This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Socionics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
[1] — seems like not good revert, done without a detailed explanation on the discussion page why the use of the term pseudoscience is a violation of neutrality and why sources that refer to socionics as pseudoscience are removed with a statement of falsification. In ru-wiki, there is a long-term conflict over socionics, as a result of which almost all supporters were blocked. It would be good to attract a viewer with knowledge in psychology and, in particular, in differential psychology. Sorry for my english. -- Q Valda ( talk) 03:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are" Verifiability "and" No original research ". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".
Member Q Valda is trying to challenge this decision. He even threatened the mediator Helgo13, as the mediator Helgo13 himself defined:
“First, you have to stop having a discussion like this ('juggling ... will not end well”) if you don’t want problems when discussing your actions in a much wider circle than the local mediation. You seem to be a mediator, but instead of a solution, you create a conflict yourself, and out of the blue. Second, you were offered specific questions on SALW, but there was no answer to them. And something tells me that the answer to the specific question of whether the current wording in the article suits (this is exactly what worries me the most at the moment), we will never hear.- Q Valda 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The wording in the article is not satisfactory, since it is not in accordance with the result. And I don't need to threaten me with a "broad discussion", you have the right to do so, as I have the right to use administrative powers. - Best regards, Helgo13 • (Obs.) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In the edits of user Q Valda about socionics, there is falsification and manipulation in the retelling of an authoritative source. This is an attempt to prove that the existence of psychological types is rejected by psychology. In doing so, he even tries to refer to an article that refutes this very point of view. In this work, 4 stable psychological types are identified. Even the title of the article by Gerlach M., Farb B., Revelle W., Nunes Amaral L. A. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets // Nature Human Behavior. - 2018. - No. 2 (September). - S. 735-742. [4]. In addition, the isolation of psychological types is one of the main scientific methods in psychology. In all other sources, which the user Q Valda tries to put in the preamble of the article, the word "socionics" is mentioned only once. Moreover, these sources are not written by experts, not psychologists and cannot be considered authoritative on the topic of socionics. In ru-wiki, these sources were rejected by the intermediary for citation on Wikipedia:
"To be honest, I agree with the bottom line. In terms of the fact that there is no reason to include this opinion in the preamble. There are too few sources that consider in sufficient detail the issue of pseudoscience of socionics (in contrast to the same NC). You can't even write a section on them properly, and in order to include this in the preamble, kmk, such a section must first appear. After all, the preamble is the summary of the article. --ptQa 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--"
[5] Sounderk ( talk) 12:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
"Socionics is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity."
-- Sounderk ( talk) 13:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) — that was several times removed by supporters of this pseudoscienceSo it is neither "distortion" nor "manipulation". Bimodal personality types (like in socionics or MBTI) are outdated concepts.In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial.
The long list of pseudoscientific concepts today includes: theory of torsion fields, cold fusion projects, wave genetics, japhetic theory, the theory of "living matter", "new chronology", eugenics, dianetics, cryonics, socionics…
...there are dozens of true pseudosciences, such as astrology and palmistry, ESP and parapsychology, cryptobiology and bioenergetics, bioresonance and iridology, creationism and telegonia, UFOlogy and paleoastronautics, eniology and dianetics, numerology and socionics...
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)An example of pseudoscience is [ ... ] socionics (the idea of Lithuanian economist and psychologist A. Augustinavichiute about the existence of 16 sociotypes, which can be identified with well-known personalities)...
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)A special danger for culture is pseudoscience, which exists in the form of a wide variety of forms: from astrology to not so long ago appeared UFOlogy, "socionics", homeopathy, etc.
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)There are also pure pseudosciences in the field of personal predictions that pretend to be serious theories. For example, socionics. Socionics is the concept of personality types and relationships between them. Based on Jung's teaching, socionics deduces the existence of 16 socionic types [...] we will refer socionics to the category of pseudoscience, because, having a science-like form, it positions itself as an effective concept, in addition it earns money from its unconfirmed ideas.
Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.Crossroads -talk- 16:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Therefore, he is a competent expert in the field of the academic scientific definition of socionics. His definition of socionics was published in a highly respected academic reference dictionary in 2003. Other authors referred to by the user Q Valda are neither psychologists nor sociologists. They use the word "socionics" only once, without references, without analysis. These are incompetent authors, especially in contrast with a number of psychology and sociology professors cited in the article. But with the use of these incompetent authors, the user Q Valda suggests changing the definition of socionics from neutral to sharply non-neutral. This is a violation WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RSUW. There are other highly respected academic reference books on this topic. In addition, socionics is studied in more than 150 universities in all countries of Eastern Europe. -- Sounderk ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)“Vladimir Gavrilovich Krysko (b. 1949) - Soviet and Russian psychologist, specialist in military psychology, ethnopsychology and social psychology. Doctor of Psychology, Professor." [6]
The analysis showed that we are dealing with explicit manipulation of sources [8]. These 10 sources, given in non-consensus edits, are not reliable, they were written by non-specialists in the field of psychology, that is, by incompetent authors and were specially and biasedly selected from several thousand scientific works on socionics. But Google Scholar contains 3000 scientific sources in English [9], 6870 scientific academic sources on socionics in Russian and other languages [10]. The Stanford University Research Library contains over 1.600 peer-reviewed journal sources [11]. Of course, there are no articles on the topic of socionics as a pseudoscience in the scientific library of Stanford University [12] (Scholarly & peer-reviewed only). No one but me offered my reasoned assessment to the sources №1-10, placed in the definition of socionics to substantiate the pseudoscience of socionics. The analysis of these sources, quoted by me earlier, has not been refuted by anyone. But a few years ago in ru-wiki the mediator explicitly forbade the use of such sources to justify the pseudoscience of socionics. He forbade citing sources in which socionics a) is mentioned only once, b) sources written by non-professional authors, c) sources written by authors without degrees. Moreover, according to a number of authors from these sources, he made some special decisions, explicitly banning their use in an article on "Socionics". He always maintained the principle of neutrality, as the main one in Wiki. All these quotes are collected on the discussion page in the ru-wiki. For dear participants, I can translate all the quotes from his decisions. Thus, all the work to assess these Russian-language sources has already been done. It is easy to see that none of these sources №1-10 correspond to the decisions of the mediator! a) All of them mention the word "socionics" only once without analysis, b) they are all written by authors - not psychologists, non-sociologists, non-teachers. c) Among the authors are several philosophers, a journalist-geographer Sergeev (he was directly banned by three intermediaries), a philologist, a student, and a teacher without a degree. However, some participants, based on their own negative opinions, which they did not even hide, in violation of all the rules of the Wiki for several years continued to try to put them after the departure of the mediator from the Wiki. Why couldn't they supply other sources? For a very simple reason. There are simply no other sources, especially in the field of psychology and sociology, that criticize socionics. In the end, they managed to block opponents and force these changes. Now the new mediator in the ru-wiki has confirmed the decision on neutrality, but these users refuse to comply and are waging a war of edits. Now the same process has begun in En-wiki. Therefore, I urge dear English-speaking users to be very careful and understand this issue yourself! After all, from the point of view of the rules and decisions of the mediator, these sources №1-10 are fake, and nothing more than the whole body of academic sources cited in the article and by me. But we are talking only about neutrality in the definition of socionics, and nothing more. The result is a theater of the absurd, in which English-speaking Wiki users are clearly misled. This is understandable for an unfamiliar topic, but the sources and facts are before you. If the independent sources I present are not enough, I can increase their number many times over. I would also like to note that there are more than 100 scientific works by Russian and Ukrainian aviation specialists on research on the application of socionics in aviation alone. There is a whole scientific field of "Aviation Socionics", which deals with the problem of flight safety in civil aviation. And according to the official state program of flight training in civil aviation, which was approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation in 2001, the study of the basics of "Aviation Socionics" is mandatory. This is part of the training program. The situation is similar with Russian manned astronautics since 1991.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
1. Tertiary reliable source: MILITARY-PSYCHOLOGICAL DICTIONARY-REFERENCE Textbook Under the general editorship of Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education Zinchenko Yu.P. [13], Moscow 2010. Authors: L.А. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; S.L. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor [14]; A.G. Karayani, Doctor of Psychology,Professor [15]; I.V. Syromyatnikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor.
SOCIONICS is a model for improving society, in which for each individual, representing a certain psychological type, there is a place in society, in social activity. S. - one of the theories of psychological types, which is at the intersection of psychology, sociology, computer science. S. is based on the model of CG Jung - a Swiss psychiatrist, psychologist. According to Jung's "Psychological Types", 1921, etc.), a person cannot be both an extrovert and an introvert. His psyche resembles a magnet formed from two poles. The poles of a magnet are always together, and a person is asymmetric, its second pole is another person. The relationship between two types, when the partners have the necessary additional qualities, are called complement relations, and the complement process itself is called dualization. For example, marriage is the right not only to a sexual partner, but also to psychic complement and continuation of one's personality in another, to the dualization of one's psyche. Different relationships between people in the same social conditions can only be explained by the psychological structures of the individuals in contact. These structures can be congenital or acquired, but must be sufficiently stable. With their help, you can explain why some people develop with some people, and with others - different relationships. A. Augustinavichiute, based on the work of Jung, proposed a classification of people directly related to the processes of information exchange in society. She identified 16 personality types, including: logician and ethic, extrovert and introvert, sensory and intuitive, rationalist and irrationalist, etc. S. helps to determine the type of a person's personality, to build interaction and communication with him, to form family, industrial and leisure collectives [16].
Extended content
|
---|
2. Tertiary reliable source: V.G. Krysko, Doctor of Psychology, Professor. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0 Commentary: These are a tertiary reliable sources with a lot of weight. Its authors are social psychologists. Obviously, these tertiary sources are much more significant than those sources that are now placed in the preamble of the article, written by non-professionals in the field of psychology or sociology and mentioning the word "socionics" only once in the entire article.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Tertiary reliable source: Dictionary of Foreign Words - Prof. Komlev N.G., 2006.
5. Tertiary reliable source: Terminological dictionary of the librarian on social and economic topics. - St. Petersburg: Russian National Library. 2011.
6. Tertiary reliable sources: a) Sharkov F.I., Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor. Communicology. Encyclopedic dictionary reference. Textbook. allowance. - M.: ITK "Dashkov and K", 2009. - 766 p. - ISBN 978-5-394-00101-7. Recommended as a teaching aid for training bachelors and masters in advertising and public relations. b)Communicology: the basics of communication theory. Sharkov F.I., 2012, "ITK" Dashkov and K ° ", 2012
b) Philosophy; Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus, Gom. state un-t them. F. Skaryna. - 4th ed., Rev. and add. - Gomel: GSU im. F. Skaryna, 2015 - 354 pp. Author: Kalmykov V.N., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor. Comments: These are university textbooks on philosophy in two versions. Unlike Mineev's book, in which socionics is mentioned only once, and the link to which is placed in the definition of the subject of socionics in the preamble of the article, these textbooks consider socionics as a new science in much more detail. Therefore, the weight of this textbook as an reliable source is much higher than the weight of Mineev's book.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 8. Betty Lou Leaver, Madeline Ehrman, Boris Shekhtman: Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition. – Cambridge University Press, 2005. – 280 p. – ISBN 052154663X, 9780521546638. Authors: Betty Lou Leaver, Associate Dean and Chief Academic Officer for New York Institute of Technology at Jordan University for Science and Technology. Madeline Ehrman, Director of Research, Evaluation, Development at the Foreign Service Institute, US. Boris Shekhtman is Operational Director of the Coalition of Distinguished Language Centers, and President of the Specialized Language Training Center in Rockville, Maryland., МD. . 9. Prof. Fink G. and Prof. Mayrhofer W. Cross-cultural competence and management – setting the stage // European J. Cross-Cultural Competence and Management. - 2009. - Vol. 1. - No. 1. - Pp. . 10. Alexandrova N.Kh., Boyadzhieva N., Sapundzhieva K., Kolarova Ts.D. Socionics in the sphere of social science - Sofia: Univ. ed. St. Kliment Ohridski, 2004 .-- 149 p. Authors: Alexandrova N.Kh. - Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, Boyadzhieva N. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Sapundzhieva K.V. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Kolarova - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor. They teach at the Sofia University “St. Кliment Ohridski "(Bulgaria). Commentary: on this and other textbooks socionics is taught at universities in Bulgaria.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 18:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 11. Gosheva M.I. Socionics as a tool in counseling high school students // e-Education. - 2010. - № 37. - P.47-56
12. M. Laszlo-Kutiuk The Key to Fiction. - Bucharest: Mustang, 2002. — 291p. - ISBN - 973-99400-6-4. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania). . 13. László-Kuţiuk M. Ghid de autocunoasţere. Elemente de socionică. – Bucureşti, 2000. ISBN 973-97141-5-3. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania). 14. Surtaeva N. N., Ivanova O. N. Educational socionics and problems of conflict interactions. SPb. IOV RAO, 2002 .-- 135 p. ISBN 5-258-00021-4. Authors: Surtaeva N.N., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor. Ivanova O. A., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor. 15. Prof. Blutner R.; Hochnadel E. (2010). Two qubits for C.G. Jung's theory of personality (PDF). Cognitive Systems Research. 11 (3): 243–259. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.12.002 [22]
16. Mathematical psychology: V.Yu. Krylov. - Institute of Psychology Russian Academy of Sciences [24], 2010 .-- 503 p. - ISBN 978-5-9270-0115-5 . 17. Prof. Spirin L.F., Dr. Rumyantseva E.A., Rumyantseva T.A. Socionics - for teachers and parents. (How to find mutual understanding, harmony, friendship). / Ed. Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences M. I. Rozhkov. -M .: International Pedagogical Academy, 1999. - Spirin L.F. Professor, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor; full member of the International Pedagogical Academy, full member of the Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences, academician of the Baltic Pedagogical Academy, corresponding member of the International Academy of Psychological Sciences. / Reviewers: V. V. Novikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; P.V. Konanikhin, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Academician of NPA. . 18. Svetlana Ivanova, PhD in Education, senior researcher laboratory of innovatics in pedagogical education, Institute of educational management of Russian Science Academy, the branch in St. Petersburg PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS // MODERN EUROPEAN RESEARCHES, №6, 2015. . 19. Sociology. 5th ed., Textbook. 2016. Authors: Alexander Gribakin, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Irina Loginova, Doctor of Philosophy, Valery Glazyrin, Professor, Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Olga Berdyugina, Doctor of Philosophy, Andrey Masleev, Doctor of Philosophy, Evgeny Konovkin, Doctor of Philosophy, Elvira Gribakina, Natalia Gulina, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor.
20. Socionics and Sociometry Diagnosting of Air Navigation System's Operator. Prof. Yuliya Sikirda (National Aviation University, Ukraine) and Prof. Tetiana Shmelova (National Aviation University, Ukraine) Source Title: Socio-Technical Decision Support in Air Navigation Systems: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Copyright: © 2018 21. Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. Sociology: a textbook for universities. Ed. prof. V.I.Dobrenkova. - M .: Gardarika, 1998 .-- 244 p. Recommended by the Ministry general and vocational education Russian Federation as a textbook.For university students,MOSCOW,1998, ISBN 5-7762-0041-5 UDC316 (075.8)BBK 60.5 B67. Reviewers:Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor N.S. Sleptsov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor V. T. Lisovsky
22. V.A. Kononov. WHY SOCIOLOGY SOCIONICS? // Sociology in the modern world: science, education, creativity. - 2009. - No. 1. - R. 116-120. Information about the author: Ph.D., Associate Professor
23. Prof. V.V. Kryzhko Theory and practice of management in education. - M .: Education of Ukraine, 2005. - Reviewers: N.L. Kolominsky, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; M.I. Prikhodko, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor.
24. MAPPING PERSONALITIES: THE BRAND AND CONSUMER By Imran Khan. Submitted to Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad. Dissertation Supervisor Prof. Atul Tandon Director, MICA Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad Page 1 of 103 February 2006
25. Training of aviation personnel in the field of the human factor: interuniversity collection of scientific papers / [otv. ed. G.V. Kovalenko]. - SPb. : Acad. citizen aviation, 2004. - Recommendations: Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, Federal Air Transport Agency FGOU VPO "Academic Civil Aviation"
26. Prof. V.H. Arutyunov, Prof. V.M. Mishin, Prof. V.M. Svintsitsky. Methodology of socio-economic cognition: Textbook. manual. - К .: КНЕУ, 2005. - 353 с. - ISBN 966–574–000–0
|
27. Horwood J., Maw A. Theatre Teams Assembled Using Personality Profiles Can Improve Predicted Teamworking Scores // Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. - 2012. - Vol. 94. - No 3. - Pp. 1-6\
Socionics is a relatively new science developed and popularised by Ausra Augustinaviciute in the 1970s. Augustinaviciute and her colleagues worked with Carl Jung’s personality typologies to develop personalitybased relationship profiles. It was found that the nature and development of interpersonal relationships (both professional and personal) are far from random. Instead, they are based on how well suited each individual’s psychological profiles are to one another, allowing Augustinaviciute to develop 16 ‘socionic types’ (Table 2) predicting and describing the interpersonal relationships between any combination of Jung’s personality types. Augustinaviciute’s work was published in the Russian literature but translations of her work and a wealth of further information regarding the development and application of socionics can be found on a number of websites and in books. [34]
-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is a demarcation that is made on variety of judgements. It is not an accusation which requires "substantiation". Rather the claim that something is not pseudoscience is what requires substantiation. An idea could be not pseudoscientific for a variety of reasons. E.g., maybe the idea is intended to (appear to) be a scientific claim at all. Or maybe the idea is properly scientific. Either way, it is a simple matter to provide the evidence for those. What I see here is a lot of WP:REDFLAGs that are not being properly addressed. To give a nice comparison, astrology is taught at dozens and dozens of universities in India. That does not mean astrology is not pseudoscience. jps ( talk) 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I should have checked the logs before posting above. The user I was replying to has been blocked for sockpuppetry/ WP:NOTHERE (not surprising):
Carry on.
jps ( talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Ethnic nepotism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Decade-old tags attached. Some curious sources but prima facie potentially legit but needs attention and probably an update of the science side. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic nepotism. After some research, I think that this is just a WP:COATRACK for white supremacist opinions surrounding race and intelligence. Pretty fringe stuff and it doesn't need a standalone article. jps ( talk) 16:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
In the process of digging through the above, I found this page:
I think it fails WP:BK. Does anyone else?
jps ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Long time listener, first time caller at WP:FTN. There appears to be a whole lotta fringey stuff going on there. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
A lovingly crafted advertorial for a "holistic" thyroid quack. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a painting which everyone agrees was at least from the studio of Leonardo da Vinci (i.e., painted when and where Leonardo was around), with the bone of contention being whether some part of it was actually painted by Leonardo himself.
At one point the article over-reached in claiming that the painting was a confirmed Leonardo. However, the article has since been rewritten to lean towards the extreme opposite direction, with some wording implying near-unanimity that Leonardo painted no part of it, by editors who contend that the other view is FRINGE.
This, however, appears to me to go beyond the consensus of reliable sources. For example, in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters stated that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". There also appear to be peer-reviewed journal publications by multiple independent authors on both sides of the question (with a slightly larger raw number favoring authenticity), and the experts themselves disagree as to what constitutes the consensus among their peers. I have dug into a few of the people weighing in, and there are scholars with applicable expertise arguing both sides, and in both cases somewhat more than what is represented in the article.
So, I am looking here for some sense of what constitutes the cutoff between characterizing something as FRINGE, and characterizing it as a contested view reasonably held by some non-crackpot experts. BD2412 T 18:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe I see the issue now. I removed that Frank & Frank citation, which looks like a student paper and clearly is not suitable for this topic, and this was immediately reverted, along with a sneaky removal of qualifying language that tends to indicate exactly why it is inappropriate for use in this article. The language that was removed was a qualification from the paper that "Nonetheless, in each case, the model that more strongly classified Seated Bacchus and the Isleworth Mona Lisa as not painted by Leonardo also classified the Madonna Litta as not by Leonardo." In other words, the authors of this non-peer-reviewed paper write that their model classified both this painting, and a known Leonardo, as not by Leonardo. The removal of this qualification looks geared to create a false impression of the significance of the paper. This is typical POV pushing that we don't allow in Wikipedia and would recommend a line by line review of the article. Based on more of the history I am seeing, I am starting to think this is going to end up with sanctions on the article as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess I missed this conversation (thanks for the ping?). Apologies on reverting the removal of the Neural Network paper, I was mislead by here where content that the submitter can write says "The article has been accepted for publication in Leonardo (MIT Press)" but warning and reverting without explaining that that content could be user generated was pointless and wasted everyone's time. Anyways I'm fine with the opening as "The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early sixteenth-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as the Mona Lisa." If you look at the article before I found it you'll see that a user was undoubtedly POV pushing which was my intention to correct. I do admit that I may have gone too far with asserting that attribution against Leonardo, at least in the lead, but I'm fine with how the lead is now. I did some work on the article but then lost motivation due to the complexity of the situation, and as a result left some terms like "widely accepted" that I was still unsure about but failed to remove.
The idea that "a larger number of sources are listed as concluding that the painting is authentic" is simply false. There is no consensus, and if there is it would be slightly against an attribution to Leonardo – akin to saying something like "most experts are skeptical". Many of the "sources are listed as concluding that the painting is authentic" are news sources and news sources don't get to authenticate paintings and I would be hesitant to trust them to state that "most leading experts are against/for the attribution". Keep this in mind: When the director of the National Gallery wanted to include the Salvator Mundi in their Leonardo show, he invited Kemp, Syson (who worked at the Gallery), Marani, Bambach and another Italian scholar (a woman whose name I don't recall – and had never heard of) to authenticate the work. These experts were divided on Salvator Mundi, but none of them believe in the Isleworth's attribution... likewise Zollner (2019) and Kemp's (2000) catalogues were created with the intention of discussing the scholarly consensus of all paintings that are attributed to Leonardo, including contentious ones like Madonna Litta (which is by no means a "known Leonardo" – this is one of the most contentious attributions) and Bacchus but they don't even bring up the Isleworth as a possibility. (See the Zollner and Marani refs in the Isleworth article for further details) I initially came to this article with the idea that the artistic community was strongly against the attribution, but upon reading further and discussing with BD2412 the issue I keep facing is that besides Kemp there aren't enough leading scholars actively speaking against the attribution and rather ignoring it or denying it but not elaborating on the denial, which is not enough to support a wide acceptance against Leonardo. With that said the lack of consensus is from the side of attribution failing to convince leading scholars, and the side against the attribution ignoring the work and failing to actively dismiss it. I am happy to work with the editors here on making sure the article stays/becomes NPOV and would rather not be treated as an "enemy" that needs to be dealt with – I'm going to tweak it around a little bit to try and hopefully make it more NPOV. I would recommend reading this BBC article which IMO explains the situation rather nicely. Aza24 ( talk) 08:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bruce (filmmaker)
jps ( talk) 17:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Gabor Maté ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The article is overwhelmingly sourced to Maté's own works. According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat Maté pushes shoddy science or pseudoscience. The article has to be rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia's standards and I am not the person having the expertise to do it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Pam Reynolds case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently some pushing to make fringe vs. non-fringe view of life after death roughly equal, based on an article by an NPR religion reporter [36]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This near-death experience claim has been considered by some to be evidence of the survival of consciousness after death, or even life after death. However, others have pointed to prosaic and conventional means like anesthesia awareness as possible explanations. Both ideas are equally valid? I guess so. Persistent slow edit warring by SPA to keep this POV, so I'm done. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Input would be helpful at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) to determine whether the NCCIH is a WP:RS reliable source and whether it is a WP:MEDRS reliable source.
Key quote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Criticizing an organization for doing research on controversial ideas is quite a Catch 22. On the one hand, you're positing an idea is controversial. How does one determine if it is valid or not? Do research. If the research is negative, you can more strongly say the idea was wrong. If the research is right, then you move forward and realize maybe it wasn't so controversial after all. Many ideas we accept today as a given were considered "controversial" in the past. A great example is the connection between Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcers. When this theory was originally proposed it was not just considered controversial but ludicrous...until Marshall and Warren got the Nobel prize for their discovery years later! How many drugs have various other NIH centers done research on that later proved to be dangerous or fatal? Does that make those centers "controversial" or worthy of criticism? No they're just doing their jobs. And arguably what NCCIH found is that most of the controversial ideas you cite didn't work, so if anything, they are doing exactly what you appear to think they should be doing: disproving wrong ideas. Eric Yarnell ( talk) 19:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
John Ioannidis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
has said things about COVID-19 which were subsequently contradicted by a lot of scientists. But from the article, you wouldn't guess that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page of Rush Limbaugh's article, as well as the article itself, would probably benefit from more eyes. Apparently some editors think that to point out that the common cold and COVID-19 are not equivalent (nor are they caused by the same virus) is "original research". - Nunh-huh 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Tiger Sarll is one of the most interesting articles that I have read on Wikipedia. As it isn't a BLP and probably isn't a complete hoax, I think it might be worth bringing to this communities attention. I'm pretty sure that the bit about him being a three foot long baby, and his catching 35 foot long pythons and 25 foot long alligators would set three new records if they could be proved to the Guinness Book of records. Some of the military stuff is also a tad improbable. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I can’t believe I have to say this, but dolls do not have supernatural powers to “escape” from their owners. Thanks to a recent viral Twitter hoax, these articles are suddenly subject to much vandalism, and could benefit from watch listing in the short term. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is full of quackery and pseudoscience. Medical science considers the Church to be responsible for the deaths of millions.-- Horace Snow ( talk) 06:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
See [38] and Padmakar Vishnu Vartak. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
One of those perennial requests by Americans who don't get that there is a huge difference. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
On which subject, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osteopathic medicine Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
In desperate need of trimming and proper sources. Some sources, although I can't read enough of at least one of them, are [39] and [40]. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The article appears to be mostly original research. Some sources seem relevant but are also about particular extremist ideologies. Eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 21:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
List of oxymorons. jps ( talk) 02:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
One of the two contributors to that dictionary also seems part of the Templeton Foundation that is not neutral on the topic, but it's good if it leads to the originator, thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding: the current redirect is the result of a small-consensus merge ( Talk:Political religion § Proposed merge with Secular religion). And I was entertained that List of oxymorons really existed... — Paleo Neonate – 04:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Peer_reviewed_source_argues_for_serial_passage somebody has argued for the inclusion of an essay enitiled " Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?" in BioEssays which suggests that serial passage might have lead to the emergence of SARS COV 2:
Taken together, the available evidence does not point definitively toward a natural origin for SARS‐CoV‐2, rather, much of it is more consistent with what would be found if the novel coronavirus had arisen from serial passage of a “precursor” progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm somewhere in China, which would also provide the conditions for serial passage. However, more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other.
To me, this looks like advocacy for the fringe view that SARS COV 2 was created in a lab. In response to this, the lead author of the essay turned up to defend himself. I have no particular expertise on the topic but a single essay seems to me to fail WP:MEDRS for contentious issues like this, and lends the essay undue weight. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I have lost all sympathy for him at this point, there so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. I'm just waiting for Graham Beards to lay the smackdown at this point. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)By refusing to acknowledge the existence of this paper you're effectively censoring scientific progress, plenty of pre-prints already exist also proposing the plausibility of a laboratory origin, and by refusing to add our assertions to this Wikipedia page you're making it harder for the other scientists actually doing the real work, not moderating Wikipedia, to find our paper.
The pandemic is also bringing out academia's darker sides—competition, hostility, sexism, and a lust for renown. Armchair experts from unrelated fields have successfully positioned themselves as trusted sources. Male scientists are publishing more than their female colleagues, who are disproportionately shouldering the burden of child care during lockdowns. Many researchers have suddenly pivoted to COVID-19, producing sloppy work with harmful results. That further dispirits more cautious researchers, who, on top of dealing with the virus and reticent politicians, are also forced to confront their own colleagues.
This is covered by our policy WP:MEDRS. As a primary report, its inclusion is not acceptable. Graham Beards ( talk) 09:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
From:
Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar
[41]
Dr Avinash Kadam
Rasayani Biologics Pvt Ltd, Pune, India Rasamruta,
November 2013
(For non-Ayurveda research on the effects of inorganic mercury, see [42], [43], [44],)
I was curious about the phrase "It first undergoes 'Shodhan' which purifies it." I figured that somebody must have described the "purification" process so I looked it up. Keep in mind that multiple Ayurveda sources claim that Shodhan makes Mercury safe to ingest.
I then looked up a couple of the unfamiliar words in the above. First some Ayurveda sources:
Everyone here will be glad to hear how this remedy cures heart disease, diabetes, and flatulence. Then I checked out some Wikipedia pages: Shilajit seems OK:
but Triphala is full of woo:
-- cited to non- WP:MEDRS sources such as "Altern Ther Health Med" and "BMC Complement Altern Med."
All of these pages need more attention. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
At
government in exile (and
List of active separatist movements in Africa) there is an entry for a claimed "Coptic Government In Exile", referenced by
this archived website (sadly the English version isn't archived, so I don't have a clue what it says). The best mention I can find of this alleged organisation is in The Coptic Question in the Mubarak Era by Sebastian Elsasser (Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199368396) page 274 which is a footnote saying In 1992, a formerly unknown Coptic expatriate in Germany, Fāyiz Naǧīb, even declared himself to be the leader of a "Coptic government in exile"
. I'm guessing the archived website is probably the same person, and that we should't really be promoting this as a government in exile at all?
FDW777 (
talk) 19:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Ayurveda and edits to Indian Medical Association and Pseudoscience. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Invisible planes --Mumbai Mirror
Also see: [48]
Oddy enough, Wikipedia, which usually covers all aspects of aerospace technology, doesn't have an article on this. Go figure. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Is getting a lot of attention, and in view of the alarm from scientists which contrasts with the propaganda coming from the politicians, there are WP:FRINGE considerations in play. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is filled with some pretty bold claims about consensus evolutionary theory Maximum genetic diversity? TNT to stub justified? Based off some observations about the creator 1 generally there are a few genetics fringe points. I got interested because both users involved in that discussion were also involved in this page. Its very long and hard to parse generally, but it makes some fairly wild accusations about genetics research that don't seem to be backed up well. PainProf ( talk) 02:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Committee to Defend the President ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I noticed a wholesale change to Don Colbert that amounted to a cut-and-paste of his official bio, which I undid as a COPYVIO issue. The editor involved came to my talk page and I explained why they can't do that. He basically then requested some edits, mostly removing the terms "Pentecostal" and "faith healing". I did the first, as I don't see where that comes out of the sources but I declined the second because I see the word faith plastered all over his website. Maybe he doesn't do the "Be healed" nonsense up on a stage but I don't see the problem.
Now that editor has escalated to the BLP noticeboard where they are picking nits about the meaning of "faith healing". I'll back off as I once blogged about Don Colbert, so I should probably not get more involved than I am. -- Krelnik ( talk) 12:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
to those who think that sort of thing importantyeah, the faithful. Just add faith and stir. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
We get it. You have a personal definition of "Faith Healing" that is wildly different from the definitions found in every encyclopedia [54] [55] [56] [57] and dictionary. [58] [59] [60] [61] You are, of course, free to use your "special" definition, but be aware that it hinders communication if the participants in a discussion don't use that same definition of commonly-used phrases. Yes, you can often get away with using non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
"have a personal definition of "Faith Healing" that is wildly different from the definitions found in every encyclopedia". I see nothing in any of the sources Guy cited (including the very same Britannica article that treats of incubation as faith healing) that excludes as faith healing that kind of faith healing done by means of (pseudo-)medicine. If the Wikipedia article omits mention of incubation and related rituals (including fasting in expectation of healing miracles, very common in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages) then it is that article that is defective, not my understanding of faith healing. "Faith healing" has been used to describe incubation and the rituals of the asklepeia for more than one hundred years. GPinkerton ( talk) 16:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Vedic Mathematics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has deteriorated somewhat over the last half year, with people removing references to Hindu wingnut organizations and adding claims that the book is legit, but I think I reverted it all while not destroying the useful changes. Still, will probably need watching in the future. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
New BLP that appears to be a WP:COATRACK for all the fringe stuff excised from Pentagon UFO videos. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
These edits by User:ServB1. Aren't these inappropriate for most if not all biblical figures? Doug Weller talk 13:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Traditional Chinese medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The page appears to have been affected by babysitting of a Singaporean IP (183.90...) who appears to be engaging in OR and also vandalism [64], depending on the situation around the article. Azuredivay ( talk) 14:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This template on the "Femini paradox" [sic] looks like a pile of unrelated things:
What do cloning and head transplants have to do with the Wow! signal? XOR'easter ( talk) 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article needs some updating. RFK Jr. has always been on the problematic antivaxxer side of things, but since the pandemic he's gone full-blown conspiracy theory. I'm not sure if we have enough sources yet to WP:LABEL him in Wikipedia's voice, but we certainly have enough that document his support of conspiracy theories that we ought to make some attempt to explain that's what he's doing. I tried to start that.
I also think that the monstrosity that is COVID-19 conspiracy theories may soon warrant a separate article from the place it is now hosted at "Misinformation". Related, but perhaps a separate issue.
jps ( talk) 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors may wish to contribute to a draft page I have recently created. Kate Shemirani| is a promoter of fringe-theories related to vaccine denial, COVID-19 and 5G radio networks. She is due to be presenting a protest in Central London the weekend after next, and is likely to be in the news again quite soon, I therefore thought it would be helpful to create a page that summarises some of the secondary sources which have recently mentioned her. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor pointed out to me an increasing trend in people attempting to use "European American" rather than "white" in various Wikipedia articles. On my advice, he has initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#European American vs. whites, white people, white Americans, or Caucasians. I note this here because of recent fringe efforts to insert uncommon descriptors similar to "European American", such as the recent discussion of "Northwestern European" as a group identifier. I think this is the same sort of thing. BD2412 T 04:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted walled garden includes:
See also Pranamat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Another herb that cures cancer. What a shock. I know it's true because I read it on Wikipedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Re: Castleford, Idaho. I doubt the cited book counts as a reliable source, but is it acceptable to include mentions of bigfoot and jackalopes in articles about places where they have been claimed to have been seen? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
"Readers will learn about a Seattle man's contact with a group of aliens that landed in Ballard; ponder the claims of two Washington men that Elvis was an extraterrestrial breeding experiment; hear about an Oregonian's extended discussion with Bigfoot..."So, not a WP:RS for factual assertions. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
If anyone can check to see if 9/11 Predictive Programming is substantially similar to the deleted "9/11 In Movies Theory" page, that would be helpful. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Apparently the wildest UFO claims are accepted at face value in South Africa. At least that's the way a lot of this article reads. I've pruned out the most egregious fringe sourcing (e.g. some fantastical stuff, like this), but a lot of copyediting remains to be done by those with time on their hands. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Book by Ian Stevenson. The article looks a bit crank-friendly to me, but I could be wrong. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:
Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Based on what's in that discussion, would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 13:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Input is needed at this discussion on the talk page of Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
On a related note, this seems to be almost entirely unsourced. I count a dozen “citation needed”s, and what sourcing there is is either primary or what looks like a directory site, lists of textbooks, and a list of awards of some sort (hard to tell because the links don’t seem to work). Brunton ( talk) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: Can you link to the arbcom connection? I feel like I'm missing something. jps ( talk) 21:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Good old-fashioned woo-woo nonsense. Moulatsiotis in one of his interviews in 1995 said that "In the future, a mark will be most likely made, it will be a chip, a biometric ID or a scanner in the forehead". Judging from what Moulatsiotis said his predictions were probably right.
Guy (
help! -
typo?) 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
David Berlinski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May need more balance. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Afterlife ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has a "Science" section. I don't think all of it is actually science, but I can't tell if any of it is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Roger A. Pielke Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Extensive edits on 1 September 2020 have made this article into uncritical support of Pielke's views, largely sourced to Roger A. Pielke Jr.. My expertise on this is very limited, but my understanding is that it's questionable to say; "Pielke has done pioneering work for several decades showing that rising wealth and property, not climate change, is the main factor behind the rising cost of natural disasters." Think this needs expert review.
On a topical note, apparently today the NSF "announced that it had awarded Pielke and an international team of investigators a Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grant to investigate how seven countries used scientific advice to address the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. . . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty concerned about EnvironmentExpert ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules. Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps ( talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
See also: Michael Shellenberger. jps ( talk) 00:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I am EnvironmentExpert ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What is your concern, exactly?
You write, "This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules."
No, it's not. I have contributed in good faith to several Wikipedia pages.
"Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps ( talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)"
You have presented no basis for your concerns either about my edit or about me.
You write, "I have reverted essentially every edit that this user has made so far as a POV-PUSH."
I welcome other Wikipedia editors to look into your arbitrary action here. You've offered zero justification for it.
I appreciate that, and hope you appreciate that I am a new Wikipedia editor, but also one that has followed the controversy very closely. I do not believe my edits were outside of the mainstream. IPCC comes to the identical conclusion as Pielke on climate change and natural disasters. The controversy with Holdren was poorly explained. I explained it and its context. Holdren's criticism is represented, which is the balance you seem to be seeking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvironmentExpert ( talk • contribs)
Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence).from the IPCC (p. 9) be the mainstream view?
The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados (Boruff et al., 2003; Pielke Jr. et al.,2003, 2008; Raghavan and Rajesh, 2003; Miller et al 2008; Schmidt et al.,2009; Zhang et al., 2009; see also Box 4-2).(p. 269) I count 25 cites to Pielke Jr. in that report, why is the IPCC citing someone with fringe claims and "on the outside looking in"? fiveby( zero) 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
a role for climate change has not been excludedis the most that can be reliably stated.
a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence)is a pretty strong statement. It's not enough to justify "were all doomed", but equally it doesn't justify
"In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose".[68] For all his hedging, Pielke doesn't seem to concede that uncertainty carries significant risk. He's fond of quoting Munich Re, and by coincidence in Talk:Natural disaster selective quotations were taken from this article dated 2020/07/23 which is actually careful to note that climate change is likely to play a role in increasing risks. [on second thoughts, getting offtopic] I noticed "There is always the chance of a benign wildfire and/or hurricane season. But since background conditions indicate the potential for a more active wildfire season in California and elevated hurricane activity in the Atlantic, it is more important than ever to be well prepared". Though largely about variability, interesting in light of current news. . . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Given that this included references to Natural News and The Townsend Letter, I suspect there may be a few issues. One obvious one is that 2/3 of the sources are a single book. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Folk belief appears to be a euphemism or academic synonym for superstition. Would it be a suitable candidate for redirecting/merging/deleting? GPinkerton ( talk) 05:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Fringe archaeology book, needs a cleanup, and I don't care what Wikidata says, we shouldn't be calling her any kind of history researcher. David Childress is a terrible source, as is William F. McNeil. Visitors to Ancient America. The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus - see this review. (scroll down). Doug Weller talk 17:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors may wish to review Draft:Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). Mark Steele will be speaking at a protest in London on the 12th of September, hence I felt that an article about this subject may be useful to readers. All review is welcome. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
At Unani medicine, see this, this, and my edit. More eyes will be needed. That same editor has also made some changes at Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Now another editor is saying the source isn't good enough. Thoughts? Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a theory now! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: Input welcome at Talk:Biorhythm theory § Recent move — Paleo Neonate – 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
From the way this article is presented, you'd think there's some good new evidence for extraterrestrial life and whatnot. Sure, some people are skeptical, but as long as we can cite churnalism sites in WikiVoice, then we can up-play the significance of it. A previous AFD for this back in March came to the conclusion that it's likely bunk, but still notable bunk (although there was some call for draftification too), but you wouldn't really get that from the current state of the article. I removed one egregious FRINGE vio, but I'm just not really good at this stuff. If anyone feels like taking a closer look, it could probably use it. Thanks in advance, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
This AfD related to discussion here which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockey stick controversy, and deletion with a redirect to Hockey stick graph. The YAD06 article is a minor aspect of a very minor aspect of that controversy, if deleted it could be briefly merged into the hockey stick graph article, but would need care to avoid undue weight to a fringe claim. . . dave souza, talk 11:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety
Looks like fringe political machinations to me!
jps ( talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Environmental psychology is a thing. "Eco-anxiety" is a buzzword that means something different every time it is used, as far as I can tell. jps ( talk) 02:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
If this seems strangely familiar to anyone besides me, it's because
Climate Psychosis was up for deletion last year. The result was to merge into it's less woo-woo cousin:
Eco-anxiety.
At the time, I don't think I realized that the two articles had been created at roughly the same time, but I guess that doesn't matter.
ApLundell (
talk) 04:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The AfD closed as a merge, so the fringe content needs to be cleaned up. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. Can you tell me if IHME is a reliable source? The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model has been used along with dozens of others by the US government to project outcomes. It has been widely cited and widely criticized. This is for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I did not find it listed in the archives here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. I previously posted this question to WT:MED and was advised to try here. Thank you in advance. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Q: What do the Genesis flood and Homeopathy have in common?
A: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/antedilution
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Jeffrey Mishlove ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Mishlove. jps ( talk) 21:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
...Really? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 04:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Joseph D'Aleo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Contains the guy's views about climate change, but no mainstream science. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone else find this nav template name and collection of links odd, as well as the associated article Human uses of living things? It all seems rather WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKed to me. The template has a section for "dinosaurs" with multiple associated links. It makes me wonder if this is some sneaky way to to get "kinds" and "types" from ID into the 'pedia. I'll be happy to be proved wrong if it's not the case, I haven't done a deep dive of the edit history (and don't have time to, I ran across it as the only nav template at the bottom of the article on Toad), but it just seems suspicious to me. He iro 18:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The GA was rubberstamped by an sockpuppet account User:HalfGig. It needs to be relisted and removed. I am concerned that User:Chiswick Chap may not have known about this. Perhaps he can comment. jps ( talk) 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Some dispute over this at Roswell UFO incident. Specific proposal was to say [71] "debris was found" rather than that a balloon crashed. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The bigger issue as I see it is that the first sentence was a bit out-of-the-ordinary when it comes to the way we normally start articles. I tried to rectify that, no doubt satisfying no one. jps ( talk) 03:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have never seen an article sourced entirely to ufologists and sensational news items, until now. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
With the recent appointment of a climate change denialist the article may need review and watchlisters... [72] [73] — Paleo Neonate – 20:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone else cast an eye over recent edits to the article and talk page? Brunton ( talk) 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the article and recent editing? In response to my asking what the sources say on the subject of "brainwashing", I got this response:
There is a large number of sources, and they say a lot of different things (I think the lead of our page summarizes them well). For an outside tertiary summary source, one can look at EB:
[76]. It does not say anywhere this is pseudoscience.
[77] --
Hipal/Ronz (
talk) 19:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:QAnon#New section for QAnon in the United Kingdom. Scary. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This new but obscure article may need some more eyes. Obscure theories of contact/discovery pop up on wikipedia from time to time, and unless closely examined they then find themselves set in stone. I have prompted the author. Nickm57 ( talk) 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Terrain theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has this rival of germ theory been resurrected? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:01, 19 September 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. |
Socionics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
[1] — seems like not good revert, done without a detailed explanation on the discussion page why the use of the term pseudoscience is a violation of neutrality and why sources that refer to socionics as pseudoscience are removed with a statement of falsification. In ru-wiki, there is a long-term conflict over socionics, as a result of which almost all supporters were blocked. It would be good to attract a viewer with knowledge in psychology and, in particular, in differential psychology. Sorry for my english. -- Q Valda ( talk) 03:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are" Verifiability "and" No original research ". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".
Member Q Valda is trying to challenge this decision. He even threatened the mediator Helgo13, as the mediator Helgo13 himself defined:
“First, you have to stop having a discussion like this ('juggling ... will not end well”) if you don’t want problems when discussing your actions in a much wider circle than the local mediation. You seem to be a mediator, but instead of a solution, you create a conflict yourself, and out of the blue. Second, you were offered specific questions on SALW, but there was no answer to them. And something tells me that the answer to the specific question of whether the current wording in the article suits (this is exactly what worries me the most at the moment), we will never hear.- Q Valda 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The wording in the article is not satisfactory, since it is not in accordance with the result. And I don't need to threaten me with a "broad discussion", you have the right to do so, as I have the right to use administrative powers. - Best regards, Helgo13 • (Obs.) 17:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In the edits of user Q Valda about socionics, there is falsification and manipulation in the retelling of an authoritative source. This is an attempt to prove that the existence of psychological types is rejected by psychology. In doing so, he even tries to refer to an article that refutes this very point of view. In this work, 4 stable psychological types are identified. Even the title of the article by Gerlach M., Farb B., Revelle W., Nunes Amaral L. A. A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets // Nature Human Behavior. - 2018. - No. 2 (September). - S. 735-742. [4]. In addition, the isolation of psychological types is one of the main scientific methods in psychology. In all other sources, which the user Q Valda tries to put in the preamble of the article, the word "socionics" is mentioned only once. Moreover, these sources are not written by experts, not psychologists and cannot be considered authoritative on the topic of socionics. In ru-wiki, these sources were rejected by the intermediary for citation on Wikipedia:
"To be honest, I agree with the bottom line. In terms of the fact that there is no reason to include this opinion in the preamble. There are too few sources that consider in sufficient detail the issue of pseudoscience of socionics (in contrast to the same NC). You can't even write a section on them properly, and in order to include this in the preamble, kmk, such a section must first appear. After all, the preamble is the summary of the article. --ptQa 11:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--"
[5] Sounderk ( talk) 12:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
"Socionics is a science that draws methodology from sociology, informatics and psychology and is focused on improving society, in which for each individual belonging to a certain psychological type there is a place in socially useful activity."
-- Sounderk ( talk) 13:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) — that was several times removed by supporters of this pseudoscienceSo it is neither "distortion" nor "manipulation". Bimodal personality types (like in socionics or MBTI) are outdated concepts.In contrast to personality traits, the existence of personality types remains extremely controversial.
The long list of pseudoscientific concepts today includes: theory of torsion fields, cold fusion projects, wave genetics, japhetic theory, the theory of "living matter", "new chronology", eugenics, dianetics, cryonics, socionics…
...there are dozens of true pseudosciences, such as astrology and palmistry, ESP and parapsychology, cryptobiology and bioenergetics, bioresonance and iridology, creationism and telegonia, UFOlogy and paleoastronautics, eniology and dianetics, numerology and socionics...
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)An example of pseudoscience is [ ... ] socionics (the idea of Lithuanian economist and psychologist A. Augustinavichiute about the existence of 16 sociotypes, which can be identified with well-known personalities)...
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)A special danger for culture is pseudoscience, which exists in the form of a wide variety of forms: from astrology to not so long ago appeared UFOlogy, "socionics", homeopathy, etc.
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)There are also pure pseudosciences in the field of personal predictions that pretend to be serious theories. For example, socionics. Socionics is the concept of personality types and relationships between them. Based on Jung's teaching, socionics deduces the existence of 16 socionic types [...] we will refer socionics to the category of pseudoscience, because, having a science-like form, it positions itself as an effective concept, in addition it earns money from its unconfirmed ideas.
Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.Crossroads -talk- 16:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Therefore, he is a competent expert in the field of the academic scientific definition of socionics. His definition of socionics was published in a highly respected academic reference dictionary in 2003. Other authors referred to by the user Q Valda are neither psychologists nor sociologists. They use the word "socionics" only once, without references, without analysis. These are incompetent authors, especially in contrast with a number of psychology and sociology professors cited in the article. But with the use of these incompetent authors, the user Q Valda suggests changing the definition of socionics from neutral to sharply non-neutral. This is a violation WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RSUW. There are other highly respected academic reference books on this topic. In addition, socionics is studied in more than 150 universities in all countries of Eastern Europe. -- Sounderk ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)“Vladimir Gavrilovich Krysko (b. 1949) - Soviet and Russian psychologist, specialist in military psychology, ethnopsychology and social psychology. Doctor of Psychology, Professor." [6]
The analysis showed that we are dealing with explicit manipulation of sources [8]. These 10 sources, given in non-consensus edits, are not reliable, they were written by non-specialists in the field of psychology, that is, by incompetent authors and were specially and biasedly selected from several thousand scientific works on socionics. But Google Scholar contains 3000 scientific sources in English [9], 6870 scientific academic sources on socionics in Russian and other languages [10]. The Stanford University Research Library contains over 1.600 peer-reviewed journal sources [11]. Of course, there are no articles on the topic of socionics as a pseudoscience in the scientific library of Stanford University [12] (Scholarly & peer-reviewed only). No one but me offered my reasoned assessment to the sources №1-10, placed in the definition of socionics to substantiate the pseudoscience of socionics. The analysis of these sources, quoted by me earlier, has not been refuted by anyone. But a few years ago in ru-wiki the mediator explicitly forbade the use of such sources to justify the pseudoscience of socionics. He forbade citing sources in which socionics a) is mentioned only once, b) sources written by non-professional authors, c) sources written by authors without degrees. Moreover, according to a number of authors from these sources, he made some special decisions, explicitly banning their use in an article on "Socionics". He always maintained the principle of neutrality, as the main one in Wiki. All these quotes are collected on the discussion page in the ru-wiki. For dear participants, I can translate all the quotes from his decisions. Thus, all the work to assess these Russian-language sources has already been done. It is easy to see that none of these sources №1-10 correspond to the decisions of the mediator! a) All of them mention the word "socionics" only once without analysis, b) they are all written by authors - not psychologists, non-sociologists, non-teachers. c) Among the authors are several philosophers, a journalist-geographer Sergeev (he was directly banned by three intermediaries), a philologist, a student, and a teacher without a degree. However, some participants, based on their own negative opinions, which they did not even hide, in violation of all the rules of the Wiki for several years continued to try to put them after the departure of the mediator from the Wiki. Why couldn't they supply other sources? For a very simple reason. There are simply no other sources, especially in the field of psychology and sociology, that criticize socionics. In the end, they managed to block opponents and force these changes. Now the new mediator in the ru-wiki has confirmed the decision on neutrality, but these users refuse to comply and are waging a war of edits. Now the same process has begun in En-wiki. Therefore, I urge dear English-speaking users to be very careful and understand this issue yourself! After all, from the point of view of the rules and decisions of the mediator, these sources №1-10 are fake, and nothing more than the whole body of academic sources cited in the article and by me. But we are talking only about neutrality in the definition of socionics, and nothing more. The result is a theater of the absurd, in which English-speaking Wiki users are clearly misled. This is understandable for an unfamiliar topic, but the sources and facts are before you. If the independent sources I present are not enough, I can increase their number many times over. I would also like to note that there are more than 100 scientific works by Russian and Ukrainian aviation specialists on research on the application of socionics in aviation alone. There is a whole scientific field of "Aviation Socionics", which deals with the problem of flight safety in civil aviation. And according to the official state program of flight training in civil aviation, which was approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation in 2001, the study of the basics of "Aviation Socionics" is mandatory. This is part of the training program. The situation is similar with Russian manned astronautics since 1991.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
1. Tertiary reliable source: MILITARY-PSYCHOLOGICAL DICTIONARY-REFERENCE Textbook Under the general editorship of Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education Zinchenko Yu.P. [13], Moscow 2010. Authors: L.А. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; S.L. Kandybovich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor [14]; A.G. Karayani, Doctor of Psychology,Professor [15]; I.V. Syromyatnikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor.
SOCIONICS is a model for improving society, in which for each individual, representing a certain psychological type, there is a place in society, in social activity. S. - one of the theories of psychological types, which is at the intersection of psychology, sociology, computer science. S. is based on the model of CG Jung - a Swiss psychiatrist, psychologist. According to Jung's "Psychological Types", 1921, etc.), a person cannot be both an extrovert and an introvert. His psyche resembles a magnet formed from two poles. The poles of a magnet are always together, and a person is asymmetric, its second pole is another person. The relationship between two types, when the partners have the necessary additional qualities, are called complement relations, and the complement process itself is called dualization. For example, marriage is the right not only to a sexual partner, but also to psychic complement and continuation of one's personality in another, to the dualization of one's psyche. Different relationships between people in the same social conditions can only be explained by the psychological structures of the individuals in contact. These structures can be congenital or acquired, but must be sufficiently stable. With their help, you can explain why some people develop with some people, and with others - different relationships. A. Augustinavichiute, based on the work of Jung, proposed a classification of people directly related to the processes of information exchange in society. She identified 16 personality types, including: logician and ethic, extrovert and introvert, sensory and intuitive, rationalist and irrationalist, etc. S. helps to determine the type of a person's personality, to build interaction and communication with him, to form family, industrial and leisure collectives [16].
Extended content
|
---|
2. Tertiary reliable source: V.G. Krysko, Doctor of Psychology, Professor. Dictionary of Social Psychology. - SPb.: Peter, 2003 .-- 416 p. - ISBN 5-314-00021-0 Commentary: These are a tertiary reliable sources with a lot of weight. Its authors are social psychologists. Obviously, these tertiary sources are much more significant than those sources that are now placed in the preamble of the article, written by non-professionals in the field of psychology or sociology and mentioning the word "socionics" only once in the entire article.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
4. Tertiary reliable source: Dictionary of Foreign Words - Prof. Komlev N.G., 2006.
5. Tertiary reliable source: Terminological dictionary of the librarian on social and economic topics. - St. Petersburg: Russian National Library. 2011.
6. Tertiary reliable sources: a) Sharkov F.I., Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor. Communicology. Encyclopedic dictionary reference. Textbook. allowance. - M.: ITK "Dashkov and K", 2009. - 766 p. - ISBN 978-5-394-00101-7. Recommended as a teaching aid for training bachelors and masters in advertising and public relations. b)Communicology: the basics of communication theory. Sharkov F.I., 2012, "ITK" Dashkov and K ° ", 2012
b) Philosophy; Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus, Gom. state un-t them. F. Skaryna. - 4th ed., Rev. and add. - Gomel: GSU im. F. Skaryna, 2015 - 354 pp. Author: Kalmykov V.N., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor. Comments: These are university textbooks on philosophy in two versions. Unlike Mineev's book, in which socionics is mentioned only once, and the link to which is placed in the definition of the subject of socionics in the preamble of the article, these textbooks consider socionics as a new science in much more detail. Therefore, the weight of this textbook as an reliable source is much higher than the weight of Mineev's book.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 8. Betty Lou Leaver, Madeline Ehrman, Boris Shekhtman: Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition. – Cambridge University Press, 2005. – 280 p. – ISBN 052154663X, 9780521546638. Authors: Betty Lou Leaver, Associate Dean and Chief Academic Officer for New York Institute of Technology at Jordan University for Science and Technology. Madeline Ehrman, Director of Research, Evaluation, Development at the Foreign Service Institute, US. Boris Shekhtman is Operational Director of the Coalition of Distinguished Language Centers, and President of the Specialized Language Training Center in Rockville, Maryland., МD. . 9. Prof. Fink G. and Prof. Mayrhofer W. Cross-cultural competence and management – setting the stage // European J. Cross-Cultural Competence and Management. - 2009. - Vol. 1. - No. 1. - Pp. . 10. Alexandrova N.Kh., Boyadzhieva N., Sapundzhieva K., Kolarova Ts.D. Socionics in the sphere of social science - Sofia: Univ. ed. St. Kliment Ohridski, 2004 .-- 149 p. Authors: Alexandrova N.Kh. - Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, Boyadzhieva N. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Sapundzhieva K.V. - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Kolarova - Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor. They teach at the Sofia University “St. Кliment Ohridski "(Bulgaria). Commentary: on this and other textbooks socionics is taught at universities in Bulgaria.-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 18:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 11. Gosheva M.I. Socionics as a tool in counseling high school students // e-Education. - 2010. - № 37. - P.47-56
12. M. Laszlo-Kutiuk The Key to Fiction. - Bucharest: Mustang, 2002. — 291p. - ISBN - 973-99400-6-4. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania). . 13. László-Kuţiuk M. Ghid de autocunoasţere. Elemente de socionică. – Bucureşti, 2000. ISBN 973-97141-5-3. Author: Professor at the University of Bucharest (Romania). 14. Surtaeva N. N., Ivanova O. N. Educational socionics and problems of conflict interactions. SPb. IOV RAO, 2002 .-- 135 p. ISBN 5-258-00021-4. Authors: Surtaeva N.N., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor. Ivanova O. A., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor. 15. Prof. Blutner R.; Hochnadel E. (2010). Two qubits for C.G. Jung's theory of personality (PDF). Cognitive Systems Research. 11 (3): 243–259. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.12.002 [22]
16. Mathematical psychology: V.Yu. Krylov. - Institute of Psychology Russian Academy of Sciences [24], 2010 .-- 503 p. - ISBN 978-5-9270-0115-5 . 17. Prof. Spirin L.F., Dr. Rumyantseva E.A., Rumyantseva T.A. Socionics - for teachers and parents. (How to find mutual understanding, harmony, friendship). / Ed. Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences M. I. Rozhkov. -M .: International Pedagogical Academy, 1999. - Spirin L.F. Professor, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor; full member of the International Pedagogical Academy, full member of the Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences, academician of the Baltic Pedagogical Academy, corresponding member of the International Academy of Psychological Sciences. / Reviewers: V. V. Novikov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; P.V. Konanikhin, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Academician of NPA. . 18. Svetlana Ivanova, PhD in Education, senior researcher laboratory of innovatics in pedagogical education, Institute of educational management of Russian Science Academy, the branch in St. Petersburg PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS // MODERN EUROPEAN RESEARCHES, №6, 2015. . 19. Sociology. 5th ed., Textbook. 2016. Authors: Alexander Gribakin, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Irina Loginova, Doctor of Philosophy, Valery Glazyrin, Professor, Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Olga Berdyugina, Doctor of Philosophy, Andrey Masleev, Doctor of Philosophy, Evgeny Konovkin, Doctor of Philosophy, Elvira Gribakina, Natalia Gulina, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor.
20. Socionics and Sociometry Diagnosting of Air Navigation System's Operator. Prof. Yuliya Sikirda (National Aviation University, Ukraine) and Prof. Tetiana Shmelova (National Aviation University, Ukraine) Source Title: Socio-Technical Decision Support in Air Navigation Systems: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Copyright: © 2018 21. Volkov Yu.G., Mostovaya I.V. Sociology: a textbook for universities. Ed. prof. V.I.Dobrenkova. - M .: Gardarika, 1998 .-- 244 p. Recommended by the Ministry general and vocational education Russian Federation as a textbook.For university students,MOSCOW,1998, ISBN 5-7762-0041-5 UDC316 (075.8)BBK 60.5 B67. Reviewers:Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor N.S. Sleptsov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor V. T. Lisovsky
22. V.A. Kononov. WHY SOCIOLOGY SOCIONICS? // Sociology in the modern world: science, education, creativity. - 2009. - No. 1. - R. 116-120. Information about the author: Ph.D., Associate Professor
23. Prof. V.V. Kryzhko Theory and practice of management in education. - M .: Education of Ukraine, 2005. - Reviewers: N.L. Kolominsky, Doctor of Psychology, Professor; M.I. Prikhodko, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor.
24. MAPPING PERSONALITIES: THE BRAND AND CONSUMER By Imran Khan. Submitted to Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad. Dissertation Supervisor Prof. Atul Tandon Director, MICA Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad Page 1 of 103 February 2006
25. Training of aviation personnel in the field of the human factor: interuniversity collection of scientific papers / [otv. ed. G.V. Kovalenko]. - SPb. : Acad. citizen aviation, 2004. - Recommendations: Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, Federal Air Transport Agency FGOU VPO "Academic Civil Aviation"
26. Prof. V.H. Arutyunov, Prof. V.M. Mishin, Prof. V.M. Svintsitsky. Methodology of socio-economic cognition: Textbook. manual. - К .: КНЕУ, 2005. - 353 с. - ISBN 966–574–000–0
|
27. Horwood J., Maw A. Theatre Teams Assembled Using Personality Profiles Can Improve Predicted Teamworking Scores // Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. - 2012. - Vol. 94. - No 3. - Pp. 1-6\
Socionics is a relatively new science developed and popularised by Ausra Augustinaviciute in the 1970s. Augustinaviciute and her colleagues worked with Carl Jung’s personality typologies to develop personalitybased relationship profiles. It was found that the nature and development of interpersonal relationships (both professional and personal) are far from random. Instead, they are based on how well suited each individual’s psychological profiles are to one another, allowing Augustinaviciute to develop 16 ‘socionic types’ (Table 2) predicting and describing the interpersonal relationships between any combination of Jung’s personality types. Augustinaviciute’s work was published in the Russian literature but translations of her work and a wealth of further information regarding the development and application of socionics can be found on a number of websites and in books. [34]
-- ThesariusQ ( talk) 17:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is a demarcation that is made on variety of judgements. It is not an accusation which requires "substantiation". Rather the claim that something is not pseudoscience is what requires substantiation. An idea could be not pseudoscientific for a variety of reasons. E.g., maybe the idea is intended to (appear to) be a scientific claim at all. Or maybe the idea is properly scientific. Either way, it is a simple matter to provide the evidence for those. What I see here is a lot of WP:REDFLAGs that are not being properly addressed. To give a nice comparison, astrology is taught at dozens and dozens of universities in India. That does not mean astrology is not pseudoscience. jps ( talk) 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I should have checked the logs before posting above. The user I was replying to has been blocked for sockpuppetry/ WP:NOTHERE (not surprising):
Carry on.
jps ( talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Ethnic nepotism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Decade-old tags attached. Some curious sources but prima facie potentially legit but needs attention and probably an update of the science side. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic nepotism. After some research, I think that this is just a WP:COATRACK for white supremacist opinions surrounding race and intelligence. Pretty fringe stuff and it doesn't need a standalone article. jps ( talk) 16:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
In the process of digging through the above, I found this page:
I think it fails WP:BK. Does anyone else?
jps ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Long time listener, first time caller at WP:FTN. There appears to be a whole lotta fringey stuff going on there. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
A lovingly crafted advertorial for a "holistic" thyroid quack. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a painting which everyone agrees was at least from the studio of Leonardo da Vinci (i.e., painted when and where Leonardo was around), with the bone of contention being whether some part of it was actually painted by Leonardo himself.
At one point the article over-reached in claiming that the painting was a confirmed Leonardo. However, the article has since been rewritten to lean towards the extreme opposite direction, with some wording implying near-unanimity that Leonardo painted no part of it, by editors who contend that the other view is FRINGE.
This, however, appears to me to go beyond the consensus of reliable sources. For example, in 2012, The Guardian described the art world as being "split" over the question, and in 2013, Reuters stated that it was "dismissed by some experts", but "also won support in the art world". There also appear to be peer-reviewed journal publications by multiple independent authors on both sides of the question (with a slightly larger raw number favoring authenticity), and the experts themselves disagree as to what constitutes the consensus among their peers. I have dug into a few of the people weighing in, and there are scholars with applicable expertise arguing both sides, and in both cases somewhat more than what is represented in the article.
So, I am looking here for some sense of what constitutes the cutoff between characterizing something as FRINGE, and characterizing it as a contested view reasonably held by some non-crackpot experts. BD2412 T 18:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe I see the issue now. I removed that Frank & Frank citation, which looks like a student paper and clearly is not suitable for this topic, and this was immediately reverted, along with a sneaky removal of qualifying language that tends to indicate exactly why it is inappropriate for use in this article. The language that was removed was a qualification from the paper that "Nonetheless, in each case, the model that more strongly classified Seated Bacchus and the Isleworth Mona Lisa as not painted by Leonardo also classified the Madonna Litta as not by Leonardo." In other words, the authors of this non-peer-reviewed paper write that their model classified both this painting, and a known Leonardo, as not by Leonardo. The removal of this qualification looks geared to create a false impression of the significance of the paper. This is typical POV pushing that we don't allow in Wikipedia and would recommend a line by line review of the article. Based on more of the history I am seeing, I am starting to think this is going to end up with sanctions on the article as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess I missed this conversation (thanks for the ping?). Apologies on reverting the removal of the Neural Network paper, I was mislead by here where content that the submitter can write says "The article has been accepted for publication in Leonardo (MIT Press)" but warning and reverting without explaining that that content could be user generated was pointless and wasted everyone's time. Anyways I'm fine with the opening as "The Isleworth Mona Lisa is an early sixteenth-century oil on canvas painting depicting the same subject as the Mona Lisa." If you look at the article before I found it you'll see that a user was undoubtedly POV pushing which was my intention to correct. I do admit that I may have gone too far with asserting that attribution against Leonardo, at least in the lead, but I'm fine with how the lead is now. I did some work on the article but then lost motivation due to the complexity of the situation, and as a result left some terms like "widely accepted" that I was still unsure about but failed to remove.
The idea that "a larger number of sources are listed as concluding that the painting is authentic" is simply false. There is no consensus, and if there is it would be slightly against an attribution to Leonardo – akin to saying something like "most experts are skeptical". Many of the "sources are listed as concluding that the painting is authentic" are news sources and news sources don't get to authenticate paintings and I would be hesitant to trust them to state that "most leading experts are against/for the attribution". Keep this in mind: When the director of the National Gallery wanted to include the Salvator Mundi in their Leonardo show, he invited Kemp, Syson (who worked at the Gallery), Marani, Bambach and another Italian scholar (a woman whose name I don't recall – and had never heard of) to authenticate the work. These experts were divided on Salvator Mundi, but none of them believe in the Isleworth's attribution... likewise Zollner (2019) and Kemp's (2000) catalogues were created with the intention of discussing the scholarly consensus of all paintings that are attributed to Leonardo, including contentious ones like Madonna Litta (which is by no means a "known Leonardo" – this is one of the most contentious attributions) and Bacchus but they don't even bring up the Isleworth as a possibility. (See the Zollner and Marani refs in the Isleworth article for further details) I initially came to this article with the idea that the artistic community was strongly against the attribution, but upon reading further and discussing with BD2412 the issue I keep facing is that besides Kemp there aren't enough leading scholars actively speaking against the attribution and rather ignoring it or denying it but not elaborating on the denial, which is not enough to support a wide acceptance against Leonardo. With that said the lack of consensus is from the side of attribution failing to convince leading scholars, and the side against the attribution ignoring the work and failing to actively dismiss it. I am happy to work with the editors here on making sure the article stays/becomes NPOV and would rather not be treated as an "enemy" that needs to be dealt with – I'm going to tweak it around a little bit to try and hopefully make it more NPOV. I would recommend reading this BBC article which IMO explains the situation rather nicely. Aza24 ( talk) 08:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bruce (filmmaker)
jps ( talk) 17:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Gabor Maté ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The article is overwhelmingly sourced to Maté's own works. According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat Maté pushes shoddy science or pseudoscience. The article has to be rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia's standards and I am not the person having the expertise to do it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Pam Reynolds case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently some pushing to make fringe vs. non-fringe view of life after death roughly equal, based on an article by an NPR religion reporter [36]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 12:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This near-death experience claim has been considered by some to be evidence of the survival of consciousness after death, or even life after death. However, others have pointed to prosaic and conventional means like anesthesia awareness as possible explanations. Both ideas are equally valid? I guess so. Persistent slow edit warring by SPA to keep this POV, so I'm done. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Input would be helpful at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) to determine whether the NCCIH is a WP:RS reliable source and whether it is a WP:MEDRS reliable source.
Key quote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Criticizing an organization for doing research on controversial ideas is quite a Catch 22. On the one hand, you're positing an idea is controversial. How does one determine if it is valid or not? Do research. If the research is negative, you can more strongly say the idea was wrong. If the research is right, then you move forward and realize maybe it wasn't so controversial after all. Many ideas we accept today as a given were considered "controversial" in the past. A great example is the connection between Helicobacter pylori and peptic ulcers. When this theory was originally proposed it was not just considered controversial but ludicrous...until Marshall and Warren got the Nobel prize for their discovery years later! How many drugs have various other NIH centers done research on that later proved to be dangerous or fatal? Does that make those centers "controversial" or worthy of criticism? No they're just doing their jobs. And arguably what NCCIH found is that most of the controversial ideas you cite didn't work, so if anything, they are doing exactly what you appear to think they should be doing: disproving wrong ideas. Eric Yarnell ( talk) 19:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
John Ioannidis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
has said things about COVID-19 which were subsequently contradicted by a lot of scientists. But from the article, you wouldn't guess that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page of Rush Limbaugh's article, as well as the article itself, would probably benefit from more eyes. Apparently some editors think that to point out that the common cold and COVID-19 are not equivalent (nor are they caused by the same virus) is "original research". - Nunh-huh 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Tiger Sarll is one of the most interesting articles that I have read on Wikipedia. As it isn't a BLP and probably isn't a complete hoax, I think it might be worth bringing to this communities attention. I'm pretty sure that the bit about him being a three foot long baby, and his catching 35 foot long pythons and 25 foot long alligators would set three new records if they could be proved to the Guinness Book of records. Some of the military stuff is also a tad improbable. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I can’t believe I have to say this, but dolls do not have supernatural powers to “escape” from their owners. Thanks to a recent viral Twitter hoax, these articles are suddenly subject to much vandalism, and could benefit from watch listing in the short term. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is full of quackery and pseudoscience. Medical science considers the Church to be responsible for the deaths of millions.-- Horace Snow ( talk) 06:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
See [38] and Padmakar Vishnu Vartak. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
One of those perennial requests by Americans who don't get that there is a huge difference. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 21:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
On which subject, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osteopathic medicine Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.4% of all FPs 00:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
In desperate need of trimming and proper sources. Some sources, although I can't read enough of at least one of them, are [39] and [40]. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The article appears to be mostly original research. Some sources seem relevant but are also about particular extremist ideologies. Eyes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 21:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
List of oxymorons. jps ( talk) 02:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
One of the two contributors to that dictionary also seems part of the Templeton Foundation that is not neutral on the topic, but it's good if it leads to the originator, thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding: the current redirect is the result of a small-consensus merge ( Talk:Political religion § Proposed merge with Secular religion). And I was entertained that List of oxymorons really existed... — Paleo Neonate – 04:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Peer_reviewed_source_argues_for_serial_passage somebody has argued for the inclusion of an essay enitiled " Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?" in BioEssays which suggests that serial passage might have lead to the emergence of SARS COV 2:
Taken together, the available evidence does not point definitively toward a natural origin for SARS‐CoV‐2, rather, much of it is more consistent with what would be found if the novel coronavirus had arisen from serial passage of a “precursor” progenitor virus in a lab, or from bats infecting a commercial mink farm somewhere in China, which would also provide the conditions for serial passage. However, more evidence is required before a conclusive judgement can be made one way or the other.
To me, this looks like advocacy for the fringe view that SARS COV 2 was created in a lab. In response to this, the lead author of the essay turned up to defend himself. I have no particular expertise on the topic but a single essay seems to me to fail WP:MEDRS for contentious issues like this, and lends the essay undue weight. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I have lost all sympathy for him at this point, there so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. I'm just waiting for Graham Beards to lay the smackdown at this point. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)By refusing to acknowledge the existence of this paper you're effectively censoring scientific progress, plenty of pre-prints already exist also proposing the plausibility of a laboratory origin, and by refusing to add our assertions to this Wikipedia page you're making it harder for the other scientists actually doing the real work, not moderating Wikipedia, to find our paper.
The pandemic is also bringing out academia's darker sides—competition, hostility, sexism, and a lust for renown. Armchair experts from unrelated fields have successfully positioned themselves as trusted sources. Male scientists are publishing more than their female colleagues, who are disproportionately shouldering the burden of child care during lockdowns. Many researchers have suddenly pivoted to COVID-19, producing sloppy work with harmful results. That further dispirits more cautious researchers, who, on top of dealing with the virus and reticent politicians, are also forced to confront their own colleagues.
This is covered by our policy WP:MEDRS. As a primary report, its inclusion is not acceptable. Graham Beards ( talk) 09:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
From:
Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar
[41]
Dr Avinash Kadam
Rasayani Biologics Pvt Ltd, Pune, India Rasamruta,
November 2013
(For non-Ayurveda research on the effects of inorganic mercury, see [42], [43], [44],)
I was curious about the phrase "It first undergoes 'Shodhan' which purifies it." I figured that somebody must have described the "purification" process so I looked it up. Keep in mind that multiple Ayurveda sources claim that Shodhan makes Mercury safe to ingest.
I then looked up a couple of the unfamiliar words in the above. First some Ayurveda sources:
Everyone here will be glad to hear how this remedy cures heart disease, diabetes, and flatulence. Then I checked out some Wikipedia pages: Shilajit seems OK:
but Triphala is full of woo:
-- cited to non- WP:MEDRS sources such as "Altern Ther Health Med" and "BMC Complement Altern Med."
All of these pages need more attention. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
At
government in exile (and
List of active separatist movements in Africa) there is an entry for a claimed "Coptic Government In Exile", referenced by
this archived website (sadly the English version isn't archived, so I don't have a clue what it says). The best mention I can find of this alleged organisation is in The Coptic Question in the Mubarak Era by Sebastian Elsasser (Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199368396) page 274 which is a footnote saying In 1992, a formerly unknown Coptic expatriate in Germany, Fāyiz Naǧīb, even declared himself to be the leader of a "Coptic government in exile"
. I'm guessing the archived website is probably the same person, and that we should't really be promoting this as a government in exile at all?
FDW777 (
talk) 19:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Ayurveda and edits to Indian Medical Association and Pseudoscience. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Invisible planes --Mumbai Mirror
Also see: [48]
Oddy enough, Wikipedia, which usually covers all aspects of aerospace technology, doesn't have an article on this. Go figure. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Is getting a lot of attention, and in view of the alarm from scientists which contrasts with the propaganda coming from the politicians, there are WP:FRINGE considerations in play. Could use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is filled with some pretty bold claims about consensus evolutionary theory Maximum genetic diversity? TNT to stub justified? Based off some observations about the creator 1 generally there are a few genetics fringe points. I got interested because both users involved in that discussion were also involved in this page. Its very long and hard to parse generally, but it makes some fairly wild accusations about genetics research that don't seem to be backed up well. PainProf ( talk) 02:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Committee to Defend the President ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I noticed a wholesale change to Don Colbert that amounted to a cut-and-paste of his official bio, which I undid as a COPYVIO issue. The editor involved came to my talk page and I explained why they can't do that. He basically then requested some edits, mostly removing the terms "Pentecostal" and "faith healing". I did the first, as I don't see where that comes out of the sources but I declined the second because I see the word faith plastered all over his website. Maybe he doesn't do the "Be healed" nonsense up on a stage but I don't see the problem.
Now that editor has escalated to the BLP noticeboard where they are picking nits about the meaning of "faith healing". I'll back off as I once blogged about Don Colbert, so I should probably not get more involved than I am. -- Krelnik ( talk) 12:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
to those who think that sort of thing importantyeah, the faithful. Just add faith and stir. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
We get it. You have a personal definition of "Faith Healing" that is wildly different from the definitions found in every encyclopedia [54] [55] [56] [57] and dictionary. [58] [59] [60] [61] You are, of course, free to use your "special" definition, but be aware that it hinders communication if the participants in a discussion don't use that same definition of commonly-used phrases. Yes, you can often get away with using non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
"have a personal definition of "Faith Healing" that is wildly different from the definitions found in every encyclopedia". I see nothing in any of the sources Guy cited (including the very same Britannica article that treats of incubation as faith healing) that excludes as faith healing that kind of faith healing done by means of (pseudo-)medicine. If the Wikipedia article omits mention of incubation and related rituals (including fasting in expectation of healing miracles, very common in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages) then it is that article that is defective, not my understanding of faith healing. "Faith healing" has been used to describe incubation and the rituals of the asklepeia for more than one hundred years. GPinkerton ( talk) 16:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Vedic Mathematics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has deteriorated somewhat over the last half year, with people removing references to Hindu wingnut organizations and adding claims that the book is legit, but I think I reverted it all while not destroying the useful changes. Still, will probably need watching in the future. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
New BLP that appears to be a WP:COATRACK for all the fringe stuff excised from Pentagon UFO videos. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
These edits by User:ServB1. Aren't these inappropriate for most if not all biblical figures? Doug Weller talk 13:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Traditional Chinese medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The page appears to have been affected by babysitting of a Singaporean IP (183.90...) who appears to be engaging in OR and also vandalism [64], depending on the situation around the article. Azuredivay ( talk) 14:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This template on the "Femini paradox" [sic] looks like a pile of unrelated things:
What do cloning and head transplants have to do with the Wow! signal? XOR'easter ( talk) 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article needs some updating. RFK Jr. has always been on the problematic antivaxxer side of things, but since the pandemic he's gone full-blown conspiracy theory. I'm not sure if we have enough sources yet to WP:LABEL him in Wikipedia's voice, but we certainly have enough that document his support of conspiracy theories that we ought to make some attempt to explain that's what he's doing. I tried to start that.
I also think that the monstrosity that is COVID-19 conspiracy theories may soon warrant a separate article from the place it is now hosted at "Misinformation". Related, but perhaps a separate issue.
jps ( talk) 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors may wish to contribute to a draft page I have recently created. Kate Shemirani| is a promoter of fringe-theories related to vaccine denial, COVID-19 and 5G radio networks. She is due to be presenting a protest in Central London the weekend after next, and is likely to be in the news again quite soon, I therefore thought it would be helpful to create a page that summarises some of the secondary sources which have recently mentioned her. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
An editor pointed out to me an increasing trend in people attempting to use "European American" rather than "white" in various Wikipedia articles. On my advice, he has initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#European American vs. whites, white people, white Americans, or Caucasians. I note this here because of recent fringe efforts to insert uncommon descriptors similar to "European American", such as the recent discussion of "Northwestern European" as a group identifier. I think this is the same sort of thing. BD2412 T 04:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted walled garden includes:
See also Pranamat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Another herb that cures cancer. What a shock. I know it's true because I read it on Wikipedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Re: Castleford, Idaho. I doubt the cited book counts as a reliable source, but is it acceptable to include mentions of bigfoot and jackalopes in articles about places where they have been claimed to have been seen? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
"Readers will learn about a Seattle man's contact with a group of aliens that landed in Ballard; ponder the claims of two Washington men that Elvis was an extraterrestrial breeding experiment; hear about an Oregonian's extended discussion with Bigfoot..."So, not a WP:RS for factual assertions. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
If anyone can check to see if 9/11 Predictive Programming is substantially similar to the deleted "9/11 In Movies Theory" page, that would be helpful. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Apparently the wildest UFO claims are accepted at face value in South Africa. At least that's the way a lot of this article reads. I've pruned out the most egregious fringe sourcing (e.g. some fantastical stuff, like this), but a lot of copyediting remains to be done by those with time on their hands. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Book by Ian Stevenson. The article looks a bit crank-friendly to me, but I could be wrong. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:
Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Based on what's in that discussion, would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 13:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Input is needed at this discussion on the talk page of Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
On a related note, this seems to be almost entirely unsourced. I count a dozen “citation needed”s, and what sourcing there is is either primary or what looks like a directory site, lists of textbooks, and a list of awards of some sort (hard to tell because the links don’t seem to work). Brunton ( talk) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: Can you link to the arbcom connection? I feel like I'm missing something. jps ( talk) 21:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Good old-fashioned woo-woo nonsense. Moulatsiotis in one of his interviews in 1995 said that "In the future, a mark will be most likely made, it will be a chip, a biometric ID or a scanner in the forehead". Judging from what Moulatsiotis said his predictions were probably right.
Guy (
help! -
typo?) 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
David Berlinski ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May need more balance. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Afterlife ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has a "Science" section. I don't think all of it is actually science, but I can't tell if any of it is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Roger A. Pielke Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Extensive edits on 1 September 2020 have made this article into uncritical support of Pielke's views, largely sourced to Roger A. Pielke Jr.. My expertise on this is very limited, but my understanding is that it's questionable to say; "Pielke has done pioneering work for several decades showing that rising wealth and property, not climate change, is the main factor behind the rising cost of natural disasters." Think this needs expert review.
On a topical note, apparently today the NSF "announced that it had awarded Pielke and an international team of investigators a Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grant to investigate how seven countries used scientific advice to address the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. . . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty concerned about EnvironmentExpert ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules. Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps ( talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
See also: Michael Shellenberger. jps ( talk) 00:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I am EnvironmentExpert ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What is your concern, exactly?
You write, "This looks a lot like an account that is intended to game Wikipedia rules."
No, it's not. I have contributed in good faith to several Wikipedia pages.
"Perhaps the person behind this account can put our minds at ease, but having been active in these areas for some time, I'm a bit concerned that essentially every edit so far may be problematic. jps ( talk) 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)"
You have presented no basis for your concerns either about my edit or about me.
You write, "I have reverted essentially every edit that this user has made so far as a POV-PUSH."
I welcome other Wikipedia editors to look into your arbitrary action here. You've offered zero justification for it.
I appreciate that, and hope you appreciate that I am a new Wikipedia editor, but also one that has followed the controversy very closely. I do not believe my edits were outside of the mainstream. IPCC comes to the identical conclusion as Pielke on climate change and natural disasters. The controversy with Holdren was poorly explained. I explained it and its context. Holdren's criticism is represented, which is the balance you seem to be seeking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvironmentExpert ( talk • contribs)
Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence).from the IPCC (p. 9) be the mainstream view?
The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados (Boruff et al., 2003; Pielke Jr. et al.,2003, 2008; Raghavan and Rajesh, 2003; Miller et al 2008; Schmidt et al.,2009; Zhang et al., 2009; see also Box 4-2).(p. 269) I count 25 cites to Pielke Jr. in that report, why is the IPCC citing someone with fringe claims and "on the outside looking in"? fiveby( zero) 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
a role for climate change has not been excludedis the most that can be reliably stated.
a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence)is a pretty strong statement. It's not enough to justify "were all doomed", but equally it doesn't justify
"In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose".[68] For all his hedging, Pielke doesn't seem to concede that uncertainty carries significant risk. He's fond of quoting Munich Re, and by coincidence in Talk:Natural disaster selective quotations were taken from this article dated 2020/07/23 which is actually careful to note that climate change is likely to play a role in increasing risks. [on second thoughts, getting offtopic] I noticed "There is always the chance of a benign wildfire and/or hurricane season. But since background conditions indicate the potential for a more active wildfire season in California and elevated hurricane activity in the Atlantic, it is more important than ever to be well prepared". Though largely about variability, interesting in light of current news. . . . dave souza, talk 00:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Given that this included references to Natural News and The Townsend Letter, I suspect there may be a few issues. One obvious one is that 2/3 of the sources are a single book. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Folk belief appears to be a euphemism or academic synonym for superstition. Would it be a suitable candidate for redirecting/merging/deleting? GPinkerton ( talk) 05:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Fringe archaeology book, needs a cleanup, and I don't care what Wikidata says, we shouldn't be calling her any kind of history researcher. David Childress is a terrible source, as is William F. McNeil. Visitors to Ancient America. The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus - see this review. (scroll down). Doug Weller talk 17:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors may wish to review Draft:Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). Mark Steele will be speaking at a protest in London on the 12th of September, hence I felt that an article about this subject may be useful to readers. All review is welcome. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
At Unani medicine, see this, this, and my edit. More eyes will be needed. That same editor has also made some changes at Ayurveda. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Now another editor is saying the source isn't good enough. Thoughts? Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a theory now! -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: Input welcome at Talk:Biorhythm theory § Recent move — Paleo Neonate – 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
From the way this article is presented, you'd think there's some good new evidence for extraterrestrial life and whatnot. Sure, some people are skeptical, but as long as we can cite churnalism sites in WikiVoice, then we can up-play the significance of it. A previous AFD for this back in March came to the conclusion that it's likely bunk, but still notable bunk (although there was some call for draftification too), but you wouldn't really get that from the current state of the article. I removed one egregious FRINGE vio, but I'm just not really good at this stuff. If anyone feels like taking a closer look, it could probably use it. Thanks in advance, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
This AfD related to discussion here which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockey stick controversy, and deletion with a redirect to Hockey stick graph. The YAD06 article is a minor aspect of a very minor aspect of that controversy, if deleted it could be briefly merged into the hockey stick graph article, but would need care to avoid undue weight to a fringe claim. . . dave souza, talk 11:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety
Looks like fringe political machinations to me!
jps ( talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Environmental psychology is a thing. "Eco-anxiety" is a buzzword that means something different every time it is used, as far as I can tell. jps ( talk) 02:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
If this seems strangely familiar to anyone besides me, it's because
Climate Psychosis was up for deletion last year. The result was to merge into it's less woo-woo cousin:
Eco-anxiety.
At the time, I don't think I realized that the two articles had been created at roughly the same time, but I guess that doesn't matter.
ApLundell (
talk) 04:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The AfD closed as a merge, so the fringe content needs to be cleaned up. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings. Can you tell me if IHME is a reliable source? The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model has been used along with dozens of others by the US government to project outcomes. It has been widely cited and widely criticized. This is for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I did not find it listed in the archives here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. I previously posted this question to WT:MED and was advised to try here. Thank you in advance. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
References
Q: What do the Genesis flood and Homeopathy have in common?
A: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/antedilution
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Jeffrey Mishlove ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Mishlove. jps ( talk) 21:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
...Really? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 04:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Joseph D'Aleo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Contains the guy's views about climate change, but no mainstream science. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone else find this nav template name and collection of links odd, as well as the associated article Human uses of living things? It all seems rather WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACKed to me. The template has a section for "dinosaurs" with multiple associated links. It makes me wonder if this is some sneaky way to to get "kinds" and "types" from ID into the 'pedia. I'll be happy to be proved wrong if it's not the case, I haven't done a deep dive of the edit history (and don't have time to, I ran across it as the only nav template at the bottom of the article on Toad), but it just seems suspicious to me. He iro 18:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The GA was rubberstamped by an sockpuppet account User:HalfGig. It needs to be relisted and removed. I am concerned that User:Chiswick Chap may not have known about this. Perhaps he can comment. jps ( talk) 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Some dispute over this at Roswell UFO incident. Specific proposal was to say [71] "debris was found" rather than that a balloon crashed. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The bigger issue as I see it is that the first sentence was a bit out-of-the-ordinary when it comes to the way we normally start articles. I tried to rectify that, no doubt satisfying no one. jps ( talk) 03:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have never seen an article sourced entirely to ufologists and sensational news items, until now. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
With the recent appointment of a climate change denialist the article may need review and watchlisters... [72] [73] — Paleo Neonate – 20:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone else cast an eye over recent edits to the article and talk page? Brunton ( talk) 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at the article and recent editing? In response to my asking what the sources say on the subject of "brainwashing", I got this response:
There is a large number of sources, and they say a lot of different things (I think the lead of our page summarizes them well). For an outside tertiary summary source, one can look at EB:
[76]. It does not say anywhere this is pseudoscience.
[77] --
Hipal/Ronz (
talk) 19:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:QAnon#New section for QAnon in the United Kingdom. Scary. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This new but obscure article may need some more eyes. Obscure theories of contact/discovery pop up on wikipedia from time to time, and unless closely examined they then find themselves set in stone. I have prompted the author. Nickm57 ( talk) 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Terrain theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Has this rival of germ theory been resurrected? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)