This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
NoFap ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's been a spike in questionable editing lately at the article on anti-masturbation subreddit and forum NoFap, much of which has been reverted. However, a few hours ago, NoFap complained loudly on their subreddit and Twitter about our Wikipedia article. It's pinned on their subreddit; and it seems the group is feeling really persecuted lately in general.
The article has been semi-protected, but since then, there has been restoration of an IP-added tag by an existing editor. Who knows what is going to happen as more people see NoFap's alert. So, yeah, the article definitely needs more eyes. Crossroads -talk- 07:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but this revert [1] is reverting David Gorski as a source. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Notifying this board of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation, as it bears the typical hallmarks of efforts to promote a fringe theory. BD2412 T 21:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
In conjunction with working on a draft Draft:Annie O'Reilly, user Luff64 has been adding content to the Tasseography article with an overall credulous tone towards divination. The added history of tea seems completely unneeded and some other aspects of the additions look questionable to me. More eyes, please? — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Mark Steyn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is he a climate change denier? Some say yes, some say no. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
[2] Apologia. jps ( talk) 10:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Has there yet been a reliable source article that explicitly labels Steyn a "denier" or "denialist" that isn't some sort of opinion column, though? I'm including articles that phrases things in a manner such as "Steyn, who has been labeled by individuals such as X and Y as a climate change denier" or in other such ways. I've yet to see a single one.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ever citing opinion columns. It's just that they appear inadequate in this context. Label as a "denier" or "denialist" is just about strong as a pejorative as "pedophile", "rapist", "thief", et cetera and should not be treated glibly. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's a pretty good longform journalism piece that so identifies him: [3] NCSE, no slouch at all, so identifies him: [4], Here is yellow source Media Matters for America identifying him: [5], Michael Mann's book on page 267 does the same: [6], or, if you prefer, here he details his attachment to the denial machine for Bill Moyers: [7]. jps ( talk) 11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
r.e. Inverse.com, almost forgot to mention, they do discuss the Mann-v-Steyn situation in depth, but the broader website itself doesn't appear to be a reliable source (I welcome the possibility of maybe an RFC on that). The article itself also doesn't appear to have a credited author, nor does it cite any other sources anywhere. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 13:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The Hidden Messages in Water ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New article, needs a bit of attention. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Martensville satanic sex scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is that a good name for an article? Including "hysteria" has been suggested. See Talk. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 00:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
There is
an ongoing discussion about whether the hypothesis on COVID-19 having man-made origins from a laboratory at the
Wuhan Institute of Virology (not the more recent hypothesis on accidental natural transmission from the same laboratory) should be described in the lead and body of the article as a conspiracy theory
(attributed to the RSes using the term), after
this removal of the term. Any additional input and participation is welcome. —
MarkH21
talk 07:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
New additions seem pretty dubious. [8] Doug Weller talk 12:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Harold Ambler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He is apparently famous enough for holding fringe views (climate change denial, again) to deserve an article, but not for anything else. And the article says he holds fringe views, but not much else. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A vegan activist who is notable. The Problem is a few extensive quotes citing Carbstrong's own words that have been added to the article that run into the issue of WP:UNDUE. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Also I am not sure if The Northern Echo is a reliable source. It looks worse than the Daily Mail and the website takes ages to load up and is filled with adverts. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
whatever that is. Anyway, it's fringe so might be a good idea to watch it. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The present article's title is non-neutral and misleading, promoting fringe beliefs. The phrase is a creation of the People's Republic of Bulgaria as an exercise in self-promotion and an abnegation of Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust. The pro-Nazi Bulgarian state and Axis member organized and paid for the systematic massacre of 20% of the Jewish population within the borders of the Kingdom of Bulgaria as it existed in 1941. A similar proportion of France's Jews were killed in the Holocaust, in a country directly under German occupation and with collaborationist government; no German soldiers ever occupied Bulgaria. Unlike the Rescue of the Danish Jews, in which nearly all Denmark's Jews escaped imprisonment and death and German occupation, and which the post-war communist Bulgarian state sought to rival with its own "rescue" claim, Bulgaria's Jews had their property confiscated, were expelled from major cities and confined to ghettos, and were subjected to forced labour until the Red Army crossed the Danube and Bulgaria finally changed sides. Moreover, the Bulgarian state organized and executed the arrest, transport, imprisonment of more than 11,000 Jews inside Bulgaria in concentration camps at Skopje, Dupnitsa, and Blagoevgrad, and final expulsion onto boats on the Danube at Lom bound for Vienna and a railway journey to Treblinka. For the cost of that part of their journey that was through German-occupied territory, the Bulgarian state paid the Nazis 250 reichsmarks per head. The Bulgarian government also signed an agreement that it would under no circumstances request their repatriation. In occupied France and elsewhere the Bulgarian government declined to intervene to help any Bulgarian Jews arrested in round-ups in France and Italy, and many went to their deaths with the express approval of the Bulgarian state many months after the supposed "rescue of the Bulgarian Jews".
Pages 1-44 of the 2018 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 3: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany deal with Bulgaria, as does the [ Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence] (required reading), which are the most full and comprehensive recent tertiary sources, as well as the Encyclopedia of the Holocausts chapter on Bulgaria. An excellent historiographical treatment, vital for the understanding of recent historical revisionism and the role of the issue in Bulgarian nationalism pre- and post- the fall of communism, is also found at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23256249.2017.1346743 (2017) (required reading).
There is, furthermore, a fringe belief in Bulgaria, propagated by revisionist non-historians and the Bulgarian far-right at a January 2020 "round-table" and accompanying document produced by the "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences", politicians of the former United Patriots ultra-nationalist coalition, among others, that the forced labour by which Jewish families were separated and immiserated (together with the Bulgarian Turkish and Muslim minorities and the Roma/gypsys, euphemistically termed "unemployed") was in some way an elaborate ploy to "rescue" the Jews. This is denounced as antisemitic distortion by Bulgaria's main Jewish organization, Shalom, and the World Jewish Congress, as well as Bulgarian Holocaust survivors:
The present title is used as cover by editors to absolve Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust and propagate falsehoods denying the relevance of incorporating material on ghettoization, forced labour, and internal deportation in the article, on the grounds that it is not "rescue". This circular argument can be short-circuited by changing this page to a neutral title like: "The Holocaust in Bulgaria", along the lines of other Axis and occupied countries' own Holocaust articles, e.g. The Holocaust in Slovakia, The Holocaust in France, The Holocaust in Italy, and so on. Much of the present Talk page dispute hinges on whether confiscation of real estate and forcible evacuation of Bulgaria's Jews from its cities to regional camps, labour camps, and ghettos with hand-luggage only constitutes "confiscation" and "deportation" and whether the fringe beliefs on "forced labour as rescue" has any place on a mainstream encyclopaedia. The page deserves a more neutral title and less fringe pro-Bulgarian theory. GPinkerton ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The disputes over this are now part also of ANI report by a third party, here. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:45, 22 April 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.
Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Isn't "unofficial" loony-code for "loony"? At the moment, I cannot think of a good replacement for the word, but it should be replaced with something. But not "conspiracy theories", since it does not fit all of the ideas in the article. How about "speculation"? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Touhid3.1416 has added "However, an article published in the journal chemosphere on December 2011 cites that the arsenic present in the water may have positive effect on human body as proper use of Arsenic works against cancer(like in the medicine Arsenic Trioxide [1]). [2]" The first link doesn't mention the well. The second is about the well but I'm not at all sure appropriately summarised. I disagree with the addition of "claim" in their edits also - there are times when the word is appropriate, I'm not sure this is one of them. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
References
A user brought this up off-wiki (at WP:DISCORD, and caught behind a rangeblock, for full disclosure) so I thought I'd shoot a quick post here about it. It feels like the article is a bit too credulous about fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead. Moreover, it almost looks like material has been cut out. For example, right after the lead in the Overview section, reference is made to "two schools of thought", but only one is actually described. Anyway, I just figured folks here might be interested and have better experience evaluating this sort of situation. Thanks in advance. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 22:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Baba Vanga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uses The Sun as a source for predictions having come true. Probably more nonsense. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Bulgarian Bulgarian sources say that the people who were close to her claim that she never prophesied about Kursk or other subjects circulating the Internet, and that many of the myths about Vanga are simply not true, which ultimately hurts and crudely misrepresents [Vanga] and her work. But I can certainly find some evidence of notability: [11]. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has been edited with unreliable content added that promotes Lipton from an uncritical angle. Lipton is a fringe figure into quantum woo like Deepak.
If you check the history of the article interestingly two accounts edited this article on article at a similar time Hasan.2526272829 and Bigbaby23 and their edits match. I looked deeper and it appears these users are likely the same person. For example compare their edit summaries and editing interests [12] compared to [13]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
A promoter of this non-notable fringe theory restored 93K of bad content against consensus. I am afraid I will not have time to deal with an interminable argument this week. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahasuerus has been filled with fringe WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@ AnthonyvanDuyn: Many of your sources are WP:FRINGE (SDA theology, not mainstream history) or dated (written before 1960). So, yeah, in Wikipedia language this means you are a fringe POV-pusher. It's not an insult, it's a fact. You even had the balls to quote Ellen G. White as if she were a historian. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
He stated: Get the biased Jesuit/Masonic controlled Harvard and Yale's to write your official position and drop the pretense that this is a grass roots platform, by the common men and helping the common men.
His POV is now manifest.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 20:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu: The talk page and recent history of Esther and Vashti are now involved in related disputes over the presentation of the purported historicity of the Book of Esther. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
User is removing reliable sourced content and adding countless links to amazon.com Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
An ArbCom case has been opened at [14] by an opponent of the above RfC determination that claims of racial genetic inferiority/superiority in intelligence are fringe (see [15] and [16]). NightHeron ( talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Patrick Michaels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now the Judith Curry whitewashing discussion has moved to the next denier. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure whether this properly belongs to this noticeboard. For years, there was one user promoting Russian conspiracy theories (which are different in Nature but the essence is that Ukraine shot down the plane), but there was enough reasonable users there to keep this confined. Now another user joined (and they presumably joined because they have been indefblocked on ru.wp and have a lot of time, but this is not the point), and one can see that the article, which was stable for several years, started to change, with these conspiracies being given more weight. More eyes there (or even straight administrative invasion) would probably help.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Would people familiar with medical sources have a quick look at the above article, which is not well cited. Thanks if you can. A lot of claims are made about archaeological evidence for drug use, when because such evidence is intrinsically unlikely to be preserved, we are really in the territory of speculation and assumption. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently a new SPA has started editing the McKenzie method article. Changes such as removing references to having at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain to "system encompassing assessment (evaluation), diagnosis, treatment, and prevention for the spine and the extremities." I think moving back to this version would be helpful and then start going through the references that have been added since then. My background is not in the medical field so eyes on the article that are more familiar with this content would be helpful. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Estimate of the Situation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estimate of the Situation
I am... amazed that this article exists.
jps ( talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors. The situation changed from a full-fledged article, containing 130 references, that was gradually improved during 5 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=949596454
to a redirect to one of the main actors of the theory (Laurent Nottale).
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=953159300
I have tried to engage in a civil and rational discussion, refuting the initial decision to "stubbify" the article ( see the initial discussion here and there for the refutation). The editors leaning towards stubbification did not engage in the discussion (or only very superficially). What's more, one of them ( XOR'easter) reverted himself the improvements that ensued from the discussion (from here to there). This clearly shows bad faith.
I know some editors can use, abuse and hide behind many Wikipedia Policies, so please do look at the big picture. The situation is now clear to me: what happened is pure and simple vandalism WP:VANDAL.
I propose to re-establish the full-fledged article, punish the vandals, and improve from there. Clementvidal ( talk) 10:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors.I presume you mainly mean me. I'm a professional physicist. The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor). The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. And phrasing like
punish the vandalsis difficult to interpret as offering good faith (much like the accusations that Wikipedia editors are the "polizei" or the "thought-police", made by another scale relativity advocate recently). XOR'easter ( talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm a professional physicist.That's what you claim but a proof is needed.
The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor).We even disagree on this. These were actually useful. Since you made these comments towards these changes, I presume it's a consensus of two persons.
The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things.That's your regular rhetoric, unfortunately empty of any scientific argument or rationale. Again, as I argued in the talk page, it's not ignored as it counts thousands of citations.
And phrasing likeI tried to engage in a conversation about your concerns (and other's), but you not only did almost not reply, and when I addressed your concerns and made changes to meet them, you reverted them. I call this a non-constructive attitude to say the least. And I do maintain that deleting a full-fledged article with zero rational, zero scientific argument is against the whole spirit of building an encyclopedia. Clementvidal ( talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)punish the vandalsis difficult to interpret as offering good faith
I tried to make arguments focused on scientific content; the changes made in response to them were trivial and left my points unaddressed, so I concluded that further attempts would be in vainThis is wrong. I did debunk or did address systematically your points here. You did not further engage with them, which seems to mean that you ran out of scientific arguments. And you did revert the changes where your contributions were correct (albeit now you consider them trivial or cosmetic). Clementvidal ( talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There were as many !votes to merge in the merge discussion as there were !votes to keep in the 2008 AfD. Isn't that a sign of the consensus changing? I'm asking seriously, not to be snarky — I don't know of many examples of articles revisited after decade-old AfD's, and so I don't really have a sense of what precedent there might be. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to add that the merge decision was completely biased from the start, because it was based on the almost completely deleted version of the article (again, deleted without any scientific argument), instead of the elaborated version that was standing as a consensus since five year. So of course, if you first delete an article almost entirely and write a bad and hollow one instead, it looks like a good idea to further merge it as a subsection! This two steps course of action that led to the deletion of the article without scientific argument is both against the 2008 decision to keep the article, and obviously against the rational, constructive, collective wikipedia spirit. Please do carefully consider this! Clementvidal ( talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Frank J. Tipler ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Criticism is being removed from the article, with the usual justifications or giving no justification. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Over at Mapinguari user @ Dan Harkless: is stitching together biology texts with fringe sources like Loren Coleman's Twitter. This could use more eyes. See [18] and [19] for examples. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
"Giant Anteaters Kill Two Hunters in Brazil ~ An anteater "stood on its hind legs"? #Mapinguari? ~ @CryptoLoren [20]"is so superficial as to be practically useless even if it came from a reliable source. I'm not even sure what it means — is Coleman trying to say that this sort of attack spawned the Mapinguari legend, or is he implying that this was actually an honest-to-goodness Mapinguari attack and not the work of anteaters? This is not the level of scientific discourse that Wikipedia is built on, and the linked article provides zero support for the statement as it makes no mention of Mapinguari. – dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Flare up of activity here recently. Two accounts are already blocked for socking, but more fringe-savvy eyes might be useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Ufology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An edit war over the lede regarding the question as to whether ufology is the investigation of UFOs without qualification or whether it's only the investigation of UFOs by people who... shall we say... take the idea that they could possibly be alien aircraft seriously. jps ( talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
A lot of puffery and promotion of new-agey stuff in this bio, e.g. Living in Process works with recovery from the addictive process of individuals, families and societies and moves beyond to wholeness of body, mind and spirit
. Could use some trimming from someone with a critical eye.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Not my proposal, I hasten to add.
Some regulars here might have a view. Guy ( help!) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Luis Elizondo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another edit war over whether we should mention, triumphantly, that the Navy declassified the videos that Luis leaked to the press. jps ( talk) 11:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Better yet, I think that this may not be viable for a standalone article. Perhaps a merge with To the Stars (company)? Not sure:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo
It's good to have this discussion.
jps ( talk) 12:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Rashid Buttar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sigh. As above. So below.
jps ( talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Edgar Cayce ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SPA at work, deleting skeptical analyses and inserting "90% accurate" fake statistics. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I found a roughly 4-month-old complaint at this article's talk page about the alleged fringe bias of this article, noting that the article has a history of removing fringe content. I had removed some content about 4 months prior, and XOR'easter (correctly) removed even more content a month after. The purpose is to determine if there is any remaining fringe content, or if too much has been removed from the article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This entry needs a better focus
|
---|
Happy New Year! This page badly needs an update. I see it is flagged as fringe and I think the main reason why is that it fails to incorporate or specify the connection to microcausal structure and early universe stuff. As the original author; I know there was originally more content in the lead about fractals in the microcosmos and early universe that was deleted by other Wikipedia editors as not germane. And yet when I attended GR21 in NYC in 2016; I heard prominent researchers in both the plenary and quantum gravity breakout sessions use the word fractal in their lectures. I got to chat with professors Loll and Ambjorn, two of the people who developed CDT which is the subject of the Scientific American article referenced in this Wiki entry, but many gravity researchers are familiar with and comfortable with fractals in a theoretical or cosmological setting. What is less accepted is the appearance of fractals in the Large Scale Structure that is currently the main subject of this article. And yet; the purported counter-evidence has been disproved with the discovery of an even larger void that was missed until recently. So the jury is out once again, on whether the evidence supports the notion of a fractal distribution of cosmic matter. As it turns out, however; there could be a connection back to the micro-physical fractals discussed above, because a recent paper including the CDT authors above suggests microscale fractality and the ongoing evolution of cosmic dimensionality may influence large scale structure. I have yet to digest that work though. So yeah; this entry has broken from the mainstream view in Astrophysics and in some part Cosmology, but does so mainly by failing to properly highlight the breadth or depth of the arena where they show up in theoretical Physics and especially Quantum gravity. That's all for now folks, Jonathan JonathanD ( talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC) And I should add right away... What seems most difficult to accept as mainstream for Wiki editors is the notion that spacetime itself is fractal in the microscale, but this is a very common thing to see in theoretical Physics today, because it is connected with dimensional reduction - the root cause of holography in Physics. I have had a few brief discussions with Gerard 't Hooft, who discovered the holographic principle. Steven Carlip, whom I met at GR21, showed how dimensional reduction and fractality are not only common features of many quantum gravity theories; they may be a defining feature that helps us to discover or select the correct theory of quantum gravity. In her plenary talk at GR21; Beverly Berger implored the people working in Quantum gravity to work together, and to seek common threads to explore from the work of people down the hall or at another institution, that could help the common effort. Lee Smolin stood up during the Quantum gravity talks to echo what Beverly had said, saying that the common needs and common language of their endeavor should give people working in loops or CDT to compare notes with string theory people and so on. I would suggest that a similar ethic be exercised here at Wikipedia, where every attempt at equanimity is made and the focus is kept on the common ground. So I think this Wiki article needs to include a discussion of microscale or spacetime fractality as well as large scale structure, in order to be coherent with the current state of mainstream Physics. But I admit that the basic premise of emergent spacetime is kind of radical. It was amazing how the attendance swelled to overflowing when Juan Maldacena presented his theory of emergent spacetime via entangled black holes, and went back to a smaller number thereafter, but people who were there for the entire session got to hear more proposals along similar lines. Those people also got to hear the word fractal a few more times. I stopped counting after a while. Regards, Jonathan |
USS Nimitz UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
THERE ARE NO EXPLANATIONS and we can't let Wikipedia include text that says that the explanations are likely to be mundane.
Can someone else figure out what to do here?
jps ( talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:Source 14 was from Skeptical Inquirer from the source. Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and “Investigative Files” Columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. The other source did not say,the sightings likely have mundane explanations such as equipment malfunction or human error
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 23:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Fringe articles that could use some work. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Judith Curry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article is becoming fringier and fringier. Now it reads as if all climatologists except Curry are incompetent. They do not know what they are doing, they are caught in groupthink, they do not know the very basics (handling uncertainty is one of the things you have to learn when you are a student), all their "models are wrong". As opposed to the "skeptics", who "bring up valid points" which are not named, and who are called "skeptics" in Wikipedia's voice. And her position has been "much criticised by some scientists", with a little of a lot of much some weaseling, plus a bland "neo-somethingism" label, but without any details.
Also, the discussion has a "poisonous nature", and therefore Curry thinks that scientist should "be more accommodating of" those who poisoned it with their lies and misrepresentations. Law of similars anyone? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
((od)) For those who don't know Curry's views in detail, after 2009 she became a "contrarian [scientist] who is frequently invited by Republicans to testify before US Congress", [30] "as she will reliably state that the uncertainties in climate science are much larger than her fellow scientists will acknowledge, although she doesn't identify any sources of uncertainty that aren't already factored in." [31] . . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Wdford and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, you must also comply with
WP:WEIGHT policy:
In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
Curry's views need that context, yet even sources used in the article are misrepresented to exclude critical majority views, and tucked away at the foot of a section in contravention of
WP:STRUCTURE policy. . .
dave souza,
talk 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
At Planet of the Humans, Kire1975 ( talk · contribs) has decided that climate change experts are part of an "industry" and therefore have a "conflict of interest" in criticizing the film. It seems he's unclear on the notions generally, given his posting at the COI noticeboard.
Someone may wish to go over to Talk:Planet of the Humans and check. -- Calton | Talk 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a notice of a discussion started at WT:PSYCHOLOGY § Bicameralism (psychology) that may also concern this noticeboard and WP:SKEPTIC. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Kind of your classic under-sourced alt-med articles, in this case, Ayurveda. 86.167.240.48 ( talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
About a fringe inventor who claimed to produce electricity with no energy input. No sources. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Postmodernism ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Some editors experienced with highbrow science denial should take a look at the Overview section of this article, especially with the very recent editing in it, and maybe keep an eye on it. It has significantly changed how postmodernism is defined and removed or replaced several sources. Whether the changes are more or less neutral and accurate, or a mixed bag, is not clear to me. Crossroads -talk- 04:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Postmodern scientists are concerned with socially-constructed fact rather than metaphysical truth claims.I think I can tell what this is trying to say, but not because it is doing a good job of saying it.
Conservatives Michael Oakeshott and Leo Strauss considered postmodernism to be an abandonment of the rationalist project which many conservatives consider the most important cultural product of humans.I don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean there — that's lifting a description from American politics and presuming that it is meaningful in a broader context. Who are these "many conservatives"? What is this "rationalist project" — can the entirety of intellectual effort since Newton or Bacon or Copernicus or whoever be called a single "project", regardless of the ideological divisions within it? Is it just Oakeshott and Strauss deciding that it's all one "project" and declaring that their friends consider it important? Peculiarly, the only people whose politics are identified are these "conservatives"; there is no mention of Sokal being an " unabashed Old Leftist", or that he saw himself following in the footsteps of Levitt, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Overall, this looks like an attempt to paint "conservatives" as the ones having good sense, but the writing is so unclear that the POV-pushing is an inept faceplant.
Others have claimed that persons who are knowledgeable about postmodernism have difficulty distinguishing nonsensical postmodernist artifacts from those that are nominally genuine.This sounds like an attempt to be clever ("artifacts", "nominally"), but it's ultimately just opaque. Moreover, it makes a poor summary for what Sokal and Bricmont's book was actually about. Sokal himself said,
From the mere fact of publication of my parody I think that not much can be deduced. It doesn't prove that the whole field of cultural studies, or cultural studies of science -- much less sociology of science -- is nonsense. Nor does it prove that the intellectual standards in these fields are generally lax. (This might be the case, but it would have to be established on other grounds.) It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty, by publishing an article on quantum physics that they admit they could not understand, without bothering to get an opinion from anyone knowledgeable in quantum physics[35]. He's been quite insistent on this over the years; for example, in 2019, someone wrote an article saying that Sokal concluded "cultural studies as a field lacked rigour and quality control", and Sokal demanded a correction:
In fact, I don't know anywhere in my writings where you could find a quotation asserting what you have written, because it is not at all my view. Indeed, I have many times explicitly written the exact opposite!So, in addition to being unclear, the "Overview" in Postmodernism is also unfortunately superficial. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can't tell what it's trying to say and I'm partial to postmodernism as well as being a scientist. I went to see if I had the book in my library's e-reserve and we did. The book does not say this or anything close to this. Nevertheless, we are required to keep this nonsense sentence in the article, apparently. [36]. jps ( talk) 02:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Postmodern scientists are concerned with socially-constructed fact rather than metaphysical truth claims.I think I can tell what this is trying to say, but not because it is doing a good job of saying it.
this looks like an attempt to paint "conservatives" as the ones having good senseIt's the other way around: As Sokal, Levitt and others repeatedly pointed out, postmodernists attempt to paint the ones having good sense as "conservatives". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Breaching experiments really shouldn't be done like this from an ethical standpoint. We don't actually know whether Sokal was abusing the good faith of the editors who were just excited to get a physicist submitting to their journal or whether they were really taken in by his blather. Regardless, it says more about the relationship within academia than really anything about postmodernism as a critique or movement. The whole thing is pretty old by now too, we've basically all moved on. Science and technology studies is an extremely valuable academic approach to questions related to how science works functionally. They explicitly make no attempts to evaluate the actual empirical or theoretical claims being developed in the scientific community. I think there were lazy theorists who may have gotten some attention from about the 1970s to 1990s who did, but such approaches are essentially marginalized in that field. Anyway.... jps ( talk) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Blond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wiki users like Queenplz, Hapa9100 and myself want to remove what is blantant FRINGE THEORIES edits in the blond article page, we have expressed our opinion on talk page aswell. A user named Hunan201p edited many controversial ethnic groups and mythical historical figures as blond. The most controversial is the inclusion of Huangdi, the mainstream concensus is that he is considered as a mythical figure by the vast majority of scholars and historian, but Hunan201p edited him like he was a real life person. The same goes for claiming Bodonchar Munkhag being blond which also has no mainstream concesus view, the blond hair claims of Bodonchar Mukhag was actually based on the mythical legends of Alan Gua. Is it correct to remove those figures that were never confirmed to be blond ? Please let me know. Shinoshijak ( talk)
Comment I agree; determining what hair colour the Yellow Emperor had is like trying to find out Romulus's shoe size. In any case, "Indo-Europeans" are speakers of vast language family not a synonym for "blond people". GPinkerton ( talk) 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment I agree as well; for me it reeks of an incorrect accuracy with an agenda; to suggest Huangdi was a blond haired man when none of the Chinese historical records and text had ever recorded it, is pretty disingenuous indeed. Considering the fact that Indo-European; the biggest Indo-European populations in the world are India, Pakistan and Iran, 90+% of which have black hair, proves my point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:55c0:c680:8077:bdda:e5e5:6e12 ( talk) 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: No valid reason has been presented for removing the statements describing Huangdi as blond to the article, which are backed by high-quality references, and were defended by admins at the Yellow Emperor article. Multiple gods and goddesses, such as Sif and Jarl are already mentioned at blond. The statements in the article do not link blond hair to modern Indo European speakers, but rather to Huangdi to ancient Indo-Europeans (such as Andronovo and Sintashta, advocated by philologists such as Christopher Beckwith and Victor Mair as an ancestral source of the Indo Europeans in ancient north China. Several fossils from archaeological digs like Sintashta had blond hair.
Also, Shinishijak has not provided a single reference to support his claim that the "majority of historians do not consider Huangdi as blond", and I guarantee you he can never provide such a reference. On the other hand, multiple scholars support the theory, and it is highly regarded by independent scholars. [3] - Hunan201p ( talk) 01:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Comment: I also agree with the removal of Huangdi being blong and Indo-European. There is every valid reason to remove it. Indeed this theory has no consensus from scholars, so little is not even worth debated on. It has never grabbed the attention of mainstream scholars and historian, because it's based on pseudo-science and FRINGE theory of a tiny minoriy few.
Christopher Beckwith makes no mention of Huangdi being related with Indo-Europeans. Victor Mair only uses Taiwanese Tsung-tung Chang to try to indo-Europeanize, " it says the paper by Tsung - tung Chang ( 1988 ) , used by Victor Mair as authority for Indo - Europeanizing interpretations" . There's not a single piece of evidence that Huangdi ever existed, one sinonologist attempting to connect Huangdi with Indo-European, just shows how weak this theory is. Andronovo existed only in 2000–900 BC in western Siberia and the central Eurasian Steppe. The Sintashta culture stretches from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, dated to the period 2200–1800 BCE, obviously unrelated and had no presense in historical Chinese territories. Huangi existed in 2600-2700BC which predated any existence of Chinese civilization, predated the existence of those indo-european culture long before it even expanded to Asia.
I've helped Hapa9100 with his references There's a obviously a huge general concesus that Huangdi is a mythical god and not a real person.
There is no concesus that Huangdi is blond or even Indo-European and that. If there was than Hunan201p would have shown a significant number supporting this obviously Fringe theories of Huangdi Queenplz ( talk) 21:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
comment I also agree...absolutely agree with the removal of Huangdi from blond (including yellow emperor) wikipedian front pages. It reeks of so much eurocentric bias, it's really no different to psesudoscience afroncentrism theories of Black athena, black egyptians which is at least far more credible, because at least it had been debated by mainstream scholars and historians but even they get removed in wikipedia. Why does Hunan201p thik it's okay to claim Huangdi being blond and indo-european when is not even worth debating in the mainstream circle. Every evidence points him as a mythical figure, a god. There was no record of his existence of his reign for 2600-2700 years. His first mention was in the warring states around (375 BC) while his mythical reign date back in 2500-2600 BC. Hapa9100 ( talk) 01:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: External link in |title=
(
help), 0-7914-5270-0.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another edit war about whether or not the last line from an article written in Space.com should be attributed to Space.com. I question whether it should be in the lede at all.
jps ( talk) 13:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::I became mostly involved. When
Gtoffoletto put sources on the ufology page, they said somebody's edit, did not match with the source so I checked and they were right. For Bob Lazars page
Live Science is used and they also use the same article, that is written by space.com. we never quoted the credentials of that person who's saying Bob Lazar is lying? I know he is a conspiracy theorist and never went to the school he said he did.
https://www.livescience.com/ufos-videos-declassified-navy-release.html
https://www.livescience.com/23514-area-51.html
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 15:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Using a random story on
Live Science (which is where
Space.com recycled it from) as the punchline of the lede gives it
undue weight, I think. The claim is taken almost verbatim from the last sentence of
the story, There is as yet no explanation or identification — official or not — for the mysterious aircraft that the pilots recorded.
First of all, the line in
the current version of our article (there is currently no explanation or identification for the incidents, official or not
) is a copyvio, and that's bad. Second,
Live Science is of dubious reliability, and even if they are generally OK, we have no grounds to treat them as definitive here. Third, the claim is factually wrong. Perhaps nobody "official" has offered an explanation, but plenty of subject-matter experts have proposed them. There are mundane explanations —
IR overexposure, etc. — though in the absence of more data, there's only so much one can say.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
"The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._________was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.__________ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.__________ “the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below,” estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement. As LT.__________ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT.__________ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."
:The Page not available it did not come up.
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 22:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Piers Robinson ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Talks nonsense, gets called a conspiracy theorist, threatens to sue Wikipedia, gets banned. So far, so good. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Piers_Robinson
But the result is: Wikipedia spreads his disinformation for him. His article contains his disinformation and no refutation, although it does have a See also link leading to an article that refutes it. I think that is not how it is done. Opinions? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Also closely associated with Beeley is academic Piers Robinson and former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford. Ford, who routinely appears on British media defending the Assad regime line on Syria, should be more accurately referred to as director of the pro-Assad lobby group, the British Syrian Society, founded by Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law Fawaz Akhras." from New Statesman. Not to mention the numerous HuffPost articles over the years..
Larry Vardiman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nominated for deletion by yours truly.
jps ( talk) 22:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this is going to end up being cited in articles but FWIW the Times has posted a story on all the people who have suddenly discovered during lockdown that their domicile is haunted. [42] And if that's not enough there are more than 200 comments, mostly from people relating their own stories. At least they posted a one sentence disclaimer... "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts..." immediately watered down with "a fact that has little bearing on our collective enthusiasm for them." That said, some of the stories in the article and the comments are amusing. Enjoy. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Arthur Laffer advises the Trump administration on the reopening of the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. He has suggested that the coronavirus death toll was inflated, claiming that doctors attributed deaths to the coronavirus regardless of whether the coronavirus caused the death: "When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death." Are we allowed to state in Wiki-voice that the claim that doctors are claiming car crash victims as COVID-19 victims is "false"? The cited source [48] cites a doctor who says that Laffer's claim is BS. An editor on the Laffer page is however arguing that we cant say it's a false claim. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I see "archaeologist" but actually see pseudoscience related topics in listed publications. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 07:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The usual RfCs asking for the usual changes for the usual effect of pretending that Sheldrake engages in legitimate scholarship. Guy ( help!) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor (@ TheBlueCanoe:) is removing mention of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun from the lead of the Falun Gong article, as well as the phrase new religious movement.
Readers will notice that the article mostly reads as a fantasy-world puff peace promoting the organization as a peaceful, apolitical, ancient religious group—the reality is far different, as source after source outlines, with the group, via its media extension, spending tremendous amounts of money on promoting, for example, Donald Trump and extreme-right wing politics in Germany, alongside promoting conspiracy theories about Covid-19 and vaccinations. Deep fringe stuff. And while the Falun Gong would certainly approve, these extensions of the new religious movement are by far the most visible aspects of the new religious movement and a key means of drawing support and funds into the organization (cf. [49], [50], [51])
The whole article could use a thorough review and far more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
a performing arts company that promotes anti-evolution and anti- LGBTQ messaging, and certainly doesn't merit labeling as such in a mere passing mention. This looks something more suited to the NPOV noticeboard. fiveby( zero) 22:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Bloodofox has been taken to WP:AE mainly for editing this area. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
After adding a dozen academic sources on the article, it appears that adherents are crawling out of the woodwork to revert the article to a Falun Gong-approved version. We now have a pro-Epoch Times (ahem) editor reverting many academic soures I've added to the article that discuss that the Falun Gong is a new religous movement ( [53] — @ Clara Branch:). The editor claims we must first request permission to add these sources after another Falun Gong-talking-point-promoting editor hit the 3RR after attempting to scrub the article of any discussion of the phrase "new religious movement", as discussed above (what a coincidence, right?). There are red names all over this and related articles, including on The Epoch Times talk page —these articles really need more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ancient city walls around the City of David could do with some eyes with more access to relevant sources than me. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly vile. The article I mean. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that it's now a redirect. No material seemed to be merged so I checked the sources. Only two seemed to be independent enough, yet they were only about the Bermuda Triangle, without more information on Sanderson's claims. One had him in their citations list but I couldn't find where and searching for "vile vortex" or "triacontahedron" in that book failed. I concluded that nothing may be worth merging, afterall, at least with the sources the subarticle currently used... — Paleo Neonate – 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Judy Mikovits ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is likely to become a hotspot very soon. Might benefit from some editors here watching it. So far, looks like the problems are pretty much under control, but we know how quickly that can change.
jps (
talk) 14:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Plandemic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A new article. I'm sure you're all thrilled that this exists.
jps ( talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Recently a well-meaning editor (@ Timtempleton:) added this material about the concept of the "vile vortex" on the Ivan T. Sanderson article. Sanderson is best known as a founding figure of the cryptozoology subculture and pseudoscience, but also wrote about other topics. Does anyone know of any WP:RS-compliant discussion about this that we could add to the article? I'm not seeing, say, any summaries about what this is all about from academic source so far, but it seems to involve pseudoscientific stuff in connection with, say, notions about ley lines and related topics. I went ahead and just removed the material ( [54]) as the references appear to be straightforward WP:RS, WP:PROFRINGE fails (cf. this publisher), but if we have some appropriate sources discussing it in context, we should add a section about it. (Pinging @ Psychologist Guy:, who brought this to my attention). :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The number of articles with the string "Adventures Unlimited Press" is so far down to 100 from 123. Someone else had removed a few of them as well. Some articles, of course, will always mention them, like David Hatcher Childress and List of group-0 ISBN publisher codes. Most references to them have been pretty trivial and easy to remove, but along the way, I've found a few articles that seemed like they should have wider attention at FTN:
Bloodofox - pinging you so you definitely see this (especially the Bigfoot one). Crossroads -talk- 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The Deniers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) For seven years, this soapbox of an article has been tagged as unbalanced and I agree. Does it pass WP:BK?
What I see is basically a lot of pushing by the denialist press when the book came out and essentially only passing notice by the WP:MAINSTREAM. Since then the book has not aged well. I don't see any lasting value in this article.
Redirect to the author? Stubbify with WP:TNT? What to do?
jps ( talk) 14:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Along the same lines, can people find some better sources for Lawrence Solomon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I noticed many(!) of the sources for his actual biographical material were primary sources. jps ( talk) 14:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Chronic fatigue syndrome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new editor (actually registered in 2014 I think but has <1000 edits and made almost no edits in the last couple of years) has been working on a total rewrite of the CFS article from the "myalgic encephalomyelitis" POV. This has looked like activist editing fomr the outset but yesterday he posted a loooooooong screed that makes it plain that yes, he is here to WP:RGW. Given the WP:OWNership of the content, his status as a WP:SPA, and his citing of activist groups like Action For ME as authorities, I suspect a topic ban may be necessary, but regardless, this is one persistent CPUSH and needs more eyes. Guy ( help!) 10:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Grover Furr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not a historian, pretends to be one, but is a "revisionist", not a pseudohistorian. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Historical negationism, also called denialism, is a distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also applies to legitimate academic reinterpretations of the historical record that diverge from previously accepted views.signed, Rosguill talk 03:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The “Holodomor” is a myth. Never happened.But if you don't want to believe Furr's own statements of his own views, there you go - David Gerard ( talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Goharrison ( talk · contribs) has made 2 edits, increasingly NPOV (see [57]). I've reverted the first. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Abhigya Anand ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch knew it all last year, say sources from this year. I guess this sort of thing happens a lot now. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sigh... And here I had hoped earlier this year that we weren't going to need to discuss whether we need a WP:PRODIGY guideline. Should we start an RfC about those draft rules? I think they may have helped in this scenario. WP:SENSATION seems at work here as well. jps ( talk) 20:28, 31 May 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. |
NoFap ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's been a spike in questionable editing lately at the article on anti-masturbation subreddit and forum NoFap, much of which has been reverted. However, a few hours ago, NoFap complained loudly on their subreddit and Twitter about our Wikipedia article. It's pinned on their subreddit; and it seems the group is feeling really persecuted lately in general.
The article has been semi-protected, but since then, there has been restoration of an IP-added tag by an existing editor. Who knows what is going to happen as more people see NoFap's alert. So, yeah, the article definitely needs more eyes. Crossroads -talk- 07:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but this revert [1] is reverting David Gorski as a source. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Notifying this board of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden assault allegation, as it bears the typical hallmarks of efforts to promote a fringe theory. BD2412 T 21:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
In conjunction with working on a draft Draft:Annie O'Reilly, user Luff64 has been adding content to the Tasseography article with an overall credulous tone towards divination. The added history of tea seems completely unneeded and some other aspects of the additions look questionable to me. More eyes, please? — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Mark Steyn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is he a climate change denier? Some say yes, some say no. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
[2] Apologia. jps ( talk) 10:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Has there yet been a reliable source article that explicitly labels Steyn a "denier" or "denialist" that isn't some sort of opinion column, though? I'm including articles that phrases things in a manner such as "Steyn, who has been labeled by individuals such as X and Y as a climate change denier" or in other such ways. I've yet to see a single one.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ever citing opinion columns. It's just that they appear inadequate in this context. Label as a "denier" or "denialist" is just about strong as a pejorative as "pedophile", "rapist", "thief", et cetera and should not be treated glibly. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's a pretty good longform journalism piece that so identifies him: [3] NCSE, no slouch at all, so identifies him: [4], Here is yellow source Media Matters for America identifying him: [5], Michael Mann's book on page 267 does the same: [6], or, if you prefer, here he details his attachment to the denial machine for Bill Moyers: [7]. jps ( talk) 11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
r.e. Inverse.com, almost forgot to mention, they do discuss the Mann-v-Steyn situation in depth, but the broader website itself doesn't appear to be a reliable source (I welcome the possibility of maybe an RFC on that). The article itself also doesn't appear to have a credited author, nor does it cite any other sources anywhere. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 13:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The Hidden Messages in Water ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New article, needs a bit of attention. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Martensville satanic sex scandal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is that a good name for an article? Including "hysteria" has been suggested. See Talk. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 00:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
There is
an ongoing discussion about whether the hypothesis on COVID-19 having man-made origins from a laboratory at the
Wuhan Institute of Virology (not the more recent hypothesis on accidental natural transmission from the same laboratory) should be described in the lead and body of the article as a conspiracy theory
(attributed to the RSes using the term), after
this removal of the term. Any additional input and participation is welcome. —
MarkH21
talk 07:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
New additions seem pretty dubious. [8] Doug Weller talk 12:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Harold Ambler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He is apparently famous enough for holding fringe views (climate change denial, again) to deserve an article, but not for anything else. And the article says he holds fringe views, but not much else. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A vegan activist who is notable. The Problem is a few extensive quotes citing Carbstrong's own words that have been added to the article that run into the issue of WP:UNDUE. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Also I am not sure if The Northern Echo is a reliable source. It looks worse than the Daily Mail and the website takes ages to load up and is filled with adverts. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
whatever that is. Anyway, it's fringe so might be a good idea to watch it. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The present article's title is non-neutral and misleading, promoting fringe beliefs. The phrase is a creation of the People's Republic of Bulgaria as an exercise in self-promotion and an abnegation of Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust. The pro-Nazi Bulgarian state and Axis member organized and paid for the systematic massacre of 20% of the Jewish population within the borders of the Kingdom of Bulgaria as it existed in 1941. A similar proportion of France's Jews were killed in the Holocaust, in a country directly under German occupation and with collaborationist government; no German soldiers ever occupied Bulgaria. Unlike the Rescue of the Danish Jews, in which nearly all Denmark's Jews escaped imprisonment and death and German occupation, and which the post-war communist Bulgarian state sought to rival with its own "rescue" claim, Bulgaria's Jews had their property confiscated, were expelled from major cities and confined to ghettos, and were subjected to forced labour until the Red Army crossed the Danube and Bulgaria finally changed sides. Moreover, the Bulgarian state organized and executed the arrest, transport, imprisonment of more than 11,000 Jews inside Bulgaria in concentration camps at Skopje, Dupnitsa, and Blagoevgrad, and final expulsion onto boats on the Danube at Lom bound for Vienna and a railway journey to Treblinka. For the cost of that part of their journey that was through German-occupied territory, the Bulgarian state paid the Nazis 250 reichsmarks per head. The Bulgarian government also signed an agreement that it would under no circumstances request their repatriation. In occupied France and elsewhere the Bulgarian government declined to intervene to help any Bulgarian Jews arrested in round-ups in France and Italy, and many went to their deaths with the express approval of the Bulgarian state many months after the supposed "rescue of the Bulgarian Jews".
Pages 1-44 of the 2018 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 3: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany deal with Bulgaria, as does the [ Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence] (required reading), which are the most full and comprehensive recent tertiary sources, as well as the Encyclopedia of the Holocausts chapter on Bulgaria. An excellent historiographical treatment, vital for the understanding of recent historical revisionism and the role of the issue in Bulgarian nationalism pre- and post- the fall of communism, is also found at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23256249.2017.1346743 (2017) (required reading).
There is, furthermore, a fringe belief in Bulgaria, propagated by revisionist non-historians and the Bulgarian far-right at a January 2020 "round-table" and accompanying document produced by the "Bulgarian Academy of Sciences", politicians of the former United Patriots ultra-nationalist coalition, among others, that the forced labour by which Jewish families were separated and immiserated (together with the Bulgarian Turkish and Muslim minorities and the Roma/gypsys, euphemistically termed "unemployed") was in some way an elaborate ploy to "rescue" the Jews. This is denounced as antisemitic distortion by Bulgaria's main Jewish organization, Shalom, and the World Jewish Congress, as well as Bulgarian Holocaust survivors:
The present title is used as cover by editors to absolve Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust and propagate falsehoods denying the relevance of incorporating material on ghettoization, forced labour, and internal deportation in the article, on the grounds that it is not "rescue". This circular argument can be short-circuited by changing this page to a neutral title like: "The Holocaust in Bulgaria", along the lines of other Axis and occupied countries' own Holocaust articles, e.g. The Holocaust in Slovakia, The Holocaust in France, The Holocaust in Italy, and so on. Much of the present Talk page dispute hinges on whether confiscation of real estate and forcible evacuation of Bulgaria's Jews from its cities to regional camps, labour camps, and ghettos with hand-luggage only constitutes "confiscation" and "deportation" and whether the fringe beliefs on "forced labour as rescue" has any place on a mainstream encyclopaedia. The page deserves a more neutral title and less fringe pro-Bulgarian theory. GPinkerton ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The disputes over this are now part also of ANI report by a third party, here. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:45, 22 April 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.
Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Isn't "unofficial" loony-code for "loony"? At the moment, I cannot think of a good replacement for the word, but it should be replaced with something. But not "conspiracy theories", since it does not fit all of the ideas in the article. How about "speculation"? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Touhid3.1416 has added "However, an article published in the journal chemosphere on December 2011 cites that the arsenic present in the water may have positive effect on human body as proper use of Arsenic works against cancer(like in the medicine Arsenic Trioxide [1]). [2]" The first link doesn't mention the well. The second is about the well but I'm not at all sure appropriately summarised. I disagree with the addition of "claim" in their edits also - there are times when the word is appropriate, I'm not sure this is one of them. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
References
A user brought this up off-wiki (at WP:DISCORD, and caught behind a rangeblock, for full disclosure) so I thought I'd shoot a quick post here about it. It feels like the article is a bit too credulous about fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead. Moreover, it almost looks like material has been cut out. For example, right after the lead in the Overview section, reference is made to "two schools of thought", but only one is actually described. Anyway, I just figured folks here might be interested and have better experience evaluating this sort of situation. Thanks in advance. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 22:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Baba Vanga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uses The Sun as a source for predictions having come true. Probably more nonsense. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Bulgarian Bulgarian sources say that the people who were close to her claim that she never prophesied about Kursk or other subjects circulating the Internet, and that many of the myths about Vanga are simply not true, which ultimately hurts and crudely misrepresents [Vanga] and her work. But I can certainly find some evidence of notability: [11]. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This article has been edited with unreliable content added that promotes Lipton from an uncritical angle. Lipton is a fringe figure into quantum woo like Deepak.
If you check the history of the article interestingly two accounts edited this article on article at a similar time Hasan.2526272829 and Bigbaby23 and their edits match. I looked deeper and it appears these users are likely the same person. For example compare their edit summaries and editing interests [12] compared to [13]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
A promoter of this non-notable fringe theory restored 93K of bad content against consensus. I am afraid I will not have time to deal with an interminable argument this week. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahasuerus has been filled with fringe WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@ AnthonyvanDuyn: Many of your sources are WP:FRINGE (SDA theology, not mainstream history) or dated (written before 1960). So, yeah, in Wikipedia language this means you are a fringe POV-pusher. It's not an insult, it's a fact. You even had the balls to quote Ellen G. White as if she were a historian. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
He stated: Get the biased Jesuit/Masonic controlled Harvard and Yale's to write your official position and drop the pretense that this is a grass roots platform, by the common men and helping the common men.
His POV is now manifest.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 20:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu: The talk page and recent history of Esther and Vashti are now involved in related disputes over the presentation of the purported historicity of the Book of Esther. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
User is removing reliable sourced content and adding countless links to amazon.com Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
An ArbCom case has been opened at [14] by an opponent of the above RfC determination that claims of racial genetic inferiority/superiority in intelligence are fringe (see [15] and [16]). NightHeron ( talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Patrick Michaels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now the Judith Curry whitewashing discussion has moved to the next denier. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure whether this properly belongs to this noticeboard. For years, there was one user promoting Russian conspiracy theories (which are different in Nature but the essence is that Ukraine shot down the plane), but there was enough reasonable users there to keep this confined. Now another user joined (and they presumably joined because they have been indefblocked on ru.wp and have a lot of time, but this is not the point), and one can see that the article, which was stable for several years, started to change, with these conspiracies being given more weight. More eyes there (or even straight administrative invasion) would probably help.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Would people familiar with medical sources have a quick look at the above article, which is not well cited. Thanks if you can. A lot of claims are made about archaeological evidence for drug use, when because such evidence is intrinsically unlikely to be preserved, we are really in the territory of speculation and assumption. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently a new SPA has started editing the McKenzie method article. Changes such as removing references to having at most, limited benefit for helping alleviate acute back pain to "system encompassing assessment (evaluation), diagnosis, treatment, and prevention for the spine and the extremities." I think moving back to this version would be helpful and then start going through the references that have been added since then. My background is not in the medical field so eyes on the article that are more familiar with this content would be helpful. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Estimate of the Situation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estimate of the Situation
I am... amazed that this article exists.
jps ( talk) 14:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors. The situation changed from a full-fledged article, containing 130 references, that was gradually improved during 5 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=949596454
to a redirect to one of the main actors of the theory (Laurent Nottale).
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scale_relativity&oldid=953159300
I have tried to engage in a civil and rational discussion, refuting the initial decision to "stubbify" the article ( see the initial discussion here and there for the refutation). The editors leaning towards stubbification did not engage in the discussion (or only very superficially). What's more, one of them ( XOR'easter) reverted himself the improvements that ensued from the discussion (from here to there). This clearly shows bad faith.
I know some editors can use, abuse and hide behind many Wikipedia Policies, so please do look at the big picture. The situation is now clear to me: what happened is pure and simple vandalism WP:VANDAL.
I propose to re-establish the full-fledged article, punish the vandals, and improve from there. Clementvidal ( talk) 10:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The scale relativity article has been gradually deleted by anonymous, obviously non-academic, non-expert wikipedia editors.I presume you mainly mean me. I'm a professional physicist. The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor). The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things. And phrasing like
punish the vandalsis difficult to interpret as offering good faith (much like the accusations that Wikipedia editors are the "polizei" or the "thought-police", made by another scale relativity advocate recently). XOR'easter ( talk) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm a professional physicist.That's what you claim but a proof is needed.
The "improvements that ensued from the discussion" were trivial cosmetic changes (which, moreover, had no consensus in their favor).We even disagree on this. These were actually useful. Since you made these comments towards these changes, I presume it's a consensus of two persons.
The "big picture" is that "scale relativity" is a content-free heap of words and equations, ignored by everyone except its adherents. Wikipedia is not the place to promote such things.That's your regular rhetoric, unfortunately empty of any scientific argument or rationale. Again, as I argued in the talk page, it's not ignored as it counts thousands of citations.
And phrasing likeI tried to engage in a conversation about your concerns (and other's), but you not only did almost not reply, and when I addressed your concerns and made changes to meet them, you reverted them. I call this a non-constructive attitude to say the least. And I do maintain that deleting a full-fledged article with zero rational, zero scientific argument is against the whole spirit of building an encyclopedia. Clementvidal ( talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)punish the vandalsis difficult to interpret as offering good faith
I tried to make arguments focused on scientific content; the changes made in response to them were trivial and left my points unaddressed, so I concluded that further attempts would be in vainThis is wrong. I did debunk or did address systematically your points here. You did not further engage with them, which seems to mean that you ran out of scientific arguments. And you did revert the changes where your contributions were correct (albeit now you consider them trivial or cosmetic). Clementvidal ( talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There were as many !votes to merge in the merge discussion as there were !votes to keep in the 2008 AfD. Isn't that a sign of the consensus changing? I'm asking seriously, not to be snarky — I don't know of many examples of articles revisited after decade-old AfD's, and so I don't really have a sense of what precedent there might be. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to add that the merge decision was completely biased from the start, because it was based on the almost completely deleted version of the article (again, deleted without any scientific argument), instead of the elaborated version that was standing as a consensus since five year. So of course, if you first delete an article almost entirely and write a bad and hollow one instead, it looks like a good idea to further merge it as a subsection! This two steps course of action that led to the deletion of the article without scientific argument is both against the 2008 decision to keep the article, and obviously against the rational, constructive, collective wikipedia spirit. Please do carefully consider this! Clementvidal ( talk) 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Frank J. Tipler ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Criticism is being removed from the article, with the usual justifications or giving no justification. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Over at Mapinguari user @ Dan Harkless: is stitching together biology texts with fringe sources like Loren Coleman's Twitter. This could use more eyes. See [18] and [19] for examples. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
"Giant Anteaters Kill Two Hunters in Brazil ~ An anteater "stood on its hind legs"? #Mapinguari? ~ @CryptoLoren [20]"is so superficial as to be practically useless even if it came from a reliable source. I'm not even sure what it means — is Coleman trying to say that this sort of attack spawned the Mapinguari legend, or is he implying that this was actually an honest-to-goodness Mapinguari attack and not the work of anteaters? This is not the level of scientific discourse that Wikipedia is built on, and the linked article provides zero support for the statement as it makes no mention of Mapinguari. – dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Flare up of activity here recently. Two accounts are already blocked for socking, but more fringe-savvy eyes might be useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Ufology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An edit war over the lede regarding the question as to whether ufology is the investigation of UFOs without qualification or whether it's only the investigation of UFOs by people who... shall we say... take the idea that they could possibly be alien aircraft seriously. jps ( talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
A lot of puffery and promotion of new-agey stuff in this bio, e.g. Living in Process works with recovery from the addictive process of individuals, families and societies and moves beyond to wholeness of body, mind and spirit
. Could use some trimming from someone with a critical eye.
SpicyMilkBoy (
talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Not my proposal, I hasten to add.
Some regulars here might have a view. Guy ( help!) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Luis Elizondo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another edit war over whether we should mention, triumphantly, that the Navy declassified the videos that Luis leaked to the press. jps ( talk) 11:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Better yet, I think that this may not be viable for a standalone article. Perhaps a merge with To the Stars (company)? Not sure:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo
It's good to have this discussion.
jps ( talk) 12:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Rashid Buttar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sigh. As above. So below.
jps ( talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Edgar Cayce ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SPA at work, deleting skeptical analyses and inserting "90% accurate" fake statistics. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I found a roughly 4-month-old complaint at this article's talk page about the alleged fringe bias of this article, noting that the article has a history of removing fringe content. I had removed some content about 4 months prior, and XOR'easter (correctly) removed even more content a month after. The purpose is to determine if there is any remaining fringe content, or if too much has been removed from the article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This entry needs a better focus
|
---|
Happy New Year! This page badly needs an update. I see it is flagged as fringe and I think the main reason why is that it fails to incorporate or specify the connection to microcausal structure and early universe stuff. As the original author; I know there was originally more content in the lead about fractals in the microcosmos and early universe that was deleted by other Wikipedia editors as not germane. And yet when I attended GR21 in NYC in 2016; I heard prominent researchers in both the plenary and quantum gravity breakout sessions use the word fractal in their lectures. I got to chat with professors Loll and Ambjorn, two of the people who developed CDT which is the subject of the Scientific American article referenced in this Wiki entry, but many gravity researchers are familiar with and comfortable with fractals in a theoretical or cosmological setting. What is less accepted is the appearance of fractals in the Large Scale Structure that is currently the main subject of this article. And yet; the purported counter-evidence has been disproved with the discovery of an even larger void that was missed until recently. So the jury is out once again, on whether the evidence supports the notion of a fractal distribution of cosmic matter. As it turns out, however; there could be a connection back to the micro-physical fractals discussed above, because a recent paper including the CDT authors above suggests microscale fractality and the ongoing evolution of cosmic dimensionality may influence large scale structure. I have yet to digest that work though. So yeah; this entry has broken from the mainstream view in Astrophysics and in some part Cosmology, but does so mainly by failing to properly highlight the breadth or depth of the arena where they show up in theoretical Physics and especially Quantum gravity. That's all for now folks, Jonathan JonathanD ( talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC) And I should add right away... What seems most difficult to accept as mainstream for Wiki editors is the notion that spacetime itself is fractal in the microscale, but this is a very common thing to see in theoretical Physics today, because it is connected with dimensional reduction - the root cause of holography in Physics. I have had a few brief discussions with Gerard 't Hooft, who discovered the holographic principle. Steven Carlip, whom I met at GR21, showed how dimensional reduction and fractality are not only common features of many quantum gravity theories; they may be a defining feature that helps us to discover or select the correct theory of quantum gravity. In her plenary talk at GR21; Beverly Berger implored the people working in Quantum gravity to work together, and to seek common threads to explore from the work of people down the hall or at another institution, that could help the common effort. Lee Smolin stood up during the Quantum gravity talks to echo what Beverly had said, saying that the common needs and common language of their endeavor should give people working in loops or CDT to compare notes with string theory people and so on. I would suggest that a similar ethic be exercised here at Wikipedia, where every attempt at equanimity is made and the focus is kept on the common ground. So I think this Wiki article needs to include a discussion of microscale or spacetime fractality as well as large scale structure, in order to be coherent with the current state of mainstream Physics. But I admit that the basic premise of emergent spacetime is kind of radical. It was amazing how the attendance swelled to overflowing when Juan Maldacena presented his theory of emergent spacetime via entangled black holes, and went back to a smaller number thereafter, but people who were there for the entire session got to hear more proposals along similar lines. Those people also got to hear the word fractal a few more times. I stopped counting after a while. Regards, Jonathan |
USS Nimitz UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
THERE ARE NO EXPLANATIONS and we can't let Wikipedia include text that says that the explanations are likely to be mundane.
Can someone else figure out what to do here?
jps ( talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:Source 14 was from Skeptical Inquirer from the source. Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and “Investigative Files” Columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. The other source did not say,the sightings likely have mundane explanations such as equipment malfunction or human error
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 23:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Fringe articles that could use some work. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Judith Curry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article is becoming fringier and fringier. Now it reads as if all climatologists except Curry are incompetent. They do not know what they are doing, they are caught in groupthink, they do not know the very basics (handling uncertainty is one of the things you have to learn when you are a student), all their "models are wrong". As opposed to the "skeptics", who "bring up valid points" which are not named, and who are called "skeptics" in Wikipedia's voice. And her position has been "much criticised by some scientists", with a little of a lot of much some weaseling, plus a bland "neo-somethingism" label, but without any details.
Also, the discussion has a "poisonous nature", and therefore Curry thinks that scientist should "be more accommodating of" those who poisoned it with their lies and misrepresentations. Law of similars anyone? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
((od)) For those who don't know Curry's views in detail, after 2009 she became a "contrarian [scientist] who is frequently invited by Republicans to testify before US Congress", [30] "as she will reliably state that the uncertainties in climate science are much larger than her fellow scientists will acknowledge, although she doesn't identify any sources of uncertainty that aren't already factored in." [31] . . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Wdford and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, you must also comply with
WP:WEIGHT policy:
In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.
Curry's views need that context, yet even sources used in the article are misrepresented to exclude critical majority views, and tucked away at the foot of a section in contravention of
WP:STRUCTURE policy. . .
dave souza,
talk 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
At Planet of the Humans, Kire1975 ( talk · contribs) has decided that climate change experts are part of an "industry" and therefore have a "conflict of interest" in criticizing the film. It seems he's unclear on the notions generally, given his posting at the COI noticeboard.
Someone may wish to go over to Talk:Planet of the Humans and check. -- Calton | Talk 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a notice of a discussion started at WT:PSYCHOLOGY § Bicameralism (psychology) that may also concern this noticeboard and WP:SKEPTIC. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Kind of your classic under-sourced alt-med articles, in this case, Ayurveda. 86.167.240.48 ( talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
About a fringe inventor who claimed to produce electricity with no energy input. No sources. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Postmodernism ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Some editors experienced with highbrow science denial should take a look at the Overview section of this article, especially with the very recent editing in it, and maybe keep an eye on it. It has significantly changed how postmodernism is defined and removed or replaced several sources. Whether the changes are more or less neutral and accurate, or a mixed bag, is not clear to me. Crossroads -talk- 04:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Postmodern scientists are concerned with socially-constructed fact rather than metaphysical truth claims.I think I can tell what this is trying to say, but not because it is doing a good job of saying it.
Conservatives Michael Oakeshott and Leo Strauss considered postmodernism to be an abandonment of the rationalist project which many conservatives consider the most important cultural product of humans.I don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean there — that's lifting a description from American politics and presuming that it is meaningful in a broader context. Who are these "many conservatives"? What is this "rationalist project" — can the entirety of intellectual effort since Newton or Bacon or Copernicus or whoever be called a single "project", regardless of the ideological divisions within it? Is it just Oakeshott and Strauss deciding that it's all one "project" and declaring that their friends consider it important? Peculiarly, the only people whose politics are identified are these "conservatives"; there is no mention of Sokal being an " unabashed Old Leftist", or that he saw himself following in the footsteps of Levitt, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Overall, this looks like an attempt to paint "conservatives" as the ones having good sense, but the writing is so unclear that the POV-pushing is an inept faceplant.
Others have claimed that persons who are knowledgeable about postmodernism have difficulty distinguishing nonsensical postmodernist artifacts from those that are nominally genuine.This sounds like an attempt to be clever ("artifacts", "nominally"), but it's ultimately just opaque. Moreover, it makes a poor summary for what Sokal and Bricmont's book was actually about. Sokal himself said,
From the mere fact of publication of my parody I think that not much can be deduced. It doesn't prove that the whole field of cultural studies, or cultural studies of science -- much less sociology of science -- is nonsense. Nor does it prove that the intellectual standards in these fields are generally lax. (This might be the case, but it would have to be established on other grounds.) It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty, by publishing an article on quantum physics that they admit they could not understand, without bothering to get an opinion from anyone knowledgeable in quantum physics[35]. He's been quite insistent on this over the years; for example, in 2019, someone wrote an article saying that Sokal concluded "cultural studies as a field lacked rigour and quality control", and Sokal demanded a correction:
In fact, I don't know anywhere in my writings where you could find a quotation asserting what you have written, because it is not at all my view. Indeed, I have many times explicitly written the exact opposite!So, in addition to being unclear, the "Overview" in Postmodernism is also unfortunately superficial. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can't tell what it's trying to say and I'm partial to postmodernism as well as being a scientist. I went to see if I had the book in my library's e-reserve and we did. The book does not say this or anything close to this. Nevertheless, we are required to keep this nonsense sentence in the article, apparently. [36]. jps ( talk) 02:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Postmodern scientists are concerned with socially-constructed fact rather than metaphysical truth claims.I think I can tell what this is trying to say, but not because it is doing a good job of saying it.
this looks like an attempt to paint "conservatives" as the ones having good senseIt's the other way around: As Sokal, Levitt and others repeatedly pointed out, postmodernists attempt to paint the ones having good sense as "conservatives". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Breaching experiments really shouldn't be done like this from an ethical standpoint. We don't actually know whether Sokal was abusing the good faith of the editors who were just excited to get a physicist submitting to their journal or whether they were really taken in by his blather. Regardless, it says more about the relationship within academia than really anything about postmodernism as a critique or movement. The whole thing is pretty old by now too, we've basically all moved on. Science and technology studies is an extremely valuable academic approach to questions related to how science works functionally. They explicitly make no attempts to evaluate the actual empirical or theoretical claims being developed in the scientific community. I think there were lazy theorists who may have gotten some attention from about the 1970s to 1990s who did, but such approaches are essentially marginalized in that field. Anyway.... jps ( talk) 12:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Blond ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wiki users like Queenplz, Hapa9100 and myself want to remove what is blantant FRINGE THEORIES edits in the blond article page, we have expressed our opinion on talk page aswell. A user named Hunan201p edited many controversial ethnic groups and mythical historical figures as blond. The most controversial is the inclusion of Huangdi, the mainstream concensus is that he is considered as a mythical figure by the vast majority of scholars and historian, but Hunan201p edited him like he was a real life person. The same goes for claiming Bodonchar Munkhag being blond which also has no mainstream concesus view, the blond hair claims of Bodonchar Mukhag was actually based on the mythical legends of Alan Gua. Is it correct to remove those figures that were never confirmed to be blond ? Please let me know. Shinoshijak ( talk)
Comment I agree; determining what hair colour the Yellow Emperor had is like trying to find out Romulus's shoe size. In any case, "Indo-Europeans" are speakers of vast language family not a synonym for "blond people". GPinkerton ( talk) 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment I agree as well; for me it reeks of an incorrect accuracy with an agenda; to suggest Huangdi was a blond haired man when none of the Chinese historical records and text had ever recorded it, is pretty disingenuous indeed. Considering the fact that Indo-European; the biggest Indo-European populations in the world are India, Pakistan and Iran, 90+% of which have black hair, proves my point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:55c0:c680:8077:bdda:e5e5:6e12 ( talk) 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: No valid reason has been presented for removing the statements describing Huangdi as blond to the article, which are backed by high-quality references, and were defended by admins at the Yellow Emperor article. Multiple gods and goddesses, such as Sif and Jarl are already mentioned at blond. The statements in the article do not link blond hair to modern Indo European speakers, but rather to Huangdi to ancient Indo-Europeans (such as Andronovo and Sintashta, advocated by philologists such as Christopher Beckwith and Victor Mair as an ancestral source of the Indo Europeans in ancient north China. Several fossils from archaeological digs like Sintashta had blond hair.
Also, Shinishijak has not provided a single reference to support his claim that the "majority of historians do not consider Huangdi as blond", and I guarantee you he can never provide such a reference. On the other hand, multiple scholars support the theory, and it is highly regarded by independent scholars. [3] - Hunan201p ( talk) 01:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Comment: I also agree with the removal of Huangdi being blong and Indo-European. There is every valid reason to remove it. Indeed this theory has no consensus from scholars, so little is not even worth debated on. It has never grabbed the attention of mainstream scholars and historian, because it's based on pseudo-science and FRINGE theory of a tiny minoriy few.
Christopher Beckwith makes no mention of Huangdi being related with Indo-Europeans. Victor Mair only uses Taiwanese Tsung-tung Chang to try to indo-Europeanize, " it says the paper by Tsung - tung Chang ( 1988 ) , used by Victor Mair as authority for Indo - Europeanizing interpretations" . There's not a single piece of evidence that Huangdi ever existed, one sinonologist attempting to connect Huangdi with Indo-European, just shows how weak this theory is. Andronovo existed only in 2000–900 BC in western Siberia and the central Eurasian Steppe. The Sintashta culture stretches from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, dated to the period 2200–1800 BCE, obviously unrelated and had no presense in historical Chinese territories. Huangi existed in 2600-2700BC which predated any existence of Chinese civilization, predated the existence of those indo-european culture long before it even expanded to Asia.
I've helped Hapa9100 with his references There's a obviously a huge general concesus that Huangdi is a mythical god and not a real person.
There is no concesus that Huangdi is blond or even Indo-European and that. If there was than Hunan201p would have shown a significant number supporting this obviously Fringe theories of Huangdi Queenplz ( talk) 21:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
comment I also agree...absolutely agree with the removal of Huangdi from blond (including yellow emperor) wikipedian front pages. It reeks of so much eurocentric bias, it's really no different to psesudoscience afroncentrism theories of Black athena, black egyptians which is at least far more credible, because at least it had been debated by mainstream scholars and historians but even they get removed in wikipedia. Why does Hunan201p thik it's okay to claim Huangdi being blond and indo-european when is not even worth debating in the mainstream circle. Every evidence points him as a mythical figure, a god. There was no record of his existence of his reign for 2600-2700 years. His first mention was in the warring states around (375 BC) while his mythical reign date back in 2500-2600 BC. Hapa9100 ( talk) 01:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: External link in |title=
(
help), 0-7914-5270-0.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-name-separator=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another edit war about whether or not the last line from an article written in Space.com should be attributed to Space.com. I question whether it should be in the lede at all.
jps ( talk) 13:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::I became mostly involved. When
Gtoffoletto put sources on the ufology page, they said somebody's edit, did not match with the source so I checked and they were right. For Bob Lazars page
Live Science is used and they also use the same article, that is written by space.com. we never quoted the credentials of that person who's saying Bob Lazar is lying? I know he is a conspiracy theorist and never went to the school he said he did.
https://www.livescience.com/ufos-videos-declassified-navy-release.html
https://www.livescience.com/23514-area-51.html
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 15:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Using a random story on
Live Science (which is where
Space.com recycled it from) as the punchline of the lede gives it
undue weight, I think. The claim is taken almost verbatim from the last sentence of
the story, There is as yet no explanation or identification — official or not — for the mysterious aircraft that the pilots recorded.
First of all, the line in
the current version of our article (there is currently no explanation or identification for the incidents, official or not
) is a copyvio, and that's bad. Second,
Live Science is of dubious reliability, and even if they are generally OK, we have no grounds to treat them as definitive here. Third, the claim is factually wrong. Perhaps nobody "official" has offered an explanation, but plenty of subject-matter experts have proposed them. There are mundane explanations —
IR overexposure, etc. — though in the absence of more data, there's only so much one can say.
XOR'easter (
talk) 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
"The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._________was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.__________ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.__________ “the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below,” estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement. As LT.__________ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT.__________ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."
:The Page not available it did not come up.
Driverofknowledge (
talk) 22:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Piers Robinson ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Talks nonsense, gets called a conspiracy theorist, threatens to sue Wikipedia, gets banned. So far, so good. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Piers_Robinson
But the result is: Wikipedia spreads his disinformation for him. His article contains his disinformation and no refutation, although it does have a See also link leading to an article that refutes it. I think that is not how it is done. Opinions? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Also closely associated with Beeley is academic Piers Robinson and former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford. Ford, who routinely appears on British media defending the Assad regime line on Syria, should be more accurately referred to as director of the pro-Assad lobby group, the British Syrian Society, founded by Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law Fawaz Akhras." from New Statesman. Not to mention the numerous HuffPost articles over the years..
Larry Vardiman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nominated for deletion by yours truly.
jps ( talk) 22:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if this is going to end up being cited in articles but FWIW the Times has posted a story on all the people who have suddenly discovered during lockdown that their domicile is haunted. [42] And if that's not enough there are more than 200 comments, mostly from people relating their own stories. At least they posted a one sentence disclaimer... "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts..." immediately watered down with "a fact that has little bearing on our collective enthusiasm for them." That said, some of the stories in the article and the comments are amusing. Enjoy. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Arthur Laffer advises the Trump administration on the reopening of the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. He has suggested that the coronavirus death toll was inflated, claiming that doctors attributed deaths to the coronavirus regardless of whether the coronavirus caused the death: "When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death." Are we allowed to state in Wiki-voice that the claim that doctors are claiming car crash victims as COVID-19 victims is "false"? The cited source [48] cites a doctor who says that Laffer's claim is BS. An editor on the Laffer page is however arguing that we cant say it's a false claim. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I see "archaeologist" but actually see pseudoscience related topics in listed publications. More eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 07:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The usual RfCs asking for the usual changes for the usual effect of pretending that Sheldrake engages in legitimate scholarship. Guy ( help!) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor (@ TheBlueCanoe:) is removing mention of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun from the lead of the Falun Gong article, as well as the phrase new religious movement.
Readers will notice that the article mostly reads as a fantasy-world puff peace promoting the organization as a peaceful, apolitical, ancient religious group—the reality is far different, as source after source outlines, with the group, via its media extension, spending tremendous amounts of money on promoting, for example, Donald Trump and extreme-right wing politics in Germany, alongside promoting conspiracy theories about Covid-19 and vaccinations. Deep fringe stuff. And while the Falun Gong would certainly approve, these extensions of the new religious movement are by far the most visible aspects of the new religious movement and a key means of drawing support and funds into the organization (cf. [49], [50], [51])
The whole article could use a thorough review and far more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
a performing arts company that promotes anti-evolution and anti- LGBTQ messaging, and certainly doesn't merit labeling as such in a mere passing mention. This looks something more suited to the NPOV noticeboard. fiveby( zero) 22:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Bloodofox has been taken to WP:AE mainly for editing this area. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
After adding a dozen academic sources on the article, it appears that adherents are crawling out of the woodwork to revert the article to a Falun Gong-approved version. We now have a pro-Epoch Times (ahem) editor reverting many academic soures I've added to the article that discuss that the Falun Gong is a new religous movement ( [53] — @ Clara Branch:). The editor claims we must first request permission to add these sources after another Falun Gong-talking-point-promoting editor hit the 3RR after attempting to scrub the article of any discussion of the phrase "new religious movement", as discussed above (what a coincidence, right?). There are red names all over this and related articles, including on The Epoch Times talk page —these articles really need more eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ancient city walls around the City of David could do with some eyes with more access to relevant sources than me. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly vile. The article I mean. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that it's now a redirect. No material seemed to be merged so I checked the sources. Only two seemed to be independent enough, yet they were only about the Bermuda Triangle, without more information on Sanderson's claims. One had him in their citations list but I couldn't find where and searching for "vile vortex" or "triacontahedron" in that book failed. I concluded that nothing may be worth merging, afterall, at least with the sources the subarticle currently used... — Paleo Neonate – 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Judy Mikovits ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is likely to become a hotspot very soon. Might benefit from some editors here watching it. So far, looks like the problems are pretty much under control, but we know how quickly that can change.
jps (
talk) 14:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Plandemic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A new article. I'm sure you're all thrilled that this exists.
jps ( talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Recently a well-meaning editor (@ Timtempleton:) added this material about the concept of the "vile vortex" on the Ivan T. Sanderson article. Sanderson is best known as a founding figure of the cryptozoology subculture and pseudoscience, but also wrote about other topics. Does anyone know of any WP:RS-compliant discussion about this that we could add to the article? I'm not seeing, say, any summaries about what this is all about from academic source so far, but it seems to involve pseudoscientific stuff in connection with, say, notions about ley lines and related topics. I went ahead and just removed the material ( [54]) as the references appear to be straightforward WP:RS, WP:PROFRINGE fails (cf. this publisher), but if we have some appropriate sources discussing it in context, we should add a section about it. (Pinging @ Psychologist Guy:, who brought this to my attention). :bloodofox: ( talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The number of articles with the string "Adventures Unlimited Press" is so far down to 100 from 123. Someone else had removed a few of them as well. Some articles, of course, will always mention them, like David Hatcher Childress and List of group-0 ISBN publisher codes. Most references to them have been pretty trivial and easy to remove, but along the way, I've found a few articles that seemed like they should have wider attention at FTN:
Bloodofox - pinging you so you definitely see this (especially the Bigfoot one). Crossroads -talk- 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The Deniers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) For seven years, this soapbox of an article has been tagged as unbalanced and I agree. Does it pass WP:BK?
What I see is basically a lot of pushing by the denialist press when the book came out and essentially only passing notice by the WP:MAINSTREAM. Since then the book has not aged well. I don't see any lasting value in this article.
Redirect to the author? Stubbify with WP:TNT? What to do?
jps ( talk) 14:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Along the same lines, can people find some better sources for Lawrence Solomon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I noticed many(!) of the sources for his actual biographical material were primary sources. jps ( talk) 14:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Chronic fatigue syndrome ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new editor (actually registered in 2014 I think but has <1000 edits and made almost no edits in the last couple of years) has been working on a total rewrite of the CFS article from the "myalgic encephalomyelitis" POV. This has looked like activist editing fomr the outset but yesterday he posted a loooooooong screed that makes it plain that yes, he is here to WP:RGW. Given the WP:OWNership of the content, his status as a WP:SPA, and his citing of activist groups like Action For ME as authorities, I suspect a topic ban may be necessary, but regardless, this is one persistent CPUSH and needs more eyes. Guy ( help!) 10:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Grover Furr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not a historian, pretends to be one, but is a "revisionist", not a pseudohistorian. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Historical negationism, also called denialism, is a distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also applies to legitimate academic reinterpretations of the historical record that diverge from previously accepted views.signed, Rosguill talk 03:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The “Holodomor” is a myth. Never happened.But if you don't want to believe Furr's own statements of his own views, there you go - David Gerard ( talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Goharrison ( talk · contribs) has made 2 edits, increasingly NPOV (see [57]). I've reverted the first. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Abhigya Anand ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch knew it all last year, say sources from this year. I guess this sort of thing happens a lot now. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sigh... And here I had hoped earlier this year that we weren't going to need to discuss whether we need a WP:PRODIGY guideline. Should we start an RfC about those draft rules? I think they may have helped in this scenario. WP:SENSATION seems at work here as well. jps ( talk) 20:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)