medicine is giving patients toxic mercury compounds [45] [46], causing heavy metal poisoning. [47] [48]
Siddha practitioners have had mixed results getting the Indian government to approve what they are doing, with the Indian Medial Association and the Indian Supreme Court calling Siddha practitioners "Quacks".
Despite the page being fully protected, the proponents keep hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks.
I am thinking of taking this to WP:AE. Comments? Pinging User:JzG. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps others have more time to carefully read the circumstances surrounding this complaint which states that I have been "trying to get [WP editors] to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks" including the article, the talk page, and the related sources posted at the article and TP, and here than I do. After all how else could they make an educated judgement? That said, I do consider my WP reputation important and I certainly do not want my name to be presented at WP:AE for a discussion of my behavior. So I will make a short statement to show that I have not been trying to get WP editors to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks but rather to respect and use RS correctly.
During my many years as a WP editor I have run into many instances of finding political bias of the WHO and US agencies such as the EPA (who are supposed to protect our health through addressing environmental concerns), the CDC, and the AMA, and as such I would well expect to find the same within the comparable Indian agencies such as the IMA and Indian governmental agencies. That said, following WP policy I do not enter my opinion re their positions and statements as demonstrations of fakery and lies, but rather I use RS to support or dispute what RS has reported. That is what we are supposed to do here; we are not supposed to argue in an article or on the article talk pages whether or not they are correct as has been going on here and on the Siddah talk page.
The article currently states: Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions" However a reading of the judgement offered as a reliable source clearly shows otherwise and anyone reading the judgement should be able to easily see that that is the case. The judgement states they are addressing "Paramparya Vaidyas", not qualified practitioners of traditional Indian medicine. Quoting the court judgement:
As I say on the article talk page, this is a poster child of the reason that we should not be using primary sources as the one being used to (incorrectly) provide RS for this statement offered as factual in the lead of this article. There are similar problems in the second primary source used in the lead, an IMA statement, as well. Gandydancer ( talk) 01:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
To move on to the next primary source used in the lead. First and most importantly, this IMA source clearly shows why WP annon editors should not be using primary documents to back accusations of wrongdoing, or anything else, in our Wikipedia articles. Never the less, reading the second source which supposedly states that the IMA finds practitioners of Indian traditional medicine to be quacks, this document does not support that statement. It states:
Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
The third source in the lead, the Guardian, does a good job of presenting the IMA's position, but even there Indian traditional practitioners are not called "quacks" but rather those practitioners who are practicing modern medicine and the IMA's fear that the Indian government will make legal changes to laws that allow them to do so. As time permits I will discuss the charge that I supposedly believe that it is OK to be poisoned with mercury. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Finally, it is very insulting to have a fellow editor say that it's OK with me if the people of India are poisoned with toxic mercury compounds and that I should be taken to WP:AE. I'd like to defend my WP reputation by saying that I am not some sort of troublemaker or nutcase. I have one India-related article, the 2012 Delhi gang rape article and I have another related article that came up in the talk page discussion, the New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak. I'd suggest that anyone reading the links that have been offered here keep in mind that any medication that is not properly prepared and prescribed correctly can be deadly, see the meningitis article for example. Another of the links offered here is clearly a discussion with an unlicensed Siddha practitioner of the type that India does not permit to legally practice. From my reading I learned that India has many universities that teach Indian traditional medicine and the government encourages their use for people that desire that form of medicine. IMO it is an insult to India and perhaps even racist for Wikipedia editors to declare that the people of India use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
As the protecting admin, I vouch for Gandydancer as someone who is competent, edits in good faith, and is insightful. El_C 02:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There may be a question of labeling versus exposition going on here. The term quack is a somewhat inartful sobriquet that can mean a variety of things. I wonder whether it even means the same thing in the context of Indian medicine as compared to how it is defined in Wikipedia. E.g. The Times of India, which is a source of uneven quality at best, seems to define a "quack" as a doctor practicing without appropriate education rather than promoting dubious treatment regimes which is typically the way it is used in the US and the UK. jps ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic pregnancy could probably use better sources and a check to make sure it's not veering off into non-medical territory. It looks to me like the last version that wasn't based on Dr. Phil and reality television shows was back in November 2019. However, I don't know anything about the topic. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it permissible preferable or required, in light of
WP:CLAIM, to use non-neutral words such as "claim" or "point out" to denote fringe views, such as on
Blue Monday (date)?
Elizium23 (
talk) 19:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.In the case of fringe views, WP:FRINGE says that we should call their credibility into question, and we should emphasize any potential contradiction or disregard for evidence. NightHeron ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
We are probably going to find the two intersect a great deal going forward. Our project currently says that MMS is claimed to treat coronavirus, and I’m not gonna edit war. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Indur M. Goklany ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May be worth watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Past life regression ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP infestation and WP:SPA infestation; advertisements and WP:PROFRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A recent flood of messages about the name of the feature seems to have been solicited from somewhere. These aren't requests in any sense of the word but accusations that the article name is Christian propaganda or anti-Hindu discrimination. The article is semi-protected so most of the disruption is on the talk page but extra eyes would still be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Genetic_pollution#Controversy has more than I suspect is due weight for some theories by Engdahl, especially as it doesn't seem to be balanced by rebuttals or alternate theories. Fresh eyes appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well (e.g. picking up links to Stack Exchange in List of unsolved problems in fair division). Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
IP(s) edit warring to remove cited material that questions cow urine's claimed medical benefits [51]. I'm not that familiar with WP:MEDRS, but I'm assuming the claim that drinking cow piss cures disease is WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
There have been recent edits to core policy ( WP:NPOV) and discussion which bears explicitly on fringe content, which may be of interest. The discussion is at WT:NPOV#Impartial. Please comment there, not here. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:National Endowment for Democracy#RfC: FAIR and other challenged content regarding whether the article should include certain additional content regarding the Chinese government's accusation that the National Endowment for Democracy secretly fomented the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests.
The article already notes the accusation briefly. The present dispute centers on due weight: whether more text should be added about the claim, and whether the article should note that the claim is not supported by evidence. (A New York Times article indicates that this claim is fringe and has no real basis, stating that there is "no concrete evidence" of foreign interference and that the Chinese government's claims variously "amount to little more than crude disinformation" or are "grounded in just enough fact to spin a conspiracy theory of covert American nefariousness.").
More outside input would be appreciated. Neutrality talk 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The International Biographical Centre puts out vanity imitations of Who's Who. The notion that what it does is of value (other than to the self-esteem of those who are profiled, or their chances of success with particularly gullible readers of CVs) is I think "fringe". But recent edits to the article claim that the IBC is valued in Belarus. So far, they do so discreetly enough, but it could be worth keeping eyes on this article. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
For some reason, somebody added a section "People born in Year of the *" to all of these. And now an IP is adding lots of links to those. I don't think Wikipedia should do this. Any thoughts?
Since all the articles on astrological signs, Chinese, Indian or Western, are edited frequently in a similar fashion, maybe they should be semi-protected indefinitely? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some work on this would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
[56] The user is now inserting things into quotes that are not found in the source. jps ( talk) 11:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
"shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching.", quoted and attributed to NYT, as "failed verification", but it's verbatim from the third paragraph in the NYT source. I'm confused why you feel it fails verification? Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet."
Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. According to Person A, "consectetur adipiscing elit.""
It's, apparently, not an obvious "typo" as the user continued to reinsert it despite being told about it. The user does not understand the issue and there is no reason that I should have to clean up for such incompetence when competence is required. jps ( talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times said the footage showed "an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind". A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."
Just reverted another set of edits as WP:POVPUSH: [59]. Should we ask for a topic ban yet? jps ( talk) 11:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is full of primary and dodgy sources and largely edited by people with no other area of interest. I am deeply suspicious of this topic. Guy ( help!) 18:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A paper that was published two years ago in an out-of-the-way journal purporting to survey scientists about their attitudes towards AAH is being inserted into our article by agenda-driven editors. Quite apart from the fact that the paper has no independent citations outside the AAH citogenesis community, this is also a social science paper published in a journal that is not dedicated to social science.
jps ( talk) 15:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned that some valid sources may have been removed here, especially an AAO report. This whole thing started with the use of "ineffective", but that is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar ( talk) 20:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That Marg page is not a WP:RS for your claim. Please stop. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this discussion got quite muddled. I said at the top that "ineffective" is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar ( talk) 21:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been trying to bring some much-=needed reality to these three articles. A number of sources point out that they exemplify the Christian persecution complex, and that the first two especially are clumsily made and rely on stereotypes and strawmen. I'm not wedded to any specific content, but I am not happy with the blatantly hagiographic tone of the articles as I found them. As with Unplanned, the plots sections were written as if by evangelicals watching the film with rapt attention, a problem when (as with the second film especially) it's effectively presenting a mirror universe version of real events where atheist professors have been persecuted for teaching science that conflicts with biblical literalism. Guy ( help!) 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The above article could benefit from attention from editors here who are familiar with medical history, Black Egyptian hypothesis, and related subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
A vegan activist with fringe views. The article was deleted in 2018 but was recreated a year later. There is a current afd discussion. The last afd suffered from sock-puppetry and meat-puppets associated with Winters. As for the article itself, most of the sources are unreliable and plantbasednews.org is still used as a citation to the article. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Skeptical Science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is Forbes a reliable source now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is being edited to remove critical content and add self-sourced and primary sourced promotional content. Guy ( help!) 23:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Richard Epstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another virus "expert" defended by his fans. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Mototaka Nakamura ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WP:FRINGEBLP
Should it be in Wikipedia? I am not impressed with the sourcing.
jps ( talk) 19:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura. jps ( talk) 10:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Gateway belief model ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just noticed that this article was undercover deleted by redirecting to scientific consensus. [65] Is there a justification for this? Should we restore the original article?
jps ( talk) 18:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
this one. I don't have time myself to check it and don't blame anyone if they don't either, but just in case... Doug Weller talk 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This is about [66]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
These are some shitty, shitty sources. Almost disqualifying you as an editor per WP:CIR. jps ( talk) 22:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
References
here. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:World_Jewish_Congress#Hoax_quotation. Could use a few pair of eyes. This quote (hoax) comes back to Wiki every now and them, there is evidence of WP:CITOGENESIS too. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Current we've got two users adding a variety of Wikiproject spam to the user talk page promoting WP:PROFRINGE views ( Cryptozoology, as usual) of what is a typical folklore motif ( diff from a rather telling revert form @ Rp2006:). None of these topics, including cryptozoology, receive any mention in the article. Note that one of these Wikiprojects is Wikiproject Skepticism—cryptozoologists commonly employ a tactic wherein their 'theories' are framed in line with 'cryptozoology explanation' vs. 'skeptics', painting experts as simple killjoys or pointless doubting Thomases, rather than, well, experts. In folklore studies and other fields of anthropology (and biology), cryptozoology is of course just flatly considered a pseudoscience—no 'skepticism' framing necessary. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Be judicious in making such placements by carefully reviewing the scope of the project. Information about the project's scope is often available on the WikiProject's main page, and sometimes also on documentation associated with the template. All editors should avoid tagging an article with a disruptive number of WikiProject banners. If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of a WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article. For example, washing toys for babies reduces transmission of some diseases, but the banners for WP:WikiProject Health, WP:WikiProject Biology, WP:WikiProject Virus and/or WP:WikiProject Medicine do not need to be added to Talk:Toy. If you are uncertain that the placement will be welcomed, leave a note on the project's talk page instead of placing the banner yourself.
- If you place a banner for a WikiProject in which you do not participate, and one of its regular participants removes it, do not re-add the banner without discussion.
Just to let you know, WikiProject banners are pretty innocuous things. I think it is reasonable to remove them and discuss, but it's not worth a large argument. For example, WP:WikiProject Alternative Views inclusion on certain talkpages was mildly annoying to me, but in the end its application to certain pages where it did not belong did not really do that much for the content which is what matters, ultimately. jps ( talk) 21:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've suggested the addition of a section on this to our article and have provided some sources. See Talk:Pseudoarchaeology#Section needed on racism in pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Amy Lansky promotes the fraudulent CEASE therapy and other quack cures for autism, and is an ardent antivaxer, but this is not in the article despite being her primary claim to fame. If anyone is aware of sources that would help me fix that, please pitch in. Guy ( help!) 10:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but doesn't fraud imply intent? I have no doubt there are homeopaths who intend to deceive, but I think some might be victims of self-deception as well. It's hard to know which is which. OTOH, maybe we're using "fraudulent" as a stand-in for "without basis", in which case, carry on! jps ( talk) 18:45, 11 February 2020 (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.
Race and intelligence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danger, Will Robinson!
But also, check out a WP:Local consensus abrewing on the talkpage about adding "F*A*C*T*S" to the lede about how IQs differ among the races.
Sockpuppets may be around.
Yuck.
jps ( talk) 18:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The actual scientific consensusis that race is a social construct with some limited, but inconsistent, ties to biology. The definitions of these "groups" you are talking about are poor and frequently challenged by biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. Somehow these experts are not accepted as experts in the field of "racial psychometrics" or whatever the latest euphemism is, so they get ignored. This is classic pseudoscience. These racial categories are constructed based on convenience. The scientific method is applied to unscientific premises, and the results are misrepresented as meaningful. Afterwords, anyone who points out these errors can be dismissed as ignoring the "evidence". Grayfell ( talk) 02:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
race as subspeciesis a talking point straight out of the Third Reich. ( Personal attack removed) jps ( talk) 23:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [5]. NightHeron ( talk) 12:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
And now at deletion review here, — Paleo Neonate – 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No BLPs yet there, but various articles were added in a new subsection of the skeptic's watchlist. Help welcome to add important ones I missed. — Paleo Neonate – 18:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
More eyes, please. I removed a lot of material that was self-sourced or drawn from unreliable sources (e.g. lewrockwell.com), but I am being reverted. This is analogous to the recent situation at Knights of Columbus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where much of the article was self-sourced. Happily we're now past that on the KofC article, but it looks like the Mises article might be headed for the same months-long fight. Guy ( help!) 08:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
We have a problem at
Siddha medicine (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
and
Unani medicine (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
With a POV-pushing
Sea Lion. Help is needed.
Told you, dude. Sea lions. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of the "ideological Turing test" in the infobox of Bryan Caplan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article appropriate? RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan.
RfC at talk:Bryan Caplan. Guy ( help!) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought about nominating for AfD but am requesting input first. I can't access the Skeptical Inquire article (subscription needed) so am not sure of the coverage extent there, although it would still be just a skeptical source about fringe, their main topic. There are a few news article where he's just mentioned among various other people. There are only two possible indicators of notability in the article: the Randi prize (that is more like a trout, and also just a skeptic having noticed him that year) and the only coverage that's more than a mention is in Guesses, Goofs & Prophetic Failures: What to Think When the World Doesn't End (about 3 pages). Online there's a lot of self-promotion using social media as well as in-universe fringe sites mentioning him. Disclosure: I'm now a contactee, an unknown editor called my attention to the article. — Paleo Neonate – 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Looking over Beast of Buchan, I've stripped most of the obvious WP:RS fails/ WP:FRINGE stuff out of it (including the usual link to pirated PDFs...), but the article likely needs further looking over. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Anybody tell me what the heck I'm looking at here? I can't brain it. GMG talk 16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'm seeking advice regarding this UFO incident.
Since it has been confirmed by several reputable sources (including the U.S. Navy) and multiple eyewitness am I correct in thinking that the SKEPTIC angle should be considered fringe in this case?
The article is not very clear and a substantial section is dedicated to reporting absurd skeptic views that even contradict the official navy reports.
I've cleaned it up a little trying to give the article a slightly more balanced tone (see edit history) but there is a lot that should be done.
Also the article conflates multiple events/video releases together in multiple points. The video of this incident was released together with 2 other videos (both from a subsequent event) that have also been confirmed by the U.S. Navy. A page for the other event don't exist or if it does I cannot find it for some reason.
Opinions? Thanks -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok I understand people here are used to being in attack mode against armies of trolls and pseudo science guys. I will try to state better my question.
I am NOT - REPEAT - NOT talking about the fact that the objects were “aliens”. No proof exists of this and no source states it other than speculation.
I’m talking of the fact that the encounter HAPPENED and was of an UNEXPLAINED aerial PHENOMENA(not hallucinations/fake/error/easily explainable as stated by “skeptics”). Since this fact seems incontrovertible given the overwhelming consensus based on the amount of proof from multiple witnesses on record/sources/technologies and official confirmation (occurring only recently). Previous marginal SKEPTICAL SPECULATION regarding the accuracy of the event should be proportionally treated. This is the point and in my understanding conforms with wp:fringe guidelines. I hope my request is more clear now(The article should separate the two topics in its treatment and I will do it if I have the time).— Gtoffoletto ( talk) 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, when they publish credulity about UFOs like this, it's not hard for us to request that a paper with zero citations published by them shouldn't be considered worthy of Wikipedia's attention. jps ( talk) 16:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is in a great state right now! If you have anything you think needs to be changed, I am open to reading your carefully explained and well-sourced suggestions. See you at the talkpage. jps ( talk) 17:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
you even called the "skeptical views" section "mainstream". What the hell is that even supposed to mean...
I'm glad you asked.
jps (
talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll add that the section in question isn't limited to the views of avowed skeptics; it contains many relevant technical experts and academics with no connection to organized skepticism, so labeling it as "skeptical views" was a misleading description. WRT what are considered "mainstream" views, Wikipedia doesn't shift that definition in response to sudden media flaps and hyperbolic publicity surrounding reported UFOs. In the case of ufology, we can only mirror the bulk of scholarly opinion on the subject, which hasn't changed in any significant way in the last 20 or 30 years [6]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry guys: white flag. I tried to engage and be reasonable but the behaviour of a small(?) "gang" within this group stifles all attempts at discussion and constructive editing. The result has been blind reverts eliminating all contributions indiscriminately. Wikipedia should be a positive environment. Yet I've never had a more exhausting and frustrating experience editing on Wikipedia in more than 10 years and was forced to file my first ever admin report for edit warring. I'm not sure if anything will come out of it but the approach you have with new contributors in the space is completely unhinged and not WP:CIVIL. You accused me of being a tin foil hatter (which I am absolutely not). Then you accused one contributor I was having a constructive discussion with of being one himself ( User:Keldoo). It's deranged. I'm sure you come from the best of intentions (fighting hordes of lunatics probably forged those behaviours) but you have lost sight of the goal here and I really believe you are damaging Wikipedia as a result. I'm sorry about this and worry this is not the first time someone gives up on editing the pages you preside over. The discussions of the last week have been a waste for all of us. I really think simply reverting ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary would have saved us a lot of useless fighting and helped us reach consensus. But few of you seem to believe it should even be taken into account (one admin even pointedly asked me if I was aware that ROWN is "just" an essay). I hope you take this into account in the future when you come across the edits of other contributors. Maybe our discussion will not be for nothing after all. Cheers! -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 20:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The Albert Ostman appears to have quite a few fringe sources supporting it. While performing a sweep of fringe sources through Wikipedia today, I noticed that there appears to be a lot more there than I currently have time to dig through. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I was on a {{ rs?}} tagging spree in relation to Journal of Scientific Exploration / Society for Scientific Exploration (not done yet) and voiced a concern at that talk page after tagging some sources. I didn't delete the material and there was at least one other supporting citation that I didn't tag, so possibly there's still merit for a mention in some form. Since it's relevant to this noticeboard I thought I'd ask other editors to evaluate and/or improve. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: tagging over (including sometimes specifying that the journal caters to pseudoscience when an article mentioned that an author was publishing in it without criticism). I noticed that some of the sources were scientifically skeptical, some from Bauer and a few others. A number of others were to support ideas about reincarnation or UFOs, etc. In case anyone is interested, here are links to some articles I noticed that may be promotional: Satwant Pasricha, Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, Reincarnation and Biology, Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Neurognosis (all sources by a single author). — Paleo Neonate – 03:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
And about the above article, considering the lack of response on its talk page or here, I boldly removed three questionable sources (also one from Independent Institute) and consider this solved unless it's reverted, — Paleo Neonate – 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Some work being done on Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This combined fringe physics, UFOs, and government pork barrel projects. What fun. I also cannot believe it, but apparently I agree with Donald Trump about this whole thing.
Wow.
jps ( talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Back in the states for a bit recently, I noticed absolutely relentless ads promoting Shen Yun. For those of you have not yet been pummeled by their ads or have yet to enounter an expose about the group: In short, like the ultra-right wing and relentlessly pro-Trump Epoch Times (cf. New York Times, New Republic, etc.), Shen Yun is essentially a propaganda arm of the Falun Gong. Shen Yun espouses the group's usual anti-evolution, anti-atheist, and anti-communism (and anti-socialist, more broadly) views, as well as presents a, well, creative interpretation of Chinese history and culture ( Here's fairly recent and very high profile expose from the New Yorker).
I've just made some modifications to our Shen Yun article, but it needs far more eyes, particularly given the extreme lengths that the organization appears to be willing to go to promote itself and its fringe views. The article badly needs a solid vetting of its sources and its presentation, at the very least. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
creative interpretation of Chinese history and culturein the article seems the most likely problem that could apply, but I see none of that. Ensuring the opinions and beliefs of the group are accurately described with due weight looks like a matter for WP:NPOVN.— eric 15:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Manna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi fellows. Synce yesterday I am struggling with someone that compares Manna with Bread fruit. This sounds very fringe. The editor insists to put a blogpost that I suspect is published by the same person that edited the article, but now I'm afraid of WP:3RR. Some help is welcomed. Ixocactus ( talk) 02:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Searching for the most important paths relevant for quantum particles, Feynman noticed that such paths were very irregular on small scales, i.e. infinite and non-differentiable.No, the path integral isn't about finding the "most important paths", and the idea that typical paths are non-differentiable goes back to Brownian motion.
This means that in between two points, a particle can have not one path, but an infinity of potential paths.This is trivially true for any two points in a plane.
The principle of relativity says that physical laws should be valid in all coordinate systems.No, it doesn't.
This principle has been applied to states of position (the origin and orientation of axes), as well as to the states of movement of coordinate systems (speed, acceleration).Acceleration is not inertial motion. And so on.
I mean, I tried to clean the thing up all those years ago. The rabble just wouldn't let me. Maybe the time is now to try again. jps ( talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: the article's main creator has reverted the stubbification and been reverted in turn. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
New article; the topic may well be wiki-notable, but it's definitely written from an enthusiast's POV, and I'm concerned about the quality of the sourcing. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits by a new WP:SPA look distinctly fringe to me, but I am not an expert on this. Guy ( help!) 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
As this article appears to have been written by a believer, it's impossible to tell that acupuncture is bollocks. Guy ( help!) 22:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Was looking at Institute for Historical Review links and started playing around with quarry [12]. Anyone got a list of fringe websites that should not be linked to except for maybe a few whitelist entries?— eric 18:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I am bringing attention to the Request for Comment going on in the Talk page of the Indigenous Aryans article. The topic of the RfC is:
Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below?
(The suggested wording is available at the Request for Comment.) BirdValiant ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Per the recommendations of users on this board, I've joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology and started converting it from a pro-pseudoscience organizational platform into a means of covering the pseudoscience from an objective, academically-minded point of view. I am now wondering if there are any other pseudoscience-focused WikiProjects out there that I don't know of? I assume there has never been a WikiProject Young Earth Creationism or a WikiProject Flat Earth Theory, correct? :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
On the subject of Astrology, 2A01:CB04:4FE:F700:343D:F97B:1ADD:E5AC ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is identifying many of the articles related to Hindu astrology, many of which have a completely in-world perspective. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm encountering a huge emphasis on "skeptic" Benjamin Radford's opinions and commentary on the folklore topic Ogopogo, so much so that it entirely dominates the article. Radford appears to have no training whatsoever in folklore studies (eg. he is not a folklorist or any other kind of anthropologist), and Radford appears to be making a lot of ungrounded claims about "sightings" of what is otherwise a typical sea monster motif (eg. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, etc.). What is the WP:RS status of the WP:RS status for so-called "skeptics" on fringe topics? It seems to me that swapping one non-expert opinion out for another results in more problems, and implies a false dichotomy of "believer" versus "skeptic", which is not at all how experts in anthropology handle these topics. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
May possibly give too much weight to Jerry Fodor philosopher & co arguments based on the book itself... — Paleo Neonate – 06:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I always assumed the term whistleblower applied to someone who brought forth information that is based in reality, rather than claims of government conspiracy to cover up involvement with aliens. Maybe I'm wrong? Lazar has been lately promoted as a whistleblower in conjunction with recent media appearances. And some media outlets covering the PR campaign have used the word as a hook, albeit in scare quotes. So now (perhaps in a spate of WP:RECENTISM), it has been inserted into the lead sentence of our article, replacing a much more encyclopedic lead sentence. This has triggered an ongoing edit war with people retaliating by adding the word "criminal" to the first sentence, ostensibly to describe Lazar's various legal troubles. And, there are other recent WP:FRINGE problems:
Maybe someone with WP:BLP experience can help sort it out. In any case, more eyes needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The word "whistleblower" has floated in and out of Lazar's article. I, perhaps ill-advisedly, added "supposed whistleblower" and "convicted criminal" to the lede for the sake of having descriptors (he was previously described only as an "American"). I'm not particularity passionate about retaining my additions. Keldoo ( talk) 19:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thought to be the moon, now said to be the world. Probably not fringe, but then why publish through Cambridge Scholars Press/Publishing and a SCIRP open access journal? Side question, I thought we didn't allow copyright tags on images such as the one at Early world maps#Leonardo Da Vinci Globe? And although File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says © Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by the editor adding it, Davidguam ( talk · contribs) who created the article on the globe. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The ostrich egg globe is since 2018 internationally accepted as the Da Vinci Globefrom Hunt–Lenox Globe added by Davidguam ( talk · contribs) is telling. I cannot find a copy of the The Portolan Journal article, and it's not very comforting how the Washington Map Society is pushing this on their site. Everything in that article should be "according to Missinne..." Reliability and POV issues, possible copyright and COI, WP:TNT is probably the best option. fiveby ( talk) 23:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It is discussed by the academic world @ Doug Weller: On May 31st at the Faculty of Geography at the University of Barcelona: On August 28th at the International Conference organised by the Royal Geographical Society in London On October 31th at the International Conference organised by the University Library of Straßburg in France. On October 31st at the international academic and cultural center Spui25 in Amsterdam: on November 20th at the Academy Petrarca in Arezzo,Tuscany. on November 21st, at the University of Florence On December 5h 2019, Rome, at the International Conference on Travels and Modernity at the University ROMA III. On February 18th 2020, Vienna. Austrian Academy of Sciences, organised by the Friends of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
The usual. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
A New York Times article on Youtube's systemic promotion of fringe theories is making the rounds today ( Nicas, Jack. 2020. "Can YouTube Quiet Its Conspiracy Theorists?" March 2, 2020. The New York Times.). One of the figures it mentions is Patrick Michaels, a fossil-industry funded climate "skeptic", which Youtube's algorithms promote to users. Michaels's page does not make the fact that he is a fringe proponent explicit, which further serves Google's promotion of his views on YouTube. Michaels's article could use a lot more eyes from users from this board. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This appears to be an agribusiness front group, and the article is not great. It could do with some help from anyone who is familiar with its areas of public debate, notably wild horse slaughter. I cut out some stuff that basically looked like both sides lobbing bricks at each other - a neutral description of its actual position would be appreciated. Guy ( help!) 13:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There's some evidence of COI editing at this article on an anti-science science group. The Controversies section seems designed to frame them as valued experts in their chosen fields, and I suspect cherry-picking. Is anyone familiar with this group? Guy ( help!) 12:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Quack bio. No sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Much of the obvious insanity was removed from this article years ago, but recently some questions were asked on the talk page as to whether it's still too credulous.
Is ball lightning a "Unexplained" phenomena? A "supposed" phenomena? Or perhaps just category of potentially related observations?
This thread might be of interest to people here : /info/en/?search=Talk:Ball_lightning#Not_science
ApLundell ( talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this oddly named article covered by the Fringe and alternative medicine sanctions? I haven't found any anti-vac talk pages with notices. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC at Talk:Naomi Seibt proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate change realist" rather than "climate change denier". Guy ( help!) 11:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Naomi Seibt, a 19-year-old climate change skeptic and self-proclaimed “climate realist,” speaks Friday during a workshop at the Conservative...
Naomi Seibt, a 19 year old climate change skeptic and self proclaimed climate realist, speaks during a workshop...
A 19-year-old German climate change sceptic who has been described by her supporters as “the antidote to Greta Thunberg”
proposing to use her self-identification as a "climate change skeptic"
Slatersteven, " Even this source (we her in fact) acknowledged she is described as a denier", what does this mean? Are you saying the source in the WaPo describe her as a "denier"? Where?-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
None of which is relevant, wp:soap applies to all of us. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Including attributed statements as to what she calls herself is fine, but we've resolved the debate about the synonym between climate change skepticism and climate change denial some time ago. Easy to see by clicking on this wikilink: climate change skepticism.
So we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, assert that she is a "climate change skeptic". Of course, we also are under no obligation to assert in Wikipedia's voice that she is a "climate change denier" (and really should be cognizant of sourcing requirements if that's something editors think should be done). However, we absolutely can make it clear that there is an ideological category into which she falls and we certainly can link to the appropriate articles and categories as source warrant. jps ( talk) 16:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been a recent attempt to add some information here about a recent-ish book which seems a bit fringey, using a lot of sources which seem questionable to me. Additional opinions would be welcome as to whether I'm being too harsh, or if this is really no good. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 16:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
References
THR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Synchronicity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:PROFRINGE edit-warring. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Editors consider that anti-abortion propaganda film Unplanned should have a "plot" section to be consistent with other film articles, but the plot section is seen by others (notably me) as violating NPOV by giving undue weight to anti-abortion propaganda. Guy ( help!) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Plot synopses can be used as WP:SOAPboxes. It is important to make it clear that while the movie may be striving for a cinema verite look, there are choices made in the depictions of abortions and related events that do not coincide with reality. This film is no Triumph of the Will in terms of notice of its individual scenes, for example, so it is not really a fair comparison as the WP:MAINSTREAM critique of Triumph of the Will is readily apparent so there is little danger in violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:SOAP if editors are diligent. In this scenario, there may be some strong arguments to excise certain long descriptions of plot elements if no one independent of the filmmakers has commented upon them. jps ( talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
There are definitely some problems at that article. E.g., I had to remove the claim that a WP:MAINSTREAM OB-GYN's explanation of the inaccuracies in the film's portrayal was "false" [37]. This is not only a fringe belief regarding fetal pain, it's also an egregious WP:BLP violation. I gave an extremely stern warning to the user who did this [38], but I suggest some scrutiny of this user's edits if to see if more of this is going on. There are a number of discretionary sanctions notices on that user's talkpage, but not particularly recent, so someone might want to do that as well. jps ( talk) 11:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
One question, give an example of a fringe theory in the plot that is not questioned in the critical response section? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the "whole film is bollocks" is what our sources say. There are serious doubts as to the veracity of what is being claimed to be "based on a true story" or whatever, but there are some interesting self-reflective points in the movie as well where they, for example, admit that there are register problems with the way some anti-abortion activists have behaved at clinic protests. The film also condemns the killing of George Tiller in a somewhat hamfisted but still unequivocal fashion. Of course, nuanced critiques are simply not going to be easy to come-by here, and that's kinda my point with wondering how much detail the plot should have. Obviously a full transcript is not needed. jps ( talk) 15:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The movie's plot should be included regardless of whether or not it includes WP:FRINGE content. The policy is not intended to ban all mentions of fringe ideas. Instead, per WP:NFRINGE, notable fringe ideas can get coverage in their own article or even in articles on mainstream ideas, insofar as the coverage is in accordance with due weight, neutrality, and notability. And it's hard to argue that the plot of an otherwise notable film is not notable. Indeed, MOS:FILM implies that a plot summary is a standard part of articles on films. Jancarcu ( talk) 21:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I just read http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/new-owner-of-skinwalker-ranch-previously-advocated-for-mormon-pseudohistory] and that led me to [42]. Some of the people associated with this Ancient Historical Research Foundation may seem reliable on their own if one didn't know about their association with this group. Their home page [43] also has some legitimate news articles, which helps them look respectable. Doug Weller talk 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
SPA Cjbaiget ( talk · contribs) is editing New Chronology (Fomenko) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mainly adding material sourced to Fomenko. Most of the article now simply promotes Fomenko's fringe theories. See also New Chronology (Fomenko)#Lies in this article maintained by 'administrator' Ymblanter. I'll ping the other editors involved: @ Carlstak, Lebob, and Ymblanter: you might also wish to take part here. Cjbaiget has also added the 2019 opening of a private museum called "The Multimedia Museum of the New Chronology" which I find mentioned in only two pages, a website on private museums in Russia and our article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Carlstak, Lebob, Ymblanter, and Doug Weller: Cjbaiget ( talk) 18:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Both of the above users have received recent arbitration discretionary sanctions alerts on the topics of complementary and alternative medicine as well as pseudoscience and fringe science.
Background: Siddha medicine and its twin brother Ayurveda medicine are forms of ancient Indian folk medicine that is said to have been conveyed by Lord Shiva to his wife Parvati, who passed it on to her son Nandi, who gave it to Siddhas. The word Siddha denotes one who has achieved some extraordinary powers (siddhi). [44]
A key part of Siddha medicine is giving patients toxic mercury compounds [45] [46], causing heavy metal poisoning. [47] [48]
Siddha practitioners have had mixed results getting the Indian government to approve what they are doing, with the Indian Medial Association and the Indian Supreme Court calling Siddha practitioners "Quacks".
Despite the page being fully protected, the proponents keep hammering away on the article talk page, trying to get us to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks.
I am thinking of taking this to WP:AE. Comments? Pinging User:JzG. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps others have more time to carefully read the circumstances surrounding this complaint which states that I have been "trying to get [WP editors] to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks" including the article, the talk page, and the related sources posted at the article and TP, and here than I do. After all how else could they make an educated judgement? That said, I do consider my WP reputation important and I certainly do not want my name to be presented at WP:AE for a discussion of my behavior. So I will make a short statement to show that I have not been trying to get WP editors to say that Siddha practitioners are not quacks but rather to respect and use RS correctly.
During my many years as a WP editor I have run into many instances of finding political bias of the WHO and US agencies such as the EPA (who are supposed to protect our health through addressing environmental concerns), the CDC, and the AMA, and as such I would well expect to find the same within the comparable Indian agencies such as the IMA and Indian governmental agencies. That said, following WP policy I do not enter my opinion re their positions and statements as demonstrations of fakery and lies, but rather I use RS to support or dispute what RS has reported. That is what we are supposed to do here; we are not supposed to argue in an article or on the article talk pages whether or not they are correct as has been going on here and on the Siddah talk page.
The article currently states: Identifying fake medical practitioners without qualifications, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions" However a reading of the judgement offered as a reliable source clearly shows otherwise and anyone reading the judgement should be able to easily see that that is the case. The judgement states they are addressing "Paramparya Vaidyas", not qualified practitioners of traditional Indian medicine. Quoting the court judgement:
As I say on the article talk page, this is a poster child of the reason that we should not be using primary sources as the one being used to (incorrectly) provide RS for this statement offered as factual in the lead of this article. There are similar problems in the second primary source used in the lead, an IMA statement, as well. Gandydancer ( talk) 01:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
To move on to the next primary source used in the lead. First and most importantly, this IMA source clearly shows why WP annon editors should not be using primary documents to back accusations of wrongdoing, or anything else, in our Wikipedia articles. Never the less, reading the second source which supposedly states that the IMA finds practitioners of Indian traditional medicine to be quacks, this document does not support that statement. It states:
Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
The third source in the lead, the Guardian, does a good job of presenting the IMA's position, but even there Indian traditional practitioners are not called "quacks" but rather those practitioners who are practicing modern medicine and the IMA's fear that the Indian government will make legal changes to laws that allow them to do so. As time permits I will discuss the charge that I supposedly believe that it is OK to be poisoned with mercury. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Finally, it is very insulting to have a fellow editor say that it's OK with me if the people of India are poisoned with toxic mercury compounds and that I should be taken to WP:AE. I'd like to defend my WP reputation by saying that I am not some sort of troublemaker or nutcase. I have one India-related article, the 2012 Delhi gang rape article and I have another related article that came up in the talk page discussion, the New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak. I'd suggest that anyone reading the links that have been offered here keep in mind that any medication that is not properly prepared and prescribed correctly can be deadly, see the meningitis article for example. Another of the links offered here is clearly a discussion with an unlicensed Siddha practitioner of the type that India does not permit to legally practice. From my reading I learned that India has many universities that teach Indian traditional medicine and the government encourages their use for people that desire that form of medicine. IMO it is an insult to India and perhaps even racist for Wikipedia editors to declare that the people of India use medicine that is fake and is provided by quacks. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
As the protecting admin, I vouch for Gandydancer as someone who is competent, edits in good faith, and is insightful. El_C 02:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There may be a question of labeling versus exposition going on here. The term quack is a somewhat inartful sobriquet that can mean a variety of things. I wonder whether it even means the same thing in the context of Indian medicine as compared to how it is defined in Wikipedia. E.g. The Times of India, which is a source of uneven quality at best, seems to define a "quack" as a doctor practicing without appropriate education rather than promoting dubious treatment regimes which is typically the way it is used in the US and the UK. jps ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Cryptic pregnancy could probably use better sources and a check to make sure it's not veering off into non-medical territory. It looks to me like the last version that wasn't based on Dr. Phil and reality television shows was back in November 2019. However, I don't know anything about the topic. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it permissible preferable or required, in light of
WP:CLAIM, to use non-neutral words such as "claim" or "point out" to denote fringe views, such as on
Blue Monday (date)?
Elizium23 (
talk) 19:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.In the case of fringe views, WP:FRINGE says that we should call their credibility into question, and we should emphasize any potential contradiction or disregard for evidence. NightHeron ( talk) 22:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
We are probably going to find the two intersect a great deal going forward. Our project currently says that MMS is claimed to treat coronavirus, and I’m not gonna edit war. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 05:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Indur M. Goklany ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May be worth watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Past life regression ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP infestation and WP:SPA infestation; advertisements and WP:PROFRINGE. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A recent flood of messages about the name of the feature seems to have been solicited from somewhere. These aren't requests in any sense of the word but accusations that the article name is Christian propaganda or anti-Hindu discrimination. The article is semi-protected so most of the disruption is on the talk page but extra eyes would still be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Genetic_pollution#Controversy has more than I suspect is due weight for some theories by Engdahl, especially as it doesn't seem to be balanced by rebuttals or alternate theories. Fresh eyes appreciated. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well (e.g. picking up links to Stack Exchange in List of unsolved problems in fair division). Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
IP(s) edit warring to remove cited material that questions cow urine's claimed medical benefits [51]. I'm not that familiar with WP:MEDRS, but I'm assuming the claim that drinking cow piss cures disease is WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
There have been recent edits to core policy ( WP:NPOV) and discussion which bears explicitly on fringe content, which may be of interest. The discussion is at WT:NPOV#Impartial. Please comment there, not here. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:National Endowment for Democracy#RfC: FAIR and other challenged content regarding whether the article should include certain additional content regarding the Chinese government's accusation that the National Endowment for Democracy secretly fomented the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests.
The article already notes the accusation briefly. The present dispute centers on due weight: whether more text should be added about the claim, and whether the article should note that the claim is not supported by evidence. (A New York Times article indicates that this claim is fringe and has no real basis, stating that there is "no concrete evidence" of foreign interference and that the Chinese government's claims variously "amount to little more than crude disinformation" or are "grounded in just enough fact to spin a conspiracy theory of covert American nefariousness.").
More outside input would be appreciated. Neutrality talk 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The International Biographical Centre puts out vanity imitations of Who's Who. The notion that what it does is of value (other than to the self-esteem of those who are profiled, or their chances of success with particularly gullible readers of CVs) is I think "fringe". But recent edits to the article claim that the IBC is valued in Belarus. So far, they do so discreetly enough, but it could be worth keeping eyes on this article. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
For some reason, somebody added a section "People born in Year of the *" to all of these. And now an IP is adding lots of links to those. I don't think Wikipedia should do this. Any thoughts?
Since all the articles on astrological signs, Chinese, Indian or Western, are edited frequently in a similar fashion, maybe they should be semi-protected indefinitely? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some work on this would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
[56] The user is now inserting things into quotes that are not found in the source. jps ( talk) 11:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
"shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching.", quoted and attributed to NYT, as "failed verification", but it's verbatim from the third paragraph in the NYT source. I'm confused why you feel it fails verification? Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet."
Person A said, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. According to Person A, "consectetur adipiscing elit.""
It's, apparently, not an obvious "typo" as the user continued to reinsert it despite being told about it. The user does not understand the issue and there is no reason that I should have to clean up for such incompetence when competence is required. jps ( talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times said the footage showed "an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind". A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later and according to the New York times "shows an object zooming over the ocean waves as pilots question what they are watching."
Just reverted another set of edits as WP:POVPUSH: [59]. Should we ask for a topic ban yet? jps ( talk) 11:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is full of primary and dodgy sources and largely edited by people with no other area of interest. I am deeply suspicious of this topic. Guy ( help!) 18:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A paper that was published two years ago in an out-of-the-way journal purporting to survey scientists about their attitudes towards AAH is being inserted into our article by agenda-driven editors. Quite apart from the fact that the paper has no independent citations outside the AAH citogenesis community, this is also a social science paper published in a journal that is not dedicated to social science.
jps ( talk) 15:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned that some valid sources may have been removed here, especially an AAO report. This whole thing started with the use of "ineffective", but that is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar ( talk) 20:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That Marg page is not a WP:RS for your claim. Please stop. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this discussion got quite muddled. I said at the top that "ineffective" is a secondary issue at this point. Belteshazzar ( talk) 21:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been trying to bring some much-=needed reality to these three articles. A number of sources point out that they exemplify the Christian persecution complex, and that the first two especially are clumsily made and rely on stereotypes and strawmen. I'm not wedded to any specific content, but I am not happy with the blatantly hagiographic tone of the articles as I found them. As with Unplanned, the plots sections were written as if by evangelicals watching the film with rapt attention, a problem when (as with the second film especially) it's effectively presenting a mirror universe version of real events where atheist professors have been persecuted for teaching science that conflicts with biblical literalism. Guy ( help!) 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The above article could benefit from attention from editors here who are familiar with medical history, Black Egyptian hypothesis, and related subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
A vegan activist with fringe views. The article was deleted in 2018 but was recreated a year later. There is a current afd discussion. The last afd suffered from sock-puppetry and meat-puppets associated with Winters. As for the article itself, most of the sources are unreliable and plantbasednews.org is still used as a citation to the article. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Skeptical Science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is Forbes a reliable source now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is being edited to remove critical content and add self-sourced and primary sourced promotional content. Guy ( help!) 23:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Richard Epstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another virus "expert" defended by his fans. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Mototaka Nakamura ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WP:FRINGEBLP
Should it be in Wikipedia? I am not impressed with the sourcing.
jps ( talk) 19:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mototaka Nakamura. jps ( talk) 10:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Gateway belief model ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just noticed that this article was undercover deleted by redirecting to scientific consensus. [65] Is there a justification for this? Should we restore the original article?
jps ( talk) 18:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
this one. I don't have time myself to check it and don't blame anyone if they don't either, but just in case... Doug Weller talk 11:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This is about [66]. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
These are some shitty, shitty sources. Almost disqualifying you as an editor per WP:CIR. jps ( talk) 22:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
References
here. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:World_Jewish_Congress#Hoax_quotation. Could use a few pair of eyes. This quote (hoax) comes back to Wiki every now and them, there is evidence of WP:CITOGENESIS too. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)