This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Judith Curry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh gee. Guess where I've seen this argument before?
Can someone else clarify whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change?
jps ( talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I also find consensus in this discussion to redirect, while noting that skepticism ≠ denial per the opposing comments. [2] PackMecEng ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The specific question was to distinguish between on the one hand
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular. [1]
References
And that was just her first taste of the rough-and-tumble climate debate. A few years later, an apparent hacker released a lot of private email conversations among climate scientists involved with the United Nations climate assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics.
and
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change skeptics in particular. [1]
References
And that was just her first taste of the rough-and-tumble climate debate. A few years later, an apparent hacker released a lot of private email conversations among climate scientists involved with the United Nations climate assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics.
with me preferring the follow the source more closely and jps arguing to change the wording from that in the source. But this has now apparently been resolved by using different words and sources so the question seems moot. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
A reasonable approach for the example at the top of this section would be to go with what the AP style guide says to do: "To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers."
source Obviously still pipe the link to
Climate change denial.
Before | After |
---|---|
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular. | Curry is known both for her general emphasis on scientific outreach and for her willingness to communicate with people who reject climate science. |
~ Awilley ( talk) 03:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Note: edited to remove the word "mainstream" from "mainstream climate science" for brevity ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Label | Description |
---|---|
"So-and-so is a Flat Earther" | "So-and-so promotes flat earth conspiracy theories" |
"So-and-so was put on administrative leave because he was a Holocaust denier | So-and-so was put on administrative leave for teaching Holocaust denial. |
The image and personal commentary aren't helpful here. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
]]
|
I see so instead of Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers
you would go with Deniers are not always skeptics and skeptics are not always deniers
?
PackMecEng (
talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not care about HIM!, SHE! or THEY! If you do take it their talk page.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, Think of the bell curve. Virtually all current scientists with relevant expertise lie within the 95% confidence interval. Reviews of recently published papers have found, essentially, nothing currently being publsihed in the professional literature that falls outside a pretty tight range of agreement. Those predicting the lowest values withint hat group are nto skeptics and do not describe themselves as such; those who predict near the top are not alarmists, Those who describe themselves as skeptics are - with, as far as I can tell, no well-known exceptions - (a) not professionals in the field; (b) not publishing in the professional literature, or (c) funded by the fossil fuel lobby (or in some cases more than one of these).
I have yet to see a case of anyone who has gone into the science with an open mind and decided the predictions are wrong (which is what skepticism means). Virtually all of them have philosophical or financial reasons for not wanting the science to be true, and have worked from there. Guy ( help!) 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng I'm sorry, by what standard are you making these demarcations? A citation would be nice. jps ( talk) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That you continue to double down on your propagandistic WP:ADVOCACY is appalling. We have showed you sources. We have pointed out the specific problems with your rhetoric. And still you seem to think that there is some sort of demarcation between climate change skeptics and climate change deniers based on, what exactly? I assume it is your own fantasies at this point. jps ( talk) 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You've already been shown to be wrong, so we're done here. If you continue to push this view in article space, I will ask for a topic ban at WP:AE. jps ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng: The community consensus that matters here is a clear community consensus that the term climate change denial is preferred over climate change skepticism. There is evidence of that consensus both here and in the redirect discussion for climate change skepticism → climate change denial. Of course the words denial and skepticism don't mean the same thing. They're different words. And although the full terms also technically have different meanings, the term skeptic is usually misapplied as many have pointed out. A majority of the people who call themselves "climate change skeptics" are misusing the word because climate change skepticism implies scientific skepticism and that is not what is going on. The Venn diagram to the right allows for a sliver of people who are genuinely skeptical but who aren't engaging in denial. Or maybe it's not a sliver...maybe the true "climate change skeptics" are the "climate change scientists" because a good scientist is always skeptical. That this reversal works further illustrates why the term climate change skepticism should be avoided. I can sympathize with your distaste for what might feel like a rabid push to brand anybody who has ever expressed any doubt about any aspect of climate change as a "denier", but I don't think continuing this discussion the way you are is helpful.
@ ජපස: In fairness I should point out that it is a flawed argument that the existence of the climate change skepticism → climate change denial redirect proves that the terms mean the same thing. There are a plethora of counterexamples for that... Arsenic mining is clearly not the same thing as Arsenic the element, yet the redirect Arsenic mining → Arsenic exists. ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
In December 2014, an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration"—and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. They said "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.The bolded part directly supports the Venn diagram. (Although admittedly the diagram would be more accurate if the circles were closer to the same size to reflect the "virtually all" bit.) ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If someone can point to one example of someone who is in that sliver, I would be fine with this. In spite of the the claims of the right wing, there are plenty of skeptical disagreements within the climate change literature. The arguments happen all the time. They are not outside the bounds of our article on scientific consensus on climate change, crucially, and because of the politicization of the term, not a one of those scientists would call themselves "climate change skeptics". Like it or lump it, the denial machine has simply engulfed this term and co-opted it to the point that it is a poison pill. You can wail and gnash teeth as much as you want about this, but that's the situation. We aren't here to right great wrongs. Go to Conservapedia if that's what you want to do. jps ( talk) 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Granted that's just one source, but it's reliable. – Levivich dubious – discuss 20:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Several papers with reliable methodology unchallenged in the literature show an enormous majority of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible.
But contrary positions are not unknown. Some questions regarding the credibility of some aspects of climate models, for example, exist for some working academics.
While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive.
Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.
* * *
In summary, three categories of climate science disbelief are: sceptic, agnostic and denier. Three subdivisions of deniers are: naive, conspiracists and opportunists.
I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming.[6]. David Brin:
Not every person who expresses doubt or criticism toward some part of this complex issue is openly wedded to the shrill anti-intellectualism of Fox News ... What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" — who has honest questions about the AGW consensus — from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators? After extensive discussions with many AGW doubters, I believe I have found a set of distinct characteristics that separate the two groups.[7]
.'“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”"
Let me try to be as clear as possible: It does not matter what I think is legitimate or illegitimate. The problem is that there aren't people who question the scientific consensus on climate change who reliable sources don't put in the category of global warming denial. Crucially, in spite of what it may feel like when we state the simple fact about the world as it is, I am not making any value judgement about the situation by stating this. The fact that, to a person, those who object to the consensus are all part of the climate change denial apparatus is just what we've got. jps ( talk) 02:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Our own article on Judith Curry shows it and we have plenty of sources which identify climate denial machine. I think we're fine here. jps ( talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
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 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion is continuing at
[9]
Should this have a DS alert on its talk page? There's also a cn tag. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sophia Mirza was the first of a tiny number of people in the UK to have CFS listed as a cause of death. The article was largely written from affiliated and activist sources; when those are removed there are only a couple of RS left. The text claimed that she was acutely sensitive to electromagnetic radiation and chemicals (massive red flags) and that relatives believed her mother was contributing to her condition - although this is claimed as final clinching proof that "ME" is a physical illness, this one case looks overwhelmingly psychological, but I can't find any dispassionate analysis that reviews the story in its entirety, only the couple of news items around the inquest finding.
Which leads me to ponder: is this actually a notable case? Guy ( help!) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Article. [13] I enter information from book "Neighbors at War: Anthropological Perspectives on Yugoslav Ethnicity" from 2008 editet by Joel M. Halpern, David A. Kideckel and published by Pennsylvania State University Press. The editors wanted someone neutral on the issue and selected two American scholar which are Elinor Despalatovic [1] and Andrei Simić. [2] My edit is information from this source I quote: "According to the latest demographic studies and Elinor Despalatovic number of Serbs killed in the NDH is about 100,000 while according to Andrei Simić number is between 800,000 and one milion."
"Between 1941 and 1945, the regime murdered no fewer than 310,000 ethnic Serbs, up to 26,000 Jews, and up to 20,000 Roma in mass atrocities and camps", (p. 46)
"the civil war caused by the Ustaša’s brutal persecution of political opponents and ethnic minorities— predominantly Serbs— that claimed the lives of some 500,000 people", (p. 47) and
"The Croatian authorities also committed mass murder in concentration camps, including the Jasenovac camp complex, where at least 70,0000 victims perished. Estimates of the total number of Serbian victims range widely from 25,000 to 1,000,000, but most experts now place it in the low to mid-300,000s."(ibid.) Figures that are very much higher than these numbers, or any lower, should probably be treated with suspicion. The rationale is explained thus in a footnote:
"These numbers are at the low end of most current estimates of the victims of the Ustaša genocide. They are based on Korb, Im Schatten des Weltkriegs, pp. 432–433. Tomasevich provides extensive analysis and explanation of the wide range of “Alleged and True Population Losses” reflected in scholarship, media, and popular perception since the end of the war. Official Yugoslav estimates for Jasenovac victims, mostly Serbs, ranged from 600,000 to 700,000. Private Serbian estimates often exceeded one million Serbian casualties. Some of these numbers are based on estimates generated during the war; for example, those issued by Tito, who reported on April 4, 1942, that the Ustaša had already killed some 500,000 people, mostly Serbs. At the end of the war, Tito reported to the InterAllied Reparations Agency in Paris a total of 1,706,000 casualties, including Serbs and all other victim categories. In the postwar period, both scholars and Yugoslav officials gave a figure of 700,000 people murdered at Jasenovac. Tomasevich ultimately sides with low-range estimates calculated by Bogoljub Kočović and published in his Žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji (London: Naše delo, 1985), pp. 172–180. According to Kočović and Tomasevich, the losses of population in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 include 209,000 Serbs for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and 125,000 Serbs and Montenegrins for the territory of Croatia. See Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, pp. 718–750."(pp. 51-52)
Can you provide the quote where MacDonald supports this edit, as I cannot find it? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The Balkanization of Wikipedia... —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
As we now seem to be talking about something other that either the article or the edit the OP posted about can we close this, they have had their answer. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations: We have several such lists (and BTW, we have heaps and heaps of categories below Category:Reportedly haunted locations by country), and it has been proposed to change the "reportedly haunted locations" into "haunted places" in the list article names. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It's nonsense, but is it historically significant nonsense? XOR'easter ( talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
While searching for sources after some recent activity at Rolfing, I ran into the related topic of Postural Integration and find we have an article on it (which has been tagged with {{fringe theories}} for six years!). This gets a brief mention at Quackwatch, which I've added, but otherwise RS seems hard to find. The present article is very in-universe. Anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Omigod. I did not know this was a thing. It seems to have esacaped our notice:
This WP:Walled garden needs weeding, folks!
jps ( talk) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
A user has made a denialists category, then added subcats for countries, then noticed that this may be contentious: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Climate change denialists
Opinions about that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
As expected, the new categories have been deleted, with the consequence that Category:Climate change denial has been depleted. I have reinstated the category to a few articles where it clearly belongs and made a list of the remaining now-not-categorized-in-it-any-more articles in Category talk:Climate change denial. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron ( talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Legit or not? I found a draft packed with predatory journals that listed the subject as a Fellow. Guy ( help!) 11:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Still needs attention. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Burt Rutan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore"
Is that encyclopedic? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It takes a lot to leave me speechless. There you go. Guy ( help!) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Court sentence being used in an article on archaeology, this edit] and my edit summaries and edits to the article. The claims, now deemed fraud by a court, were for " These included what would have been the oldest non- onomastical texts in Basque, which were hailed as the first evidence of written Basque. Also, it was announced the discovery of a series of inscriptions and drawings on pottery fragments, some of which refer to Egyptian history and even some written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Finally, it was announced the finding of the earliest representation of the Calvary (crucifixion of Jesus) found anywhere to date." Doug Weller talk 14:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a RfC on the Piers Robinson page about whether he describe his promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead. [14] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Bejan Daruwalla ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Indian astrologer, died recently, of COVID-19 or something else (the IP jury is still out). I just had to delete a list of his right guesses again, but it will probably grow back. I am not sure if he is even notable - notability is not my field. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Update: the state of the article is more stable lately, — Paleo Neonate – 19:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This showed up in the new-article robot report; notability does not look well-established to me. Lots of books, but did they make any splash outside a small, fringe pond? XOR'easter ( talk) 00:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network was recently PRODed due to lack reliable sourcing and then dePRODed with a vague mention of the existence of sources. This is an alleged UFO research group that members of another UFO group, BUFORA, claim to have been contacted by; there doesn't seem to be any confirmation or significant coverage of this in reliable sources so it probably isn't even a notable hoax/fictional entity. Thought I'd mention it here before going to AfD. – dlthewave ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Bizarre article with Russian-only sources on a yet more bizarre subject. Alyoshenka is one of those aberrant human deformities that people who like that sort of thing allege are aliens (think Starchild skull). Problem is, the remains no longer exist, and may never have been "real" at all. The article is not clear what was preserved, or how old the (now-vanished) remains allegedly were. Something to be looked at by editors experienced in dealing with such (non-notable?) fringe subjects. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Still relevant today isn't it — Paleo Neonate – 07:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This user saw Bigfoot and a Mokele-mbembe cured by Magnet therapy at a Reportedly haunted location while debating Climate change denial with a UFO piloted by an Aquatic ape at the Fringe theories Noticeboard. |
Vile vortex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I redirected this last month.
Apparently, not everyone is happy with this: [18]
I reverted, but if others want to opine as to whether we have to go through the torturous AfD process, be my guest.
jps ( talk) 01:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism Needs a look, unsourced. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
To get a best sense of the problems with our article Legends of Alcatraz, go directly to the references, which include multiple citations of the Weekly World News, and then treat yourself to the astounding bibliography, which is full of such academic tomes as "Ghost Hunting: How to Investigate the Paranormal", "They Came Back: Tales of Reincarnation, Ghosts, and Life After Death", "Hell House: And Other True Hauntings from Around the World", etc. -- JBL ( talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Matt Ridley ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Ridley says that increasing CO2 will do more good than harm. Is that fringe or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas#Recent research updates. I wonder if they plan to use this Secrets of Ancient America Archaeoastronomy and the Legacy of the Phoenicians, Celts, and Other Forgotten Explorers. The publisher page on him [19] says he has published in Ancient America, a racist journal of pseudohistory. It's also published by Bear and Company, a fringe publisher. [20] The book expands " upon the work of well-known diffusionists such as Barry Fell and Gunnar Thompson". Very disappointing, just shows that not all publishers get an automatic pass. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This page needs to be improved. The lead fails to clarify that they engage in climate change denial. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Tom Van Flandern ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has unduly weighted text and poor sourcing. If someone with an interest in fringe physics from more than a decade ago would like to help clean it up, that would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Relatedly, I removed some fringe physics claims from our biographical article of Xin-She_Yang: [27] jps ( talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It was published in Nature! No. It wasn't. There was an observation that was subsequently shown to be erroneous published in Nature. Van Flandern and Yang were not published in Nature. A little help, please? This looks to me like a potential WP:SOAP issue. jps ( talk) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Jade Books in Heaven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know nothing about the Jade Books in Heaven but when I see wording like "Numinous book of the Nine Heavens of Cavernous Moisture of the Treasure Kalpa" without sufficient (any) context it may as well be fringe. Having read the article, I am none the wiser on what this stuff means, or is supposed to mean. The section ""Heaven"-related books composed of other semi-precious stones" is dubious at best. Labelled with "insufficient context" since 2015. The short-description gives the best clue, but I don't know how accurate it is. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I've never run across this one before, but regulars here might be interested to keep an eye out for some fringe ideas that got added to Hawaii (island) with these edits (since reverted), and requested at Hawaii with this edit request (since declined). – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 00:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Past discussions on Bates method:
I believe Wikipedia and Belteshazzar ( talk · contribs) would be better off if Belteshazzar were banned from the topic. I wanted to some eyes on the article and other viewpoints on Belteshazzar's behavior before going to ArbEnf.
Belteshazzar started a discussion here, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Bates_method_sources.
@ Jmc: has attempted to get Belteshazzar to discuss edits before making changes, to little or no effect.
My recent attempts to work with Belteshazzar ( User_talk:Belteshazzar#May_2020, User_talk:Belteshazzar#Edit-warring, and the current article talk page) have left me with the conclusion that Belteshazzar is unable to work cooperatively with others on this subject. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@
JzG: previously commentd
[28]Belteshazzar, the primary issue is your tendentious editing at the Bates Method article. I am minded to topic-ban or partial block here. What do others think?
--
Hipal/Ronz (
talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
My biggest shortcoming involved the article's first sentence. "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight" seemed not to quite reflect decent sources which indicate that such training does sometimes result in measurable improvement, albeit which is usually temporary and not due to any change in refraction. For example, [29] by Elwin Marg, and [30] from The College of Optometrists. I tried several different alternatives, first changing "ineffective" and then qualifying it somewhat. I now see that I went on too long with that, and the opening sentence is not likely to change.
Other than that, I think my contributions to the article have been positive. I have fixed some disjointedness, and removed redundancy and excess verbiage. I think the section on "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" has now been trimmed too thin and neglects the biggest reasons for claimed improvements, but if consensus disagrees, that is that.
The most recent issue concerns the proponents listed in the Infobox. If an author or practitioner has strongly supported the Bates method and is notable enough to have a biographical article in Wikipedia, that person would seem to belong on any list of proponents. I tried to discuss this, and got no clear explanation for the removal. My last edit was probably too quick, but at least provided an explanation in the edit summary after my previous lack of an edit summary was noted. Belteshazzar ( talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Jmc:, @ Alexbrn:, @ Hob Gadling:, @ ApLundell:
I am concerned about Belteshazzar's recent edits which I do not believe are good-faith based. This user originally joined Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method, he didn't get his way and now he has does a 360 degree turn and is doing the complete opposite. But I believe this is a form of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT.
We all agree the Bates method is discredited but adding "which Huxley wrongly claimed improved his eyesight" is bizarre [31], [32]. He is now also calling Corbett a "charlatan" which is not sourced [33]. He is now doing that on multiple articles [34], [35]. This is problematic editing which some may consider vandalism.
This user is now adding Huxley's non-fiction book The Art of Seeing to Fiction lists [36] [37]. I do not believe these are good faith edits.
If someone wants to take this to the correct avenue I would support a topic ban for this user. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This user originally joined Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method. I was never trying to promote the Bates method. I recently asked an optometrist for help, which I obviously wouldn't do if I were trying to promote it. Belteshazzar ( talk) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the Victor Davis Hanson page about how to characterize Hanson's theory that the coronavirus spread to the US in the fall of 2019. Should it be described as "he pushed an unsubstantiated theory" or "he suggested a hypothesis... The hypothesis was widely shared but shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis"? RS content about Hanson's theory:
Hanson is not a scientist and has no medical expertise. The theory he proposed was baseless per all experts. In my view, the wording "he suggested a hypothesis... [later] shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis" gives readers the misleading impression that he's a scientist, that he had well-founded reasons for his theory and that the scientific community subjected his hypothesis to a test and only then found it to be false. "Pushed an unsubstantiated theory" gets to the gist of it (there was no scientific basis for the theory) and does not misleadingly suggest to readers he was involved in a scientific exchange of ideas. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hanson suggested that what doctors were calling an "early flu season" could have been an early spread of the disease. In the absence of testing, many Californians could have had COVID-19 misdiagnosed as "flu" and developed antibody resistance. If so, herd immunity in California might be a reason for the state's lower case numbers." While ultimately saying the theory is was proven wrong they don't suggest it was some totally bogus idea while saying that those who had access to blood test data could say it was wrong based on their evidence. As Eggishorn noted we need to separate where this went from the how big it was (and what was known to him or those he might have talked with) when Hanson suggested it. This returns to the question of DUE in Hanson's BLP article. Springee ( talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The question at issue for this board is whether Hanson is promoting a fringe theory. It's a marginal situation. Here is his defense against the Slate story: [40]. If I am to be charitable in my interpretation of his writing, he is not adverse to claiming that his appreciation for the idea that there was community transmission of the virus in Fall of 2019 could possibly be misplaced. He more than once points out that he is not a scientist. On the other hand, he also takes the "someone has to stand up to these experts" approach that seems all too common in armchair arguments of this sort. Hanson is convinced that because there are political aspects to these questions that he is perfectly justified in arguing that the "science is still not settled" (at least as of April). This is a common conservative ploy in the US because science has become politicized. Hanson is not an anti-intellectual in the style of the creationists, but he is one in the style of global warming deniers. In fact, Hanson is in that camp as well: [41]. For all that, I don't think it is fair to say that Hanson is pushing the theory/speculation/conceit/hypothesis/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it. What I think he is doing is arguing for entertaining certain extravagant and frankly debunked ideas that others would not entertain precisely because he is skeptical of scientific claims themselves. This is rather different than a pseudoscientist who makes up his or her own ideas and then argues that they are scientific. This is actually closer to a type of conspiracy theory. But how does Wikipedia talk about this? I think it mentions the press coverage (if it is deemed relevant) and perhaps links to relevant articles about the politicization of science and leave the deeper analyses to other venues. jps ( talk) 01:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the question of whether his particular choice in rhetoric was an instigating moment for an ongoing set of ideas about early transmission... a set of ideas which probably didn't deserve serious consideration even in April. The speculation for why he was out on a limb is something against which he obviously took umbrage. I think it is somewhat crucial to note that we're not talking about policy here unless you are claiming he is engaging in motivated reasoning similar to what the article in Slate argued. Instead, we are talking about entertaining "theories" (a word he uncomfortably misuses in the above piece) that argue about empirical reality. Either there was transmission in California in Fall 2019 or there wasn't, e.g. jps ( talk) 04:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Fringe author. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
We could use some extra eyes on this article, Subhash Kak, specifically this new user and this WP:PA connected to it. He iro 02:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
BLP of a Norwegian parapsychologist philosopher and author of a book. Notable? Article created and curated by a single WP:SPA. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Note the creator of the article has now admitted a COI. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I have AFD'd it, but given the massive COI wonder if CSD might be better. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments invited. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The user @ Smeagol 17: undid my edit my edit in Putinism ideology section. He stated: "Did you read the obscurantism article? Also, тщ citation for the diagram." All the sources about obscurandism being a direct translation of the Russian word Russian: мракобесие, romanized: mrakovesiye had been provided both in the edit and chart sources. Tintin-tintine ( talk) 15:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Putin was described as both Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. My edits just about him following the ideological footsteps of Nicholas II, cleary and explicitly obscurantic. Russia is a high-context culture, unlike the majority of the English-speaking world. I, mean, even if I prove with mathematical clarity the fact Putin really is an obscurantist, and that's why he's Nazi admirer, using Pareto effect 80/20, for example, where the most productive members of society will decrease their productivity because of the new Constitution, it won't mean anything. Putin fakes/cosplays Nicholas II until he makes it (with the new Constitution, uniting all the three powers in his hands). There's nothing judgemental about it because, in the Russian context, obscurantist ideology is just a traditional value.
As a matter of "good news" (I'm not referencing to the Gospel), he English-speaking world can finally relax, as Russia will never recover from the (comparative) shame of the official state Obscurantism in Constitution: Hitler's (and West's) dreams come true, and Russians have voted to be forever slaves (of God and Putin, as God's #1 servant soot to be sainted). Putin has inherited from the USSR a developed Kabalevsky philosophy, effective brain-inspiring classical music education in general schools, and additional 7-year education in music schools, all of that well-prepared and effective in creating competitive human beings with high morality and loyalty towards the state. As Richard Wagner said, "I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven". But now, Putin wanted to glorify himself as a saint, and with future students learning St. Putin during "Law of God" lessons. When you have something that's working and something that just sounds flattering (the word "PRAVoSLAVie" - "Orthodox") is really a path of someone who is sincere in his obscurantism, no matter what the prize. No offense. There's just no better word than "obscurantism" for that ideology. Maybe you can find another word, I don't mind. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. This, maybe too emotionally, forgive me, the answer is just my, non-humanitarian, point of view. The article is WP:NEUTRAL, as it has all the sources and quotes. For sure, some people can even argue if fascism is obscurantist, if tall poppy syndrome is obscurantist (if you kill all the gays and oppress minorities, the others won't receive their "power", like in Highlander), and so on. But Putin's sure about tall-poppy method of opponents destruction as it's just his Judo's Tao. He considers it pretty fair, both in politics and sport. There's his direct quote about naming the opponents "Bandar-logs". Moreover, he's forced judo (sport) system in music schools, increasing the (his) Russian Orthodox Church's competitor's stress, while the music teacher's salary is officially beyond the living wage, and they're not just the usual teachers - they studied additionally to general school for 7 years and at least 4 years at College of Music and, many of them, 5 years at Conservatory. Putin's official cultural genocide of classical music teachers, all in the interest of the Russian Orthodox Church only. There're 3,000+ children music schools, just to inform you. And newly created National Guard of Russia 300,000 people who earn 4-times more without professional education at all, just for being friends with Putin, loving the Russian chanson and the 1994 song " Horse", and all that anti-intellectualist stuff. Now only about 22% of Russians say love classical music, it's all about the higher prestige " blatnyak" (songs of ex-prisoners), "pops" (still on Olivia Newton-John level because, unfortunately, Russia doesn't have blacks, black music, and the best musicians are classical, but the state still thinks it's for the people) and "rap" (because the state treats its citizens since the 1990s like it's the white gentlemen finally agreeing to govern those simple folk, stupid Commies).
Moreover, Putin has reverted Glinka's anthem to an obviously plagiarised " Pachelbel's Canon" harmonies, aka Aleksandrov's anthem. He didn't even understand it. Yes, the Soviet/Russian anthem is not Russian by origin, it's just a re-written German composer's Canon. Written for the wedding. With Aleksandrov using Stalin's lack of understanding of music history and music theory. It's "working", with goosebumps, because of that. Moreover, Putin has just said, "Nazism crashed the Soviet people". It's also very obscurantist phrase because of his own "state-forming nation" - German harmonies anthem, Rurik being Germanic king, Putin himself living in Germany for many years (and now forbidding foreign residency in Constitution and simultaneously nullifying his terms, as if it's about "the other humans"). In conclusion, the article indirectly states these points (as if it's from the pro-Putin point of view):
That alone makes Putin's statement about "‘We would go to heaven, they would simply die’" a lot less offensive. So, the edits should stay and increase the productivity of the English speakers, by reducing their stress from Russia. Of course, the functional literacy and choice-supportive bias are always the case, but I don't want the West to bomb Russia because Putin behaves (and now even speaks) exactly like Hitler. It's not that obvious to the Western readers as they really might think Putin is like a Satan Hitler but only more Oriental. Hitler was also pretty stupid because slave labor is less productive (because slaves are also humans and have a lot of stress which decreases productivity), and I'm sure, a lot of German intellectuals knew that in 1933. Putin is a secretly proud student of Hitler (he perceives it as learning from Hitler's and Stalin's mistakes, I assume), not the follower. Once again, my edit was fully sourced. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia rules and don't include my original research. Just to share with the Wikipedia community, I'm writing this "nonsense" here, to prove my relative sanity stating the Putin's religious obscurantism should be called 'obscurantism', not just authoritarianism. Sorry for wanting to add this detail to my edit a little bit too enthusiastically. Tintin-tintine ( talk) 18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
More eyes would be welcome on this article on a social media site popular with conspiracists and extremists. There have been some fairly persistent whitewashing attempts recently and some page watchers would be useful in keeping the article tied to reliable sources. Neutrality talk 03:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:SPA and sock edit-warring to remove mention of pseudoscience and criticism from the article. Claiming "defamation". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where else to bring this, but recently this article Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was edited to include " archaeologist" as one of his many professions (along with Spiritual Guru, Indian philosopher, yogi, social revolutionary, author, poet, composer, linguist, archaeologist, historian and scientist.) The article itself has no discussion of archaeology or his status as practicing the profession other than that mention in the lede. And then they were added to List of archaeologists at some point with a dubious cite, I'm pretty sure this person does no qualify as an archaeologist by any meaningful definition of the word, and the cite failed WP:RS. Any thoughts? This seems like a religious teacher whose faithful followers are trying to add qualifications to. He iro 05:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
My god, this is terrible. I started weeding, but there is a lot to do. Related:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of social cycle.
jps ( talk) 11:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Finally, the Ananda Marga seems to be the best in this walled garden. Maybe we should start there to get better sourcing. Whew! jps ( talk) 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm echoing another post above in that this article badly needs more involvement from individuals familiar with dealing with fringe topics. It seems not a day goes by without an attempt to scrub the article of:
In all my years of editing on Wikipedia on topics of pseudoscience and fringe, I don't think I've seen a clearer or more aggressive example of a concerted and repeated effort to scrub an article. The article swarms with accounts who aggressively strip the article of any of this data, while emphasizing and parroting the group's preferred narratives. It's not good. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion about Eben Alexander (author) is at the BLP Noticeboards. [43] I would like experts evaluating fringe sciences to review and contribute to the discussion. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This has also been on the NPOV and RS noticeboards, so sorry if there's some redundacy by posting it here. There's been a large amount of discussion on the talk page of the Mustang article about whether a footnote should be included about the fringe theory that horses were present in America during the Holocene prior to the arrival of Columbus. It is well known that equines (including apparently the modern horse, which has recently been discussed at length on the talk page) were native to the americas until their extinction 10-12,000 years ago. According to the anecdotes of one user, these theories have repeatedly come up in Facebook discussions, and are covered on pro-Mustang websites like protectmustangs.org.
Much of this revolves around The Aboriginal North American Horse a statement apparently given by ethnohistorian Dr. Claire Henderson (who I can find nothing about) of Laval Universirty in 1991 in response to a North Dakota bill. The statement appears to be legitimate as it recieved coverage at the time in this Chicago Tribune article. The statement primarly relies on oral accounts essentially saying "we've always had horses", see also this story in Yes! Magazine [44]. Obviously there are also ties in with the claims that horses and chariots were present in America in the Book of Mormon, and the theory has recieved coverage on that basis from LDS affiliated sources, see [45]. The dispute is over whether there has been enough coverage of the theory in reliable sources in order for it to pass WP:ONEWAY and be notable enough for inclusion, your input at the talk page discussion would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: WP:ONEWAY: If you can find a reliable source about mustangs (not about ethnohistory, mind you) that mentions this fringe theory, then it's okay to mention it. If you cannot, then don't mention it. One the other hand, it's perfectly fine for articles on criticism of the book of mormon to link to the mustang article and have it basically say that, no, mustangs were not in North America prior to the Columbian Exchange. I think that's fairly straightfoward. jps ( talk) 01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
McKenzie method ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Science, or pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, these two pages...
...are somewhere in the range of alt-medicine, blatant advertising, and/or howto manuals. I am inclined to nuke most of what is there and leave much shorter and more encyclopedic claims. Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems a few days don't go by that someone isn't pointing me to the latest thing our co-founder said. Some horrific conspiracy theory about "COVID-19 hysteria" or the "deep state" or anti-vax or climate change or RT of some ultra-nationalist troll... and he gets some quasi-mainstream attention for it because he's "Wikipedia co-founder". See for example this Fox News piece which picked up his recent blog post. The gist is that NPOV should mean false balance in political articles and framing positions that have overwhelming scientific consensus as "opinions" that should be "balanced" in order to be neutral.
Just look through the twitter stream...
Not sure if this is the best place to start this discussion, but is it time for the community to put out a statement disavowing Larry Sanger as a spokesperson for Wikipedia and/or anything Wikipedia stands for? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
If you ran the Deep State and Trump's men were closing in. That's not even three tweets away from QANON. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I know that this insider baseball is juicy and all, but is there anything here we can use to improve articlespace? Until there is some third-party notice of increasingly unhinged Twitterpathy, I think our hands are tied. jps ( talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits about what appear to be fringe linguistics need attention. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
In looking at near-death studies for the above i ran across Sofia University (California), California Institute of Integral Studies ( Integral Yoga) and their journals: Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and International Journal of Transpersonal Studies which inform us that transpersonal psychology and the transpersonal movement have been embraced by other fields to form transpersonal disciplines such as transpersonal anthropology, transpersonal sociology, transpersonal ecology and transpersonal psychiatry.
Psychology and psychiatry are lost causes, but what's the approach for use of these "journals" in a sprawl into other fields?
fiveby(
zero) 14:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This group defends the scientific consensus about GMOs. There's been complaining on the talk page, some of it on dubious grounds, that the article doesn't say enough about funding from Monsanto, and other matters. But, to be fair, the article does seem to have legitimate flaws (a lack of secondary sources especially), and maybe it is too favorable to the group. Anyway, editors experienced in treating GMO-related topics in a balanced way are needed to weigh in on Talk, decide what to do with the tag, and make any other edits you see fit. Crossroads -talk- 03:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue that's been raised with the article Genetic Literacy Project is whether it lacks balance, and is essentially a promotional piece for an organization that, despite its motto of "science not ideology", leans sharply to the right -- for example, publishing the pseudoscience of the white supremacist and anti-semite Kevin MacDonald. The GLP has also been criticized for getting undisclosed funding from Monsanto, which is a conflict of interest issue. Please see the talk page [49] for details. NightHeron ( talk) 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
well-known propaganda website. NightHeron ( talk) 01:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
That was a slog. Yeah, the French have been rather, y'know, French about their distaste for anything GMO/Monsanto related. But this article does not strike me as worthy of being award-winning. Almost no effort goes into looking into, y'know, the actual science of the claims. I think the author simply does not have the chops to do so and there is a culture of expertise deference that talks more about the process of debate than the substance. The last section is particularly telling. Insinuating that a riposte by more-or-less independent experts was being coached by the nefarious hands of Monsanto is... well... par for the course, I guess. So why did they win the prize? Well, they were going after Monsanto which subsequently was acquired by Bayer and perhaps that seemed profound? I don't know. What seems obvious to me, however, is that this article doesn't have much more than attempts at skullduggery and intrigue that seem to not go very far. jps ( talk) 04:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Has WP:FTN ever declared any criticism of Monsanto to be fringe? Or anything the IACR says to be fringe? Or anything the French believe about product safety to be fringe? Is it the role of this noticeboard to decide whether or not an investigative series of articles in Le Monde deserved the award it got?
In response to my citing the Le Monde source here and at the talk-page, a substantive discussion of the issue started on the talk-page, so there's no need to continue this here. NightHeron ( talk) 10:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Grover Furr ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
He is now "known for his works on the history of the Soviet Union". I don't want to revert again. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but it seems the usual fringe janitors have not been there a lot. The Bicameralism Talk page has pretty old complaints about being "written from a severely pro-Bicameralism bias", but that may not be a current problem. Maybe a bit of patrolling by psychologists is in order.
On Talk:Julian Jaynes, User:PaleoNeonate recently said that the criticism section "is more about refuting criticism than presenting it..." -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a content dispute at Washington Examiner over whether to include text that rebuts a "Climategate has exposed climate science to be a sham" op-ed, even if the rebuttal does not specifically respond to the Washington Examiner. [52] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Ayurveda#Tooth Fairy Science -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A non-regsitered, IP hopping user, with his own selected theories and confirmation bias wants to add a Turkic dyansty on the template for Pashtuns. CrashLandingNew ( talk) 13:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The Ayurveda article could probably use a look, as there seems to be a few proponents trying to remove "pseudoscience" from the lead sentence, despite being (as far as I can tell, based on the available evidence) an accurate label. -- tronvillain ( talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
centering on an indigenous practitionerwould not mean giving equal validity to superstition and science? I am all for fairly representing indigenous cultures in the encyclopedia, but one can favor doing that and at the same time see that we should not give woo a free pass as truth no matter what culture it comes from. How would one "center indigenous ways of knowing" without treating mythology and superstition as equal to "Western" science, and de-emphasizing the latter, and in all subjects? That may seem absurd, but there are political extremists on all sides out there, not to mention people with a financial stake in distorting our coverage (like Ayurvedic practitioners), and any attempt to bring in extreme cultural relativism in a Trojan horse claiming to just be about marginalized communities needs to be opposed. Crossroads -talk- 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
And now another admin is poking his nose in. The page was a trainwreck while John involved himself in mucking it up, and now Ivan is trying to follow John's truly awful example and set things back again. What is ironic is that I was already discussing a return to normal discretionary sanctions for the page with an admin - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Can someone take a closer look at Orang Pendek? I removed some obvious offenders—the usual cryptozoology stuff presented as science–but I don't have the time on hand to take a deep dive. I presume there's some kind of tradition here, and that it may stem from folklore in the region, but the challenge is cutting through the fringe theories and getting to it. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Fringe editors not already aware should be interested in the excellent Headbomb's useful tool, Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD). When installed, it uses colours to give an at-a-glance indication of when dodgy sources are being used, drawing on the list at WP:CITEWATCH. Useful not only when reviewing articles, but during Talk page discussion. Highly recommended for editors working in the fringe topic space. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a content dispute on the Lou Dobbs page about whether he can be called a "conspiracy theorist". [54] The body of the lead extensively documents Dobbs's conspiracy theory peddling, which includes but is not limited to birtherism, George Soros conspiracy theories and Deep State conspiracy theories. Can a person who promotes conspiracy theories not be described as a conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You can identify specific ideas as conspiracy theories, but to say someone is a "conspiracy theorist" requires reliable sources that identify the person for being notable as such. jps ( talk) 18:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, Maddow's uncritical acceptance of certain ideas that there was active collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives may or may not be a conspiracy theory in the proper sense. As is pointed out, we don't have a strong identification that such claims rise to the level of conspiracy theories. On the other hand, certain things Dobbs has promoted such as birtherism are absolutely conspiracy theories... no question. I don't think the pair are comparable in the sense I would question any accusation of conspiracy theory affinity in Maddow's article while I think we haves some very strong sources indicating that Dobbs has such an affinity. jps ( talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is an actual thing. Global warming conspiracy theory is an actual thing. Russia Collusion Hoax is not. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link); Grove, Lloyd (2009-08-06).
"What Happened to the Real Lou?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2020-07-07.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link); and Tom, Embury-Dennis (2019-11-14).
"Trump associate spouts stream of wild conspiracy theories on Fox channel after impeachment hearing". The Independent. Retrieved 2020-07-07.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
GPinkerton (
talk) 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos and History jps ( talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon Transhumanist Association jps ( talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I know that this has been discussed before on this noticeboard, so I thought I would post this here. There's been a new genetic study in Nature which pretty clearly shows that some eastern polynesian populations have genetic admixture from a northern South American population. I have added this to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories article, as a primary study, do my edits constitute WP:DUE weight? Kind regards, Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's important to remember that Nature likes to make a splash and many Nature papers are later shown to be incorrect. That said, the genetic and linguistic evidence for connections between South America to Polynesia has been known (and even discussed in Wikipedia) for quite some time. jps ( talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Do people think that this addition is due weight? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)The authors propose two likely explanations, the first that Polynesians from the Marquesas reached northern South America, interbreeding with the ancestors of today's Zimu people, then returned to the Marquesas from whence they disseminated to Rapa Nui, the second that northern South Americans reached the Marquesas and interbred at that locus, then dispersed to Rapa Nui.
Recent changes pushing a WP:GEVAL view for the existence of psychic powers need review. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Neville Lancelot Goddard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New article written by a Victor CWT ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be adding a lot of glossed WP:FRINGEBLPs to Wikipedia.
jps ( talk) 04:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#Proposed sentence on allegations -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hilton Hotema article submitted for deletion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Orya Maqbool Jan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Opposes the "Jewish Lobby" and is banned for it. Article jumps from NPOV to POV and back. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on the Jordan Peterson regarding how we should treat content about JP's health problems. [61] Currently, the text overwhelmingly cites his daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, about his health problems. She is a seller of unconventional food advice, and the text includes rather strange claims about JP's health problems (such as N-American doctors "refusing" to treat him for drug addiction and his health problems stemming from bad food intake). It feels very iffy for Wikipedia to basically be promoting her claims like this. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the Petersons seem to make up their claims about health as they go along is the problem. This isn't the first time they've done this, nor do I think it likely to be the last. jps ( talk) 19:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree, and that's actually what the article looked like, more or less, before this thread was created. Korny O'Near ( talk) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The only "fringe" stuff I've seen here is a few Wikipedia editors' personal views on detoxification. This should be good: what, exactly, is "fringe" and "personal" about these views, or is just a bit of kneejerk mirroring rhetoric? -- Calton | Talk 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Sallie Baliunas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is "denier" an acceptable term or a meanie bully word for suppressing those poor dissenters? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Bloodletting, and its talk page, might benefit from a few eyes on it. GirthSummit (blether) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
"Wali has made many fulfill predictions about Indian subcontinent, one which is considered future prediction is developed mainly in Pakistan, that Pakistan Army will occupy India." Needs all kinds of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that these changes [62] are right.
Miller bases his ideas on his own language, eg "CORRECTION-CLAIMS of the FICTIONAL-ADVERB-VERB-USAGE with an OPERATIONAL-METHODS of the FICTIONAL-MODIFICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR.(8500-YEARS of the SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-MODIFICATIONS with every LANGUAGE)". [63] I've found a book that discusses his language. [64] He is no longer described as a tool and die maker although Politico describes him that way [65] as does the Sydney Morning Herald. [66]
The article doesn't mention his "postal court" which is described in the American Bar Association journal. [67]
Too busy today I think to work on it myself, if no one else is interested I'll try over the weekend. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but could use a review. The guy is seriously fringe. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 16 July 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. |
Judith Curry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh gee. Guess where I've seen this argument before?
Can someone else clarify whether skeptics and deniers are the same thing when it comes to climate change?
jps ( talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I also find consensus in this discussion to redirect, while noting that skepticism ≠ denial per the opposing comments. [2] PackMecEng ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The specific question was to distinguish between on the one hand
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular. [1]
References
And that was just her first taste of the rough-and-tumble climate debate. A few years later, an apparent hacker released a lot of private email conversations among climate scientists involved with the United Nations climate assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics.
and
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change skeptics in particular. [1]
References
And that was just her first taste of the rough-and-tumble climate debate. A few years later, an apparent hacker released a lot of private email conversations among climate scientists involved with the United Nations climate assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics.
with me preferring the follow the source more closely and jps arguing to change the wording from that in the source. But this has now apparently been resolved by using different words and sources so the question seems moot. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
A reasonable approach for the example at the top of this section would be to go with what the AP style guide says to do: "To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers."
source Obviously still pipe the link to
Climate change denial.
Before | After |
---|---|
Curry is known both for her emphasis on scientific outreach in general and for her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular. | Curry is known both for her general emphasis on scientific outreach and for her willingness to communicate with people who reject climate science. |
~ Awilley ( talk) 03:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Note: edited to remove the word "mainstream" from "mainstream climate science" for brevity ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Label | Description |
---|---|
"So-and-so is a Flat Earther" | "So-and-so promotes flat earth conspiracy theories" |
"So-and-so was put on administrative leave because he was a Holocaust denier | So-and-so was put on administrative leave for teaching Holocaust denial. |
The image and personal commentary aren't helpful here. ~ Awilley ( talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
]]
|
I see so instead of Deniers are always skeptics but skeptics are not always deniers
you would go with Deniers are not always skeptics and skeptics are not always deniers
?
PackMecEng (
talk) 22:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not care about HIM!, SHE! or THEY! If you do take it their talk page.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, Think of the bell curve. Virtually all current scientists with relevant expertise lie within the 95% confidence interval. Reviews of recently published papers have found, essentially, nothing currently being publsihed in the professional literature that falls outside a pretty tight range of agreement. Those predicting the lowest values withint hat group are nto skeptics and do not describe themselves as such; those who predict near the top are not alarmists, Those who describe themselves as skeptics are - with, as far as I can tell, no well-known exceptions - (a) not professionals in the field; (b) not publishing in the professional literature, or (c) funded by the fossil fuel lobby (or in some cases more than one of these).
I have yet to see a case of anyone who has gone into the science with an open mind and decided the predictions are wrong (which is what skepticism means). Virtually all of them have philosophical or financial reasons for not wanting the science to be true, and have worked from there. Guy ( help!) 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng I'm sorry, by what standard are you making these demarcations? A citation would be nice. jps ( talk) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That you continue to double down on your propagandistic WP:ADVOCACY is appalling. We have showed you sources. We have pointed out the specific problems with your rhetoric. And still you seem to think that there is some sort of demarcation between climate change skeptics and climate change deniers based on, what exactly? I assume it is your own fantasies at this point. jps ( talk) 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You've already been shown to be wrong, so we're done here. If you continue to push this view in article space, I will ask for a topic ban at WP:AE. jps ( talk) 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng: The community consensus that matters here is a clear community consensus that the term climate change denial is preferred over climate change skepticism. There is evidence of that consensus both here and in the redirect discussion for climate change skepticism → climate change denial. Of course the words denial and skepticism don't mean the same thing. They're different words. And although the full terms also technically have different meanings, the term skeptic is usually misapplied as many have pointed out. A majority of the people who call themselves "climate change skeptics" are misusing the word because climate change skepticism implies scientific skepticism and that is not what is going on. The Venn diagram to the right allows for a sliver of people who are genuinely skeptical but who aren't engaging in denial. Or maybe it's not a sliver...maybe the true "climate change skeptics" are the "climate change scientists" because a good scientist is always skeptical. That this reversal works further illustrates why the term climate change skepticism should be avoided. I can sympathize with your distaste for what might feel like a rabid push to brand anybody who has ever expressed any doubt about any aspect of climate change as a "denier", but I don't think continuing this discussion the way you are is helpful.
@ ජපස: In fairness I should point out that it is a flawed argument that the existence of the climate change skepticism → climate change denial redirect proves that the terms mean the same thing. There are a plethora of counterexamples for that... Arsenic mining is clearly not the same thing as Arsenic the element, yet the redirect Arsenic mining → Arsenic exists. ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
In December 2014, an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration"—and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. They said "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.The bolded part directly supports the Venn diagram. (Although admittedly the diagram would be more accurate if the circles were closer to the same size to reflect the "virtually all" bit.) ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If someone can point to one example of someone who is in that sliver, I would be fine with this. In spite of the the claims of the right wing, there are plenty of skeptical disagreements within the climate change literature. The arguments happen all the time. They are not outside the bounds of our article on scientific consensus on climate change, crucially, and because of the politicization of the term, not a one of those scientists would call themselves "climate change skeptics". Like it or lump it, the denial machine has simply engulfed this term and co-opted it to the point that it is a poison pill. You can wail and gnash teeth as much as you want about this, but that's the situation. We aren't here to right great wrongs. Go to Conservapedia if that's what you want to do. jps ( talk) 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Granted that's just one source, but it's reliable. – Levivich dubious – discuss 20:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Several papers with reliable methodology unchallenged in the literature show an enormous majority of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible.
But contrary positions are not unknown. Some questions regarding the credibility of some aspects of climate models, for example, exist for some working academics.
While these scientists do not necessarily doubt all aspects of climate science, issues of reliability of methodology and validity of conclusions in some areas remain, for them, alive.
Whether they are correct or not (and many have been responded to in the literature), they are at least working within the broad norms of academia. We might call these people “climate sceptics”.
* * *
In summary, three categories of climate science disbelief are: sceptic, agnostic and denier. Three subdivisions of deniers are: naive, conspiracists and opportunists.
I draw a distinction between sceptics and deniers. The sceptics are people I respect – they have raised legitimate issues and, from my experience, are open minded. The deniers are people who start with a conclusion and only pay attention to the data that support it. I do think that our results could change the minds of some sceptics about the reality of global warming.[6]. David Brin:
Not every person who expresses doubt or criticism toward some part of this complex issue is openly wedded to the shrill anti-intellectualism of Fox News ... What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" — who has honest questions about the AGW consensus — from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators? After extensive discussions with many AGW doubters, I believe I have found a set of distinct characteristics that separate the two groups.[7]
.'“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”"
Let me try to be as clear as possible: It does not matter what I think is legitimate or illegitimate. The problem is that there aren't people who question the scientific consensus on climate change who reliable sources don't put in the category of global warming denial. Crucially, in spite of what it may feel like when we state the simple fact about the world as it is, I am not making any value judgement about the situation by stating this. The fact that, to a person, those who object to the consensus are all part of the climate change denial apparatus is just what we've got. jps ( talk) 02:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Our own article on Judith Curry shows it and we have plenty of sources which identify climate denial machine. I think we're fine here. jps ( talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
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 19:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion is continuing at
[9]
Should this have a DS alert on its talk page? There's also a cn tag. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sophia Mirza was the first of a tiny number of people in the UK to have CFS listed as a cause of death. The article was largely written from affiliated and activist sources; when those are removed there are only a couple of RS left. The text claimed that she was acutely sensitive to electromagnetic radiation and chemicals (massive red flags) and that relatives believed her mother was contributing to her condition - although this is claimed as final clinching proof that "ME" is a physical illness, this one case looks overwhelmingly psychological, but I can't find any dispassionate analysis that reviews the story in its entirety, only the couple of news items around the inquest finding.
Which leads me to ponder: is this actually a notable case? Guy ( help!) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Article. [13] I enter information from book "Neighbors at War: Anthropological Perspectives on Yugoslav Ethnicity" from 2008 editet by Joel M. Halpern, David A. Kideckel and published by Pennsylvania State University Press. The editors wanted someone neutral on the issue and selected two American scholar which are Elinor Despalatovic [1] and Andrei Simić. [2] My edit is information from this source I quote: "According to the latest demographic studies and Elinor Despalatovic number of Serbs killed in the NDH is about 100,000 while according to Andrei Simić number is between 800,000 and one milion."
"Between 1941 and 1945, the regime murdered no fewer than 310,000 ethnic Serbs, up to 26,000 Jews, and up to 20,000 Roma in mass atrocities and camps", (p. 46)
"the civil war caused by the Ustaša’s brutal persecution of political opponents and ethnic minorities— predominantly Serbs— that claimed the lives of some 500,000 people", (p. 47) and
"The Croatian authorities also committed mass murder in concentration camps, including the Jasenovac camp complex, where at least 70,0000 victims perished. Estimates of the total number of Serbian victims range widely from 25,000 to 1,000,000, but most experts now place it in the low to mid-300,000s."(ibid.) Figures that are very much higher than these numbers, or any lower, should probably be treated with suspicion. The rationale is explained thus in a footnote:
"These numbers are at the low end of most current estimates of the victims of the Ustaša genocide. They are based on Korb, Im Schatten des Weltkriegs, pp. 432–433. Tomasevich provides extensive analysis and explanation of the wide range of “Alleged and True Population Losses” reflected in scholarship, media, and popular perception since the end of the war. Official Yugoslav estimates for Jasenovac victims, mostly Serbs, ranged from 600,000 to 700,000. Private Serbian estimates often exceeded one million Serbian casualties. Some of these numbers are based on estimates generated during the war; for example, those issued by Tito, who reported on April 4, 1942, that the Ustaša had already killed some 500,000 people, mostly Serbs. At the end of the war, Tito reported to the InterAllied Reparations Agency in Paris a total of 1,706,000 casualties, including Serbs and all other victim categories. In the postwar period, both scholars and Yugoslav officials gave a figure of 700,000 people murdered at Jasenovac. Tomasevich ultimately sides with low-range estimates calculated by Bogoljub Kočović and published in his Žrtve Drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslaviji (London: Naše delo, 1985), pp. 172–180. According to Kočović and Tomasevich, the losses of population in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 include 209,000 Serbs for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and 125,000 Serbs and Montenegrins for the territory of Croatia. See Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, pp. 718–750."(pp. 51-52)
Can you provide the quote where MacDonald supports this edit, as I cannot find it? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The Balkanization of Wikipedia... —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
As we now seem to be talking about something other that either the article or the edit the OP posted about can we close this, they have had their answer. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations: We have several such lists (and BTW, we have heaps and heaps of categories below Category:Reportedly haunted locations by country), and it has been proposed to change the "reportedly haunted locations" into "haunted places" in the list article names. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
It's nonsense, but is it historically significant nonsense? XOR'easter ( talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
While searching for sources after some recent activity at Rolfing, I ran into the related topic of Postural Integration and find we have an article on it (which has been tagged with {{fringe theories}} for six years!). This gets a brief mention at Quackwatch, which I've added, but otherwise RS seems hard to find. The present article is very in-universe. Anybody know more? Alexbrn ( talk) 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Omigod. I did not know this was a thing. It seems to have esacaped our notice:
This WP:Walled garden needs weeding, folks!
jps ( talk) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
A user has made a denialists category, then added subcats for countries, then noticed that this may be contentious: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Climate change denialists
Opinions about that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
As expected, the new categories have been deleted, with the consequence that Category:Climate change denial has been depleted. I have reinstated the category to a few articles where it clearly belongs and made a list of the remaining now-not-categorized-in-it-any-more articles in Category talk:Climate change denial. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron ( talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Legit or not? I found a draft packed with predatory journals that listed the subject as a Fellow. Guy ( help!) 11:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Still needs attention. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Burt Rutan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore"
Is that encyclopedic? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It takes a lot to leave me speechless. There you go. Guy ( help!) 09:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Court sentence being used in an article on archaeology, this edit] and my edit summaries and edits to the article. The claims, now deemed fraud by a court, were for " These included what would have been the oldest non- onomastical texts in Basque, which were hailed as the first evidence of written Basque. Also, it was announced the discovery of a series of inscriptions and drawings on pottery fragments, some of which refer to Egyptian history and even some written in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Finally, it was announced the finding of the earliest representation of the Calvary (crucifixion of Jesus) found anywhere to date." Doug Weller talk 14:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a RfC on the Piers Robinson page about whether he describe his promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead. [14] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Bejan Daruwalla ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Indian astrologer, died recently, of COVID-19 or something else (the IP jury is still out). I just had to delete a list of his right guesses again, but it will probably grow back. I am not sure if he is even notable - notability is not my field. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Update: the state of the article is more stable lately, — Paleo Neonate – 19:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This showed up in the new-article robot report; notability does not look well-established to me. Lots of books, but did they make any splash outside a small, fringe pond? XOR'easter ( talk) 00:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network was recently PRODed due to lack reliable sourcing and then dePRODed with a vague mention of the existence of sources. This is an alleged UFO research group that members of another UFO group, BUFORA, claim to have been contacted by; there doesn't seem to be any confirmation or significant coverage of this in reliable sources so it probably isn't even a notable hoax/fictional entity. Thought I'd mention it here before going to AfD. – dlthewave ☎ 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Bizarre article with Russian-only sources on a yet more bizarre subject. Alyoshenka is one of those aberrant human deformities that people who like that sort of thing allege are aliens (think Starchild skull). Problem is, the remains no longer exist, and may never have been "real" at all. The article is not clear what was preserved, or how old the (now-vanished) remains allegedly were. Something to be looked at by editors experienced in dealing with such (non-notable?) fringe subjects. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Still relevant today isn't it — Paleo Neonate – 07:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This user saw Bigfoot and a Mokele-mbembe cured by Magnet therapy at a Reportedly haunted location while debating Climate change denial with a UFO piloted by an Aquatic ape at the Fringe theories Noticeboard. |
Vile vortex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I redirected this last month.
Apparently, not everyone is happy with this: [18]
I reverted, but if others want to opine as to whether we have to go through the torturous AfD process, be my guest.
jps ( talk) 01:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism Needs a look, unsourced. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
To get a best sense of the problems with our article Legends of Alcatraz, go directly to the references, which include multiple citations of the Weekly World News, and then treat yourself to the astounding bibliography, which is full of such academic tomes as "Ghost Hunting: How to Investigate the Paranormal", "They Came Back: Tales of Reincarnation, Ghosts, and Life After Death", "Hell House: And Other True Hauntings from Around the World", etc. -- JBL ( talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Matt Ridley ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Ridley says that increasing CO2 will do more good than harm. Is that fringe or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Theory of Phoenician discovery of the Americas#Recent research updates. I wonder if they plan to use this Secrets of Ancient America Archaeoastronomy and the Legacy of the Phoenicians, Celts, and Other Forgotten Explorers. The publisher page on him [19] says he has published in Ancient America, a racist journal of pseudohistory. It's also published by Bear and Company, a fringe publisher. [20] The book expands " upon the work of well-known diffusionists such as Barry Fell and Gunnar Thompson". Very disappointing, just shows that not all publishers get an automatic pass. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
This page needs to be improved. The lead fails to clarify that they engage in climate change denial. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Tom Van Flandern ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has unduly weighted text and poor sourcing. If someone with an interest in fringe physics from more than a decade ago would like to help clean it up, that would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Relatedly, I removed some fringe physics claims from our biographical article of Xin-She_Yang: [27] jps ( talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It was published in Nature! No. It wasn't. There was an observation that was subsequently shown to be erroneous published in Nature. Van Flandern and Yang were not published in Nature. A little help, please? This looks to me like a potential WP:SOAP issue. jps ( talk) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Jade Books in Heaven ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know nothing about the Jade Books in Heaven but when I see wording like "Numinous book of the Nine Heavens of Cavernous Moisture of the Treasure Kalpa" without sufficient (any) context it may as well be fringe. Having read the article, I am none the wiser on what this stuff means, or is supposed to mean. The section ""Heaven"-related books composed of other semi-precious stones" is dubious at best. Labelled with "insufficient context" since 2015. The short-description gives the best clue, but I don't know how accurate it is. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I've never run across this one before, but regulars here might be interested to keep an eye out for some fringe ideas that got added to Hawaii (island) with these edits (since reverted), and requested at Hawaii with this edit request (since declined). – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 00:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Past discussions on Bates method:
I believe Wikipedia and Belteshazzar ( talk · contribs) would be better off if Belteshazzar were banned from the topic. I wanted to some eyes on the article and other viewpoints on Belteshazzar's behavior before going to ArbEnf.
Belteshazzar started a discussion here, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Bates_method_sources.
@ Jmc: has attempted to get Belteshazzar to discuss edits before making changes, to little or no effect.
My recent attempts to work with Belteshazzar ( User_talk:Belteshazzar#May_2020, User_talk:Belteshazzar#Edit-warring, and the current article talk page) have left me with the conclusion that Belteshazzar is unable to work cooperatively with others on this subject. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@
JzG: previously commentd
[28]Belteshazzar, the primary issue is your tendentious editing at the Bates Method article. I am minded to topic-ban or partial block here. What do others think?
--
Hipal/Ronz (
talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
My biggest shortcoming involved the article's first sentence. "The Bates method is an ineffective alternative therapy aimed at improving eyesight" seemed not to quite reflect decent sources which indicate that such training does sometimes result in measurable improvement, albeit which is usually temporary and not due to any change in refraction. For example, [29] by Elwin Marg, and [30] from The College of Optometrists. I tried several different alternatives, first changing "ineffective" and then qualifying it somewhat. I now see that I went on too long with that, and the opening sentence is not likely to change.
Other than that, I think my contributions to the article have been positive. I have fixed some disjointedness, and removed redundancy and excess verbiage. I think the section on "Possible reasons for claimed improvements" has now been trimmed too thin and neglects the biggest reasons for claimed improvements, but if consensus disagrees, that is that.
The most recent issue concerns the proponents listed in the Infobox. If an author or practitioner has strongly supported the Bates method and is notable enough to have a biographical article in Wikipedia, that person would seem to belong on any list of proponents. I tried to discuss this, and got no clear explanation for the removal. My last edit was probably too quick, but at least provided an explanation in the edit summary after my previous lack of an edit summary was noted. Belteshazzar ( talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Jmc:, @ Alexbrn:, @ Hob Gadling:, @ ApLundell:
I am concerned about Belteshazzar's recent edits which I do not believe are good-faith based. This user originally joined Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method, he didn't get his way and now he has does a 360 degree turn and is doing the complete opposite. But I believe this is a form of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT.
We all agree the Bates method is discredited but adding "which Huxley wrongly claimed improved his eyesight" is bizarre [31], [32]. He is now also calling Corbett a "charlatan" which is not sourced [33]. He is now doing that on multiple articles [34], [35]. This is problematic editing which some may consider vandalism.
This user is now adding Huxley's non-fiction book The Art of Seeing to Fiction lists [36] [37]. I do not believe these are good faith edits.
If someone wants to take this to the correct avenue I would support a topic ban for this user. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This user originally joined Wikipedia to promote the Bates Method. I was never trying to promote the Bates method. I recently asked an optometrist for help, which I obviously wouldn't do if I were trying to promote it. Belteshazzar ( talk) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the Victor Davis Hanson page about how to characterize Hanson's theory that the coronavirus spread to the US in the fall of 2019. Should it be described as "he pushed an unsubstantiated theory" or "he suggested a hypothesis... The hypothesis was widely shared but shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis"? RS content about Hanson's theory:
Hanson is not a scientist and has no medical expertise. The theory he proposed was baseless per all experts. In my view, the wording "he suggested a hypothesis... [later] shown to be incorrect via genetic analysis" gives readers the misleading impression that he's a scientist, that he had well-founded reasons for his theory and that the scientific community subjected his hypothesis to a test and only then found it to be false. "Pushed an unsubstantiated theory" gets to the gist of it (there was no scientific basis for the theory) and does not misleadingly suggest to readers he was involved in a scientific exchange of ideas. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hanson suggested that what doctors were calling an "early flu season" could have been an early spread of the disease. In the absence of testing, many Californians could have had COVID-19 misdiagnosed as "flu" and developed antibody resistance. If so, herd immunity in California might be a reason for the state's lower case numbers." While ultimately saying the theory is was proven wrong they don't suggest it was some totally bogus idea while saying that those who had access to blood test data could say it was wrong based on their evidence. As Eggishorn noted we need to separate where this went from the how big it was (and what was known to him or those he might have talked with) when Hanson suggested it. This returns to the question of DUE in Hanson's BLP article. Springee ( talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The question at issue for this board is whether Hanson is promoting a fringe theory. It's a marginal situation. Here is his defense against the Slate story: [40]. If I am to be charitable in my interpretation of his writing, he is not adverse to claiming that his appreciation for the idea that there was community transmission of the virus in Fall of 2019 could possibly be misplaced. He more than once points out that he is not a scientist. On the other hand, he also takes the "someone has to stand up to these experts" approach that seems all too common in armchair arguments of this sort. Hanson is convinced that because there are political aspects to these questions that he is perfectly justified in arguing that the "science is still not settled" (at least as of April). This is a common conservative ploy in the US because science has become politicized. Hanson is not an anti-intellectual in the style of the creationists, but he is one in the style of global warming deniers. In fact, Hanson is in that camp as well: [41]. For all that, I don't think it is fair to say that Hanson is pushing the theory/speculation/conceit/hypothesis/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it. What I think he is doing is arguing for entertaining certain extravagant and frankly debunked ideas that others would not entertain precisely because he is skeptical of scientific claims themselves. This is rather different than a pseudoscientist who makes up his or her own ideas and then argues that they are scientific. This is actually closer to a type of conspiracy theory. But how does Wikipedia talk about this? I think it mentions the press coverage (if it is deemed relevant) and perhaps links to relevant articles about the politicization of science and leave the deeper analyses to other venues. jps ( talk) 01:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the question of whether his particular choice in rhetoric was an instigating moment for an ongoing set of ideas about early transmission... a set of ideas which probably didn't deserve serious consideration even in April. The speculation for why he was out on a limb is something against which he obviously took umbrage. I think it is somewhat crucial to note that we're not talking about policy here unless you are claiming he is engaging in motivated reasoning similar to what the article in Slate argued. Instead, we are talking about entertaining "theories" (a word he uncomfortably misuses in the above piece) that argue about empirical reality. Either there was transmission in California in Fall 2019 or there wasn't, e.g. jps ( talk) 04:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Fringe author. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
We could use some extra eyes on this article, Subhash Kak, specifically this new user and this WP:PA connected to it. He iro 02:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
BLP of a Norwegian parapsychologist philosopher and author of a book. Notable? Article created and curated by a single WP:SPA. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Note the creator of the article has now admitted a COI. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I have AFD'd it, but given the massive COI wonder if CSD might be better. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments invited. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The user @ Smeagol 17: undid my edit my edit in Putinism ideology section. He stated: "Did you read the obscurantism article? Also, тщ citation for the diagram." All the sources about obscurandism being a direct translation of the Russian word Russian: мракобесие, romanized: mrakovesiye had been provided both in the edit and chart sources. Tintin-tintine ( talk) 15:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Putin was described as both Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. My edits just about him following the ideological footsteps of Nicholas II, cleary and explicitly obscurantic. Russia is a high-context culture, unlike the majority of the English-speaking world. I, mean, even if I prove with mathematical clarity the fact Putin really is an obscurantist, and that's why he's Nazi admirer, using Pareto effect 80/20, for example, where the most productive members of society will decrease their productivity because of the new Constitution, it won't mean anything. Putin fakes/cosplays Nicholas II until he makes it (with the new Constitution, uniting all the three powers in his hands). There's nothing judgemental about it because, in the Russian context, obscurantist ideology is just a traditional value.
As a matter of "good news" (I'm not referencing to the Gospel), he English-speaking world can finally relax, as Russia will never recover from the (comparative) shame of the official state Obscurantism in Constitution: Hitler's (and West's) dreams come true, and Russians have voted to be forever slaves (of God and Putin, as God's #1 servant soot to be sainted). Putin has inherited from the USSR a developed Kabalevsky philosophy, effective brain-inspiring classical music education in general schools, and additional 7-year education in music schools, all of that well-prepared and effective in creating competitive human beings with high morality and loyalty towards the state. As Richard Wagner said, "I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven". But now, Putin wanted to glorify himself as a saint, and with future students learning St. Putin during "Law of God" lessons. When you have something that's working and something that just sounds flattering (the word "PRAVoSLAVie" - "Orthodox") is really a path of someone who is sincere in his obscurantism, no matter what the prize. No offense. There's just no better word than "obscurantism" for that ideology. Maybe you can find another word, I don't mind. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. This, maybe too emotionally, forgive me, the answer is just my, non-humanitarian, point of view. The article is WP:NEUTRAL, as it has all the sources and quotes. For sure, some people can even argue if fascism is obscurantist, if tall poppy syndrome is obscurantist (if you kill all the gays and oppress minorities, the others won't receive their "power", like in Highlander), and so on. But Putin's sure about tall-poppy method of opponents destruction as it's just his Judo's Tao. He considers it pretty fair, both in politics and sport. There's his direct quote about naming the opponents "Bandar-logs". Moreover, he's forced judo (sport) system in music schools, increasing the (his) Russian Orthodox Church's competitor's stress, while the music teacher's salary is officially beyond the living wage, and they're not just the usual teachers - they studied additionally to general school for 7 years and at least 4 years at College of Music and, many of them, 5 years at Conservatory. Putin's official cultural genocide of classical music teachers, all in the interest of the Russian Orthodox Church only. There're 3,000+ children music schools, just to inform you. And newly created National Guard of Russia 300,000 people who earn 4-times more without professional education at all, just for being friends with Putin, loving the Russian chanson and the 1994 song " Horse", and all that anti-intellectualist stuff. Now only about 22% of Russians say love classical music, it's all about the higher prestige " blatnyak" (songs of ex-prisoners), "pops" (still on Olivia Newton-John level because, unfortunately, Russia doesn't have blacks, black music, and the best musicians are classical, but the state still thinks it's for the people) and "rap" (because the state treats its citizens since the 1990s like it's the white gentlemen finally agreeing to govern those simple folk, stupid Commies).
Moreover, Putin has reverted Glinka's anthem to an obviously plagiarised " Pachelbel's Canon" harmonies, aka Aleksandrov's anthem. He didn't even understand it. Yes, the Soviet/Russian anthem is not Russian by origin, it's just a re-written German composer's Canon. Written for the wedding. With Aleksandrov using Stalin's lack of understanding of music history and music theory. It's "working", with goosebumps, because of that. Moreover, Putin has just said, "Nazism crashed the Soviet people". It's also very obscurantist phrase because of his own "state-forming nation" - German harmonies anthem, Rurik being Germanic king, Putin himself living in Germany for many years (and now forbidding foreign residency in Constitution and simultaneously nullifying his terms, as if it's about "the other humans"). In conclusion, the article indirectly states these points (as if it's from the pro-Putin point of view):
That alone makes Putin's statement about "‘We would go to heaven, they would simply die’" a lot less offensive. So, the edits should stay and increase the productivity of the English speakers, by reducing their stress from Russia. Of course, the functional literacy and choice-supportive bias are always the case, but I don't want the West to bomb Russia because Putin behaves (and now even speaks) exactly like Hitler. It's not that obvious to the Western readers as they really might think Putin is like a Satan Hitler but only more Oriental. Hitler was also pretty stupid because slave labor is less productive (because slaves are also humans and have a lot of stress which decreases productivity), and I'm sure, a lot of German intellectuals knew that in 1933. Putin is a secretly proud student of Hitler (he perceives it as learning from Hitler's and Stalin's mistakes, I assume), not the follower. Once again, my edit was fully sourced. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia rules and don't include my original research. Just to share with the Wikipedia community, I'm writing this "nonsense" here, to prove my relative sanity stating the Putin's religious obscurantism should be called 'obscurantism', not just authoritarianism. Sorry for wanting to add this detail to my edit a little bit too enthusiastically. Tintin-tintine ( talk) 18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
More eyes would be welcome on this article on a social media site popular with conspiracists and extremists. There have been some fairly persistent whitewashing attempts recently and some page watchers would be useful in keeping the article tied to reliable sources. Neutrality talk 03:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:SPA and sock edit-warring to remove mention of pseudoscience and criticism from the article. Claiming "defamation". - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where else to bring this, but recently this article Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was edited to include " archaeologist" as one of his many professions (along with Spiritual Guru, Indian philosopher, yogi, social revolutionary, author, poet, composer, linguist, archaeologist, historian and scientist.) The article itself has no discussion of archaeology or his status as practicing the profession other than that mention in the lede. And then they were added to List of archaeologists at some point with a dubious cite, I'm pretty sure this person does no qualify as an archaeologist by any meaningful definition of the word, and the cite failed WP:RS. Any thoughts? This seems like a religious teacher whose faithful followers are trying to add qualifications to. He iro 05:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
My god, this is terrible. I started weeding, but there is a lot to do. Related:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of social cycle.
jps ( talk) 11:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Finally, the Ananda Marga seems to be the best in this walled garden. Maybe we should start there to get better sourcing. Whew! jps ( talk) 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm echoing another post above in that this article badly needs more involvement from individuals familiar with dealing with fringe topics. It seems not a day goes by without an attempt to scrub the article of:
In all my years of editing on Wikipedia on topics of pseudoscience and fringe, I don't think I've seen a clearer or more aggressive example of a concerted and repeated effort to scrub an article. The article swarms with accounts who aggressively strip the article of any of this data, while emphasizing and parroting the group's preferred narratives. It's not good. :bloodofox: ( talk) 01:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion about Eben Alexander (author) is at the BLP Noticeboards. [43] I would like experts evaluating fringe sciences to review and contribute to the discussion. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This has also been on the NPOV and RS noticeboards, so sorry if there's some redundacy by posting it here. There's been a large amount of discussion on the talk page of the Mustang article about whether a footnote should be included about the fringe theory that horses were present in America during the Holocene prior to the arrival of Columbus. It is well known that equines (including apparently the modern horse, which has recently been discussed at length on the talk page) were native to the americas until their extinction 10-12,000 years ago. According to the anecdotes of one user, these theories have repeatedly come up in Facebook discussions, and are covered on pro-Mustang websites like protectmustangs.org.
Much of this revolves around The Aboriginal North American Horse a statement apparently given by ethnohistorian Dr. Claire Henderson (who I can find nothing about) of Laval Universirty in 1991 in response to a North Dakota bill. The statement appears to be legitimate as it recieved coverage at the time in this Chicago Tribune article. The statement primarly relies on oral accounts essentially saying "we've always had horses", see also this story in Yes! Magazine [44]. Obviously there are also ties in with the claims that horses and chariots were present in America in the Book of Mormon, and the theory has recieved coverage on that basis from LDS affiliated sources, see [45]. The dispute is over whether there has been enough coverage of the theory in reliable sources in order for it to pass WP:ONEWAY and be notable enough for inclusion, your input at the talk page discussion would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: WP:ONEWAY: If you can find a reliable source about mustangs (not about ethnohistory, mind you) that mentions this fringe theory, then it's okay to mention it. If you cannot, then don't mention it. One the other hand, it's perfectly fine for articles on criticism of the book of mormon to link to the mustang article and have it basically say that, no, mustangs were not in North America prior to the Columbian Exchange. I think that's fairly straightfoward. jps ( talk) 01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
McKenzie method ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Science, or pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, these two pages...
...are somewhere in the range of alt-medicine, blatant advertising, and/or howto manuals. I am inclined to nuke most of what is there and leave much shorter and more encyclopedic claims. Comments? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems a few days don't go by that someone isn't pointing me to the latest thing our co-founder said. Some horrific conspiracy theory about "COVID-19 hysteria" or the "deep state" or anti-vax or climate change or RT of some ultra-nationalist troll... and he gets some quasi-mainstream attention for it because he's "Wikipedia co-founder". See for example this Fox News piece which picked up his recent blog post. The gist is that NPOV should mean false balance in political articles and framing positions that have overwhelming scientific consensus as "opinions" that should be "balanced" in order to be neutral.
Just look through the twitter stream...
Not sure if this is the best place to start this discussion, but is it time for the community to put out a statement disavowing Larry Sanger as a spokesperson for Wikipedia and/or anything Wikipedia stands for? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
If you ran the Deep State and Trump's men were closing in. That's not even three tweets away from QANON. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I know that this insider baseball is juicy and all, but is there anything here we can use to improve articlespace? Until there is some third-party notice of increasingly unhinged Twitterpathy, I think our hands are tied. jps ( talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits about what appear to be fringe linguistics need attention. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
In looking at near-death studies for the above i ran across Sofia University (California), California Institute of Integral Studies ( Integral Yoga) and their journals: Journal of Transpersonal Psychology and International Journal of Transpersonal Studies which inform us that transpersonal psychology and the transpersonal movement have been embraced by other fields to form transpersonal disciplines such as transpersonal anthropology, transpersonal sociology, transpersonal ecology and transpersonal psychiatry.
Psychology and psychiatry are lost causes, but what's the approach for use of these "journals" in a sprawl into other fields?
fiveby(
zero) 14:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This group defends the scientific consensus about GMOs. There's been complaining on the talk page, some of it on dubious grounds, that the article doesn't say enough about funding from Monsanto, and other matters. But, to be fair, the article does seem to have legitimate flaws (a lack of secondary sources especially), and maybe it is too favorable to the group. Anyway, editors experienced in treating GMO-related topics in a balanced way are needed to weigh in on Talk, decide what to do with the tag, and make any other edits you see fit. Crossroads -talk- 03:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue that's been raised with the article Genetic Literacy Project is whether it lacks balance, and is essentially a promotional piece for an organization that, despite its motto of "science not ideology", leans sharply to the right -- for example, publishing the pseudoscience of the white supremacist and anti-semite Kevin MacDonald. The GLP has also been criticized for getting undisclosed funding from Monsanto, which is a conflict of interest issue. Please see the talk page [49] for details. NightHeron ( talk) 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
well-known propaganda website. NightHeron ( talk) 01:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
That was a slog. Yeah, the French have been rather, y'know, French about their distaste for anything GMO/Monsanto related. But this article does not strike me as worthy of being award-winning. Almost no effort goes into looking into, y'know, the actual science of the claims. I think the author simply does not have the chops to do so and there is a culture of expertise deference that talks more about the process of debate than the substance. The last section is particularly telling. Insinuating that a riposte by more-or-less independent experts was being coached by the nefarious hands of Monsanto is... well... par for the course, I guess. So why did they win the prize? Well, they were going after Monsanto which subsequently was acquired by Bayer and perhaps that seemed profound? I don't know. What seems obvious to me, however, is that this article doesn't have much more than attempts at skullduggery and intrigue that seem to not go very far. jps ( talk) 04:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Has WP:FTN ever declared any criticism of Monsanto to be fringe? Or anything the IACR says to be fringe? Or anything the French believe about product safety to be fringe? Is it the role of this noticeboard to decide whether or not an investigative series of articles in Le Monde deserved the award it got?
In response to my citing the Le Monde source here and at the talk-page, a substantive discussion of the issue started on the talk-page, so there's no need to continue this here. NightHeron ( talk) 10:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Grover Furr ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
He is now "known for his works on the history of the Soviet Union". I don't want to revert again. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know much about this, but it seems the usual fringe janitors have not been there a lot. The Bicameralism Talk page has pretty old complaints about being "written from a severely pro-Bicameralism bias", but that may not be a current problem. Maybe a bit of patrolling by psychologists is in order.
On Talk:Julian Jaynes, User:PaleoNeonate recently said that the criticism section "is more about refuting criticism than presenting it..." -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a content dispute at Washington Examiner over whether to include text that rebuts a "Climategate has exposed climate science to be a sham" op-ed, even if the rebuttal does not specifically respond to the Washington Examiner. [52] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Ayurveda#Tooth Fairy Science -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A non-regsitered, IP hopping user, with his own selected theories and confirmation bias wants to add a Turkic dyansty on the template for Pashtuns. CrashLandingNew ( talk) 13:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The Ayurveda article could probably use a look, as there seems to be a few proponents trying to remove "pseudoscience" from the lead sentence, despite being (as far as I can tell, based on the available evidence) an accurate label. -- tronvillain ( talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
centering on an indigenous practitionerwould not mean giving equal validity to superstition and science? I am all for fairly representing indigenous cultures in the encyclopedia, but one can favor doing that and at the same time see that we should not give woo a free pass as truth no matter what culture it comes from. How would one "center indigenous ways of knowing" without treating mythology and superstition as equal to "Western" science, and de-emphasizing the latter, and in all subjects? That may seem absurd, but there are political extremists on all sides out there, not to mention people with a financial stake in distorting our coverage (like Ayurvedic practitioners), and any attempt to bring in extreme cultural relativism in a Trojan horse claiming to just be about marginalized communities needs to be opposed. Crossroads -talk- 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
And now another admin is poking his nose in. The page was a trainwreck while John involved himself in mucking it up, and now Ivan is trying to follow John's truly awful example and set things back again. What is ironic is that I was already discussing a return to normal discretionary sanctions for the page with an admin - Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Can someone take a closer look at Orang Pendek? I removed some obvious offenders—the usual cryptozoology stuff presented as science–but I don't have the time on hand to take a deep dive. I presume there's some kind of tradition here, and that it may stem from folklore in the region, but the challenge is cutting through the fringe theories and getting to it. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Fringe editors not already aware should be interested in the excellent Headbomb's useful tool, Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD). When installed, it uses colours to give an at-a-glance indication of when dodgy sources are being used, drawing on the list at WP:CITEWATCH. Useful not only when reviewing articles, but during Talk page discussion. Highly recommended for editors working in the fringe topic space. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a content dispute on the Lou Dobbs page about whether he can be called a "conspiracy theorist". [54] The body of the lead extensively documents Dobbs's conspiracy theory peddling, which includes but is not limited to birtherism, George Soros conspiracy theories and Deep State conspiracy theories. Can a person who promotes conspiracy theories not be described as a conspiracy theorist in Wiki voice? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You can identify specific ideas as conspiracy theories, but to say someone is a "conspiracy theorist" requires reliable sources that identify the person for being notable as such. jps ( talk) 18:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, Maddow's uncritical acceptance of certain ideas that there was active collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives may or may not be a conspiracy theory in the proper sense. As is pointed out, we don't have a strong identification that such claims rise to the level of conspiracy theories. On the other hand, certain things Dobbs has promoted such as birtherism are absolutely conspiracy theories... no question. I don't think the pair are comparable in the sense I would question any accusation of conspiracy theory affinity in Maddow's article while I think we haves some very strong sources indicating that Dobbs has such an affinity. jps ( talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is an actual thing. Global warming conspiracy theory is an actual thing. Russia Collusion Hoax is not. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link); Grove, Lloyd (2009-08-06).
"What Happened to the Real Lou?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2020-07-07.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link); and Tom, Embury-Dennis (2019-11-14).
"Trump associate spouts stream of wild conspiracy theories on Fox channel after impeachment hearing". The Independent. Retrieved 2020-07-07.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
GPinkerton (
talk) 21:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos and History jps ( talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon Transhumanist Association jps ( talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I know that this has been discussed before on this noticeboard, so I thought I would post this here. There's been a new genetic study in Nature which pretty clearly shows that some eastern polynesian populations have genetic admixture from a northern South American population. I have added this to the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories article, as a primary study, do my edits constitute WP:DUE weight? Kind regards, Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's important to remember that Nature likes to make a splash and many Nature papers are later shown to be incorrect. That said, the genetic and linguistic evidence for connections between South America to Polynesia has been known (and even discussed in Wikipedia) for quite some time. jps ( talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Do people think that this addition is due weight? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)The authors propose two likely explanations, the first that Polynesians from the Marquesas reached northern South America, interbreeding with the ancestors of today's Zimu people, then returned to the Marquesas from whence they disseminated to Rapa Nui, the second that northern South Americans reached the Marquesas and interbred at that locus, then dispersed to Rapa Nui.
Recent changes pushing a WP:GEVAL view for the existence of psychic powers need review. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Neville Lancelot Goddard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New article written by a Victor CWT ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who seems to be adding a lot of glossed WP:FRINGEBLPs to Wikipedia.
jps ( talk) 04:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Talk:Genetic Literacy Project#Proposed sentence on allegations -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hilton Hotema article submitted for deletion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Orya Maqbool Jan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Opposes the "Jewish Lobby" and is banned for it. Article jumps from NPOV to POV and back. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on the Jordan Peterson regarding how we should treat content about JP's health problems. [61] Currently, the text overwhelmingly cites his daughter, Mikhaila Peterson, about his health problems. She is a seller of unconventional food advice, and the text includes rather strange claims about JP's health problems (such as N-American doctors "refusing" to treat him for drug addiction and his health problems stemming from bad food intake). It feels very iffy for Wikipedia to basically be promoting her claims like this. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the Petersons seem to make up their claims about health as they go along is the problem. This isn't the first time they've done this, nor do I think it likely to be the last. jps ( talk) 19:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree, and that's actually what the article looked like, more or less, before this thread was created. Korny O'Near ( talk) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The only "fringe" stuff I've seen here is a few Wikipedia editors' personal views on detoxification. This should be good: what, exactly, is "fringe" and "personal" about these views, or is just a bit of kneejerk mirroring rhetoric? -- Calton | Talk 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Sallie Baliunas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is "denier" an acceptable term or a meanie bully word for suppressing those poor dissenters? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Bloodletting, and its talk page, might benefit from a few eyes on it. GirthSummit (blether) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
"Wali has made many fulfill predictions about Indian subcontinent, one which is considered future prediction is developed mainly in Pakistan, that Pakistan Army will occupy India." Needs all kinds of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that these changes [62] are right.
Miller bases his ideas on his own language, eg "CORRECTION-CLAIMS of the FICTIONAL-ADVERB-VERB-USAGE with an OPERATIONAL-METHODS of the FICTIONAL-MODIFICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR.(8500-YEARS of the SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-MODIFICATIONS with every LANGUAGE)". [63] I've found a book that discusses his language. [64] He is no longer described as a tool and die maker although Politico describes him that way [65] as does the Sydney Morning Herald. [66]
The article doesn't mention his "postal court" which is described in the American Bar Association journal. [67]
Too busy today I think to work on it myself, if no one else is interested I'll try over the weekend. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but could use a review. The guy is seriously fringe. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)