This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
A number of changes have been made to this article by User:Cjbaiget. Some seem to be improvements, but I'm not sure about two. One is a statement by Sergey Glazyev, a dubious source at best - why should we use it? The other is:
"Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science". [1]"
This is odd because Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." Also most of the source (and I think it's a reliable source given the author) is critical of Fomenko but you wouldn't know that from its use. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing."the "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The edit, therefore, is dishonest in its form and should be reverted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
A new film about that will happen if Trump isn't re-elected. I wouldn't post it here if it hadn't suggested that the AntiChrist will come, and that's surely fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I have AFD'd it. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether to post this here or on BLPN, I decided to post it here but would urge editors to remember this is a BLP. Anyway I'm concerned that the article Li-Meng Yan seems to be getting into coatracking territory at it has a lot of info on a pre-print. While this pre-print has apparently generated a lot of media attention including comments from notable experts I'm unconvinced we really need to cover that level of detail in a biography. I guess it was has received enough attention that it probably should be mentioned, and we obviously also have to reflect the fact it's thoroughly rejected, but I would suggest maybe 3 or 4 sentences at most. How do others feel? Nil Einne ( talk) 18:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
While I am not surprised that already extant anti-intellectualism and distrust of government have allowed the far right to recruit and radicalize previously liberal-leaning subculture members, how does that concern Wikipedia? We already have rules in place against the promotion of pseudoscience. Dimadick ( talk) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
"It has been my observation that those who embrace one fringe theory tend to embrace multiple fringe theories." RationalWiki has an article on the topic, called Crank magnetism.:
Not everyone is an American, we we should not wp:soapbox. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Even in the past, the association between the left wing and antivax beliefs was pretty much a mirage. Antivax lunacy was a bipartisan thing, even if the prominent image of it among a certain class of pundit was very crunchy-granola. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can anybody explain why we have that article? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
26 citations to fringe authors, Kenyon, Childress and Hancock. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hagia Sophia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Holding, carrying, and bearing a sword without being armed — is this possible?
Dispute has arisen over whether Ali Erbaş, state-owned high priest of Erdogan's government Diyanet and well-known pro-fringe activist, was "armed with" a sword while preaching the first caliphal sermon ( khutbah) in the Justinianic cathedral since its appropriation by Erdogan and reconversion into a mosque. Apparently, it's possible to merely possess and publicly show off a weapon at a ceremonial event without the weapon being a weapon and without the person so armed being, well, armed. No-one appears to dispute that the man carried a sword and that the sword was a revival of the mediaeval tradition of delivering such sermons armed as a symbol of Constantinople's conquest by the righteous, predicted by the Prophet Himself (no less). I know not what to do. GPinkerton ( talk) 09:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
"definitely implies intent"? Certainly not; It means carrying a weapon on one's person, nothing more. The fringe element is Erbaş's own ideology, which centres on holy war against the Kurds/Syrians/anyone Erdogan disagrees with and manifests itself in himself claiming the mantle of the caliphs of yore, including the practice of delivering the Friday sermon in the caliph's mosque armed with the "weapon of the day". (Hadith records that the Prophet himself used sometimes a staff, other times a bow. It's this that drives the Iranian interpretation that the Islamic armies' frontline weapon of choice should accompany the sermon, in modern times an assault rifle.) GPinkerton ( talk) 13:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Welteislehre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Historical part has recently been cut down because of missing sources. Maybe someone here has the sources? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I have to attend a real-life commitment. Could someone please look into the following?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shilajit&curid=4632952&diff=980663459&oldid=979938374
Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
There are signs of edit warring at Vernon Coleman. The subject is a British former medical doctor best known for his self-published books which make a number of fringe-sounding claims. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 17:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Stumbled on this bio of a doctor which makes the bold claim that "Diseases that are thought of as distinct and unrelated such as hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatomyositis, nephrosis, glomerulonephritis, lupus erythematous are variants of a single disease stemming from the same bacterial cause." The article attributes several other inventions and discoveries to him but it is all referenced to primary sources (his own papers and patents). I think this could use more eyes (and possibly an AfD). Spicy ( talk) 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Journal articles published in major journals can be evidence of notability. They are not, however, the kinds of serious, in-depth reliable sources we need to write a biography necessarily. jps ( talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors at this noticeboard may like to be informed of and weigh in at this discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Genetically modified food controversies. Crossroads -talk- 18:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (religion).
Unserious side question: If all the parallel universes are part of the multiverse, then what entity contains all the multiverses? Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Areas to watch: Misinformation spikes as Trump confirms COVID-19 diagnosis -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The publisher
Visible Ink Press claims that In our 28 years, we've published nearly 400 titles and currently publish about ten titles a year. All have been exclusively references
[2]. However, this seems to include titles such as "The Illuminati: The Secret Society That Hijacked the World"
[3], "The Government UFO Files: The Conspiracy of Cover-Up"
[4], and "Lost Civilizations: The Secret Histories and Suppressed Technologies of the Ancients"
[5]. Any idea how to address this from an
WP:NPOV on the article page?
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 05:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this article after seeing this edit. [8] The book in question is published by Red Pill Press, clearly a fringe publisher. [9] The introduction is written by this fringe writer. [10] She's mentioned in Thomas French who wrote about her and her website is an EL there. She's used as a source for Theodore Illion who claimed to have discovered an underground city in Tibet and in Succubus.
Back to "political ponerology". There's in article in Psychology Today by Steve Taylor (author) which briefly mentions it as an example of "pathocracy" and another in Sri Lanka's daily business paper. [11] It's also mention in Salon [12] and that article seems pretty convincing evidence that it's not fringe.
So, should it be cleaned up and also restored to Ponerology despite its intro by a kook? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) just a bare mentionOne of the pioneers in this area was a Polish survivor of Nazi Germany, then Communist occupation, named Andrew Lobaczewski. But his book on Political Ponerology is very difficult to read. It claims to be a product of a larger group of mostly Eastern European scientists who struggled to understand totalitarian systems with deep roots in that region that resulted in so much killing during the 20th century. So they were highly motivated, but much of their original material was allegedly lost.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Not much to inspire confidence, nothing in academic sources so far. fiveby( zero) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Biomedical Sciences: An idea to identify acceptable primary research for citations (in addition to citing reviews). People who watch this page may wish to comment - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I left the Cayce article unattended for a few months (Watchlist too long), and POV edits crept in. I reverted some, but the article would probably profit from more eyes. Also, Atomidine (or rather, the article it redirects to, Nascent iodine (dietary supplement)) seems to be in need of work. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love. High-quality reliable sources, including academic publications, describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory.
The Wikipedia article on Love Jihad, for some time, did not explicitly label Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory, which caused the article to be in violation of WP:PROFRINGE. I have attempted to address this in Special:Diff/978047396/979186634 by adding the conspiracy theory descriptor to the first sentence, but the remainder of the article (particularly the example farm in the "History" section) still portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory, rather than a confirmed conspiracy theory.
One solution is to introduce more content cited to peer-reviewed academic sources rather than relying solely on popular press. This would provide the appropriate weight to the scholarship that counterbalances the sundry unconfirmed allegations that are reported in the media.
If you have any other suggestions for improving this article, please feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 23:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone have a look at this change of content, tone and source at Orgone, accompanied by this wall of text on the talk page? - DVdm ( talk) 23:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion between me and Korny O'Near and how to describe US Senate candidate Tuberville's position on climate change (only God causes climate change/nobody will be able to feel it in the next 400 years), Talk:Tommy_Tuberville#Content_sourced_to_InsideClimate_News_should_be_restored. Editors here may be interested. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
[15] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I discovered this (and related page Hinduphobia in Academia) while doing new page review. It's unclear to me whether Hinduphobia is a legitimate, recognized term, as all the sources seem (as one might expect) POV-pushing. Would appreciate any guidance on this. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on the timing, this article looks like an attack on the academic sources cited in the Love Jihad article. See #Love Jihad conspiracy theory for details. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead states, with sources (2 the same person) that he was a pioneer of aviation, yet the article casts strong doubts on the story of his alleged flight. This doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced that the sources are adequate. Maybe I should go to RSN, but this seems more of a fringe issue. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
feathers and mobile wingsthat's not aviation and flying like that only works in cartoons and the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. It would be charitable to call it gliding rather than outright falling. This no more a precursor to aviation than were Da Vinci's unbuilt and unflyable machines. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Lost in the mall technique ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The criticism seems fringey to me, but I am not a psychologist. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Griffin sent a representative to argue for him to remove the "conspiracy theorist" label, and the representative has asked why all the people who watch the article are not coming to discuss him. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I part-rewrote the lead to Persecution of Christians to attempt a more neutral tone, but the body of the article, especially the post-Cold War section, could use its sources examining and its tone in places distanced from its subject. The introduction of that section starts with some commentary from neutral observer Benedict XVI (ret'd), and ends with a conclusion that uncritically backs the ex-papal claim Christians are (win?) "the most persecuted religion", (prize at the) 2019 (awards?). GPinkerton ( talk) 19:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
On White House COVID-19 outbreak, I added mention of the White House rally on October 10 where Trump spoke unmasked to a 2,000 person crowd. I characterized his status as "potentially infectious" based on The Independent. NYT goes even further, saiyng "might be contagious to those around him".
This change has been objected to, because "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." I have argued we should include the Oct 10 event along with the doctor's claim, but that suggestion has been rejected. Feoffer ( talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Would welcome any input on this from the fine people at FTN. It looks like a WP:POVFORK of Currency lads and lasses, but I'm not sure. (I posted at WP:AUSTRALIA as well.) AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
First lesson: Don't say "anti-vaxxers". In all seriousness, the Vaccine Confidence Project is not just an exercise in double-speak but one in information delivery. That is something we should be good at. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of Aid#Food_as_a_means_of_increasing_carrying_capacity_and_undesirable_population_growth. (Or, rather, [18], as I have at least temporarily removed the relevant content.) It looks either WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHetic, but at least some of the sources do seem to have been legitimately published. Would appreciate any comments (and apologies for spamming FTN lately). AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI, there is an ongoing requested move at Talk:Trump administration political interference with science agencies. Input welcome. Neutrality talk 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now exists and appears pro-fringe. Gupta, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens all rife, with a for-and-against layout and Screaming Lord Sumption going unopposed. Some apparent attempts to smuggle the Mail in through third-party sources. Worth looking over; it certainly needs overall improvement. GPinkerton ( talk) 08:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
‘Film Your Hospital’ – The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory
Key quote: "The pandemic has fuelled at least ten conspiracy theories this year. Some linked the spread of the disease to the 5G network, leading to phone masts being vandalised. Others argued that COVID-19 was a biological weapon. Research has shown that conspiracy theories could contribute to people ignoring social distancing rules."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Really embarrassing as I'm a Yalie. Valerie Hansen [21] Doug Weller talk 10:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
New article on some sort of NRM. Looks fringe but what do I know about this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
We have an article for this guy Jeremy Griffith whom I suspect is some kind of quack/fringe scientist. His website www.humancondition.com just screams SCAM to me. His article here is completely uncritical of him and feels like it was written by a paid stooge. I would like somebody to take a closer look at this, I don't trust it. Kurzon ( talk) 08:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I had added the reference to the SMH article that was critical of Griffith's work. I would have added more extensive discussion of the criticisms - but I was also criticized here for soapboxing and posting too much on certain anthropological theories. Therefore I thought if I elaborated on the criticisms of the Griffith article that would be taken as further soapboxing. So someone has said the material from the SMH article (which is critical of Griffith) should have a greater presence on his page - while someone else said I am posting too much on one topic and potentially soapboxing. These mixed messages are a little confusing - some clarification would be appreciated so I know the parameters and accepted protocols for making edits. I intend to make some editions to Jordan Peterson's Wiki page based on recently released research in evolutionary anthropology and Jungian studies. I hope this is not deleted for "soapboxing" - but that I can also receive critical feedback if anything I do is inappropriate. Divinecomedy666 ( talk)
I've just reverted some pov, but it still has fringe nonsense in it from Blackett and Wilson and Lee Pennington. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
An open letter from anti-lockdown proponents, that appears to have received a universal raspberry from mainstream scientists. Add to that a rumour doing the rounds that the declaration's true greatness is being censored by Google, and we have a rich fringe cocktail. Editing seems to be hotting up so could probably use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
At one level this declaration is a statement of a series of scientific truths and as such is non-controversial...That said, the declaration omits some rather critical scientific information that would help better inform policy makers...It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does...Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.[32] This is not "a bunch of rogue scientists...analagous to vaccine denial, climate denial, creationism, etc." fiveby( zero) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
GPinkerton (
talk) 22:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)of interest The Gorsky take. ADDED Though I see from the article history that Alex is ahead of me, as usual. - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Predictably, the "WHO caves to free-market economics" non-story is now being added to World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is the
Great Barrington Declaration listed in a section in
WP:FTN?
Knowledge Contributor0 (
talk) 01:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
"evidence fiasco". [2] Not to say, that his opinion by itself is evidence, but the peer reviewed studies published by him showing that that the early mathematical models used to justify the lcokdowns were overestimated cannot be called fringe. [3]
Which other "fringe theory" can claim this?Just off the top of my head:
all non-mainstream ideas. Do you really think it should apply to such as ethics or moral values? Religious beliefs? (where there is no claim of support from science) You're right tho about being academic for the article, i think it's mostly well done in a difficult subject area. fiveby( zero) 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Low-level laser therapy: science or pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not happy with all the changes here [36], particularly the many times an obituary was used in ways that seem to promote him and the major deletion of "In1961 non-fiction writer Carleton Putnam published Race and Reason: A Yankee View, a popular theory of racial segregation. A special session of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists voted to censure Putnam's book. Coon, who was then the president of the association, and was present at the meeting, asked how many of the participants had actually read the book; only one hand was raised in response. Coon resigned in protest, criticizing the meeting for representing scientific irresponsibility [1] and arguing its actions violated free speech. [2] Coon published The Origin of Races in 1962." I'll tell the editor. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Gopi Warrier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
is a best known as an expert in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. For some reason, lots of his YouTube videos are linked, and also quantum. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
According to Serbian archaeologist Đorđe Janković, the western boundary of Serbian Cyrillic tombstones reached the Split– Benkovac– Kordun line in the High Middle Ages. [37]
There seems to be some fringe claims on a few articles claiming plants have consciousness or are sentient. For example, at
Plant cognition and on the
Plant perception (physiology) article an IP added to the lead "According to research, plants could perceive the world around them (
"Earth - Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond". BBC. 10 January 2017.) and might be able to emit airborne sounds similar to "screaming" when stressed. Those noises could not be detectable by human ears, but organisms with a
hearing range that can hear ultrasonic frequencies—like mice, bats or perhaps other plants—could hear the plants' cries from as far as 15 feet (4.6 m) away.(I. Khait; O. Lewin-Epstein; R. Sharon; K. Saban; R. Perelman; A. Boonman; Y. Yovel; L. Hadany (2 December 2019).
"Plants emit informative airborne sounds under stress" (PDF). bioRxiv.
doi:
10.1101/507590. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help))." This content should be removed or at least put somewhere else.
There is an academic field of study called "plant neurobiology" (which is a silly term because plants do not have neurons) that studies the idea of plant "intelligence" (see plant intelligence), but this is not a mainstream view and contrary to what is sometimes reported in the media its proponents are not claiming plants have consciousness. I think we need to sort some of these articles out and make it clear what the consensus is. I have spoken to botanists over the years and they do not hold these views. Plants lack a nervous system, they do not have consciousness which is obvious. We do have an article on Plant perception (paranormal) which is very much a field of quackery. I think we need to make clear the fringe field of plant neurobiology is not actually claiming plants have consciousness. Any ideas about what to do here? The plant cognition article is not in a good way. The consensus view is not stated. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This is presented as an academic discipline in the article, but as far as I understand, it is a loose set of beliefs and services, probably combining some scientific measurements and findings (such as air quality) and pseudoscience (such as "electrosmog"). The sources are various "institutes of building biology" and even business websites, often in German. The criticism section has been gutted due to lack of citation. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to proceed: It seems like the whole article should be completely rewritten or even deleted, but I wouldn't know how to word it (Is it a movement? A (partially) pseudoscientific belief system? A service? Some combination?) or how I would go about sourcing it. Pink pipes ( talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Mary Midgley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[Richard Dawkins] nonetheless slides over to saying that "we are born selfish"
Philosopher misrepresents biologist. Wikipedia repeats misrepresentation without refutation. Calling FTN. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
she is talking about the approach to the subject that Dawkins assumed in the Selfish GeneThis might be the case, but the prose right now does not say that. It doesn't say anything close to what you are saying here. It would be better if the prose said what you just wrote than its currently tortured arrangement. jps ( talk) 00:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"the view that altruism is an evolutionary strategy"is precisely the main point of the Selfish Gene. If Midgley disagrees, then that's what the article should say. GPinkerton ( talk) 03:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
John Ioannidis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He is in the minority in his opinions about anti-COVID-19 measures, but you wouldn't know that from the COVID-19 section, owing to edits like this. Could some medical expert have a look at that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds rather dubious to me. Does anybody know more? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It's the Institute for American Indian Studies 15th Annual Native American-Archaeology RoundTable. Free registration here. [45] Agenda and speakers here. [46]
It should be brilliant! Doug Weller talk 20:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Did you know that UVa's Division of Perceptual Studies along with UA's Center for Consciousness Studies are the last two "Parapsychology Institutes" at R1 institutions in the US? Well, Jim B. Tucker recently showed up in a fluff piece in the New York Times: [47].
This guy seems to be really good at getting into journalist pieces without having to deal with the headache of people who might challenge his extraordinary claims. It's rather surprising.
So I went to the article and found a practical apologia for quantum mysticism. Tried to clean it up a bit, but more balance towards the mainstream would be appreciated in spite of the media being unable to find people who can explain why no one with any chops takes this stuff seriously.
jps ( talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This new page looks like a heap of Bio 101 oversimplifications and WP:MEDRS violations. Thoughts? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
(Not to be confused with The Gay Ghost or with The Grim Ghost.)
Majority of Gays Are Possessed by Ghosts, So-Called Study Says
Sounds legit. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Should we have categories of haunted locations? [48] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in the following RfC:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should we move WP:ONUS to WP:CONSENSUS?
Crossroads -talk- 05:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Fringe material and removals of sourced content is repeatedly being added to this article. Debate has spilled out from the talk-page, now here [49] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
This looks like a fringe theory to me. I think we should have at least a stub article for
John H. Field, and I question whether we should redirect
Time contraction to
Time dilation. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 03:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know about this topic? Some of the sources seem dubious. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I have a gut feeling that the Stansberry Research article is somewhat understated in its description of the entity, given that for at least the past decade they have been pushing an imminent collapse of the U.S. economy (usually stemming from a misrepresentation of some piece of pending legislation or other as enabling confiscation of currency or the like) as a reason for subscribing to their investment advice. For example, this recent promotion. BD2412 T 19:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Man with some fringe views on Irish history listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Fogarty. FDW777 ( talk) 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking for editors who deal with difficult content disputes, and I thought of y'all. Please see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#No consensus in article pages, recent edits. The main concern is that WP:NOCON and WP:ONUS might be telling different stories about what to do when the discussion results in no consensus (i.e., a true no consensus, with an evenly divided discussion, resulting in neither a consensus to include nor a consensus to exclude – not a consensus against inclusion).
AIUI, ONUS says that if someone wants to include some content, and that content is disputed, and the result is discussion there's no consensus, the disputed content is removed, but NOCON says that under exactly the same circumstances, editors should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO (which could be either inclusion or exclusion, mostly depending upon how long ago the information was added).
It would be good for policies (a) to match each other and (b) to represent best practices. If you can help us achieve these goals, I would be grateful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between me and User:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West about whether or not Richard Lynn, Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and J. Philippe Rushton should be cited at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.
Dutton and Lynn are both closely tied to Mankind Quarterly and both have been involved with neo-Nazi groups such as Washington Summit Publishers and Red Ice. At Race and intelligence, the work of this group is handled carefully and contextualized by more reliable sources. In this article they are just added to the pile of sources, which suggests the article has deeper issues. Grayfell ( talk) 20:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
All these people are fringe. Whether they are neo-Nazis or not, I leave for to another venue to discuss. jps ( talk) 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I prefer primary sources on scientific issues as they tend to be more fact-based and less subverted by politics, but I've come to understand Wikipedia prefers secondary or even tertiary sources. I can respect that. Surely we should be able to find some non-primary sources properly summarising the hypotheses and controversies around Ashkenazi intelligence. Iroh ( talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
All right, now I've had enough of "edit warring" and off-topic discussions for months to come and then some. Let's start presenting and examining some non-primary sources so we can improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines (with which I like to belive I have now familiarised myself quite well). Iroh ( talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
If you compare the word "autists
" to "nigger
", call the Kalergi Plan just a "meme
", and childishly use rape and murder to score points in an argument, you will eventually be blocked for 4chan style trolling.
Grayfell (
talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
To avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at an obscure article, I would appreciate additional eyes. Specifically, this is regarding these edits by me, which Iroh has reverted.
These edits removed this source, which was the key source for the bulk the article.
As I said on the talk page, this was heavily over-represented without significant support from reliable secondary sources. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending's work should be supported and contextualized by sources, not editors. Cochran and Harpending's credibility as a reliable source is disputed by many other academics. Further, this source is almost fifteen years old. Since then,more research has been done, and more information about Harpending and Cochran's extremist and pseudoscientific views has come to light (easy-to-find sources on this: [58] [59]). Any update should contextualize this based on newer sources, but fringe sources are not a good starting point for a controversial topic. Grayfell ( talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
No, not that AfD, but I can see why it might be confusing:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination).
jps ( talk) 06:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
These sources seem to have spilled-over into mentions of the Nobel Prizes. We have Cochran et al, Charles Murray, and now Richard Lynn (again!) being cited at List of Jewish Nobel laureates.
Jews#Contributions now includes a lengthy, extremely vague paragraph supported by Cochran et al, as well as an opinion from Charles Murray. As I said on that article's talk, most of these sources don't unambiguously support this content even if they were usable. Both of these sections were added by User:Maxim.il89 who has also repeatedly copy.pasted this into Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Grayfell ( talk) 19:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
...good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it.Stop and think about that for a bit, please. There are many thousands of in-depth reliable sources about Nazism. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we cite reliable sources about a topic to explain that topic. Instead, what you've been doing is sharing your own understanding of a topic based on unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources. This is a form of original research. I've tried to explain this to you on multiple talk pages, and if you presume I must be wrong anyway I don't know how else to collaborate with you. Grayfell ( talk) 01:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it— which is not " reliable" in the sense that we need sources to be reliable. After years of reading documents from creationists, UFO enthusiasts, homeopaths, perpetual-motion mechanics, relativity denialists, etc., etc., it becomes clear that fringe authors are not reliable sources about their own positions. They lie. They shift the goalposts, hide their motivations, pretend to be scientific in one venue and abandon the pretense in another. Sorting through the mess is often a thankless task, and it is not what Wikipedia is suited for. We rely upon other analyses to do that for us. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority.You added the statistical achievements to the article but completely failed to explain why this was pseudoscience. Grayfell ( talk) 23:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Why hasn't WP:JUDAISM been alerted about this discussion? I remedied this omission. [60] Debresser ( talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
well-established statistical facts" devoid of all context or nuance makes this a loaded question. I have very little patience for that game, and as I've already said many times for this issues, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Ignoring the context of a source to imply that this is a bland "statistical fact" is cherry-picking. Look at what reliable sources are actually saying, not what you wish they were saying. Grayfell ( talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I was thinking of creating a draft now that the AfD has gone through... but I cannot even decide what title to use. Perhaps the best thing would be to start collecting sources. There were four I listed at the AfD, but these are largely of the "editorial commentary" sort except for the last one which is an excellent summary of the attendant race realism/antisemitism involvement. jps ( talk) 14:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, sock has a point if, perhaps, sock doesn't realize what that point is. It is sometimes hard for even certain well-meaning people to see the antisemitism contained within this topic because, typically (though, crucially, not universally), the claim seems superficially to be to the benefit of the people being profiled. Seeing through this charade is not difficult for the majority of the reliable sources commenting, but there is a rather large group of people who are convinced by their own love-ins that they're just following the research wherever it may lead.
This really is an offshoot of race and intelligence, so perhaps it would be a good idea to start a section in that article and see if a WP:CFORK is really necessary. Perhaps a redirect can suffice.
jps ( talk) 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The premise of the paper itself is problematic. The entire crew is, well, *gulp*. This is not the source to start from. It probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. jps ( talk) 16:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Both need work. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Confusing article, I'm not sure if it's fringe or just confusing. But the name seems wrong - eg the lead says it has had various names, eg "Ubar, Wabar and Iram" and when you click on Ubar at Wabar Craters you get Iram of the Pillars which has some of the same material as Atlantis of the Sands. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"It's very clear on Ptolemy's second century map of the area. It says in big letters "Iobaritae". And in his text that accompanied the maps, he's very clear about that."This is gibberish. The 2nd-century maps of Ptolemy, if they were ever circulated at all, are long lost and are not gathering dust in some California university library. The texts are all that survive of his work. The most ancient maps based on the text are 2nd-millenium, not 2nd-century. The manuscripts are hardly older. Whatever or however names are written on medieval interpretations of Ptolemy's text are neither here nor there. The concept of an Atlantis of the Sands is obviously a thing, whether or not it existed or can be identified with one or more real place should be irrelevant. The Ubar issue is another matter. Still, the archaeological papers should be given more prominence in the text and less shrift given to the travelogues of Fiennes, which are old news in archaeological terms. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, 'Atlantis of the Sands' was a project which Sir Ranulph Feinnes and Nicholas Clapp developed, recruiting the established Arabia archaeologist Juris Zarins from U of Missouri. Clapp & Co. first approached the Saudi government in order to search there for Ubar/Wabar, which did not resonate. They were never turned down, but rather the Saudis chose simply not to answer. Bertram Thomas, Wilfred Thesiger, Wendel Phillips and Charles Weston Baker all mused about the position Ubar/Wabbar of the folktales in '1001 Nights' between Saudia or perhaps Oman's Zafar Province (Yule 2001 I, p. 10). They hoped to find it in there during their travels and surveys from the late 1920s onwards. With the support of Prince Charles, the project won the financial and moral support of Oman's Ministry of Information. It facilitated tourism to Oman. The project group made many announcements about their "discovery" of Ubar/Wabbar at Shisr. The idea gained public recognition as a result of the repetition in much the same way as the false claim that Barack Obama has no birth certificate. Archaeologists of Arabia never take the Ubar/Wabbar identification even of Zarins seriously (e.g. publicly M. Macdonald, I and others). In Zarins's serious book about the archaeology of Zafar, The land of incense, Muscat, 2001, map opposite p. 138 he plotted the position of "IOBARITAE", "Marimatha ("place of the Mahra" =Shisr/Ubar)". Aside from Shisr, which has been on maps of Oman for decades, the other identifications are at best hopeful, if not improbable. For example, Marimatha can hardly include the Semitic word root for the place-name and tribal name 'Mahra'. When the study group claimed "Iram" of the Quran to be Shisr, this lead to diplomatic complaints to Oman from Indonesia of misusing the holy scripture. The ministry backed off with their support. Atlantis of the Sand was successful to funde Zarin's useful fieldwork into the prehistory of the region including Shisr. The "Atlantis of the Sands" equation is a scandel, since the '1001 and Nights' is not a book of history, but rather one of medieval stories. Actually, no-one found Atlantis either. The repeated identification of Shisr with Ubar/Wabbar was central to the publication effort of the authors. It frequently appears in the 2° and 3° literature on Oman. Azd0815 ( talk) 06:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, Joe Roe! Solid and used in our field is Zarins's book of 2001 which I mention above. Contrasts such as the Ubar hype and his serious work are striking and rare in our discipline. Ubar is an 'artefact' of research. I have not yet seen the article on Shisr, but that is a serious archaeological topic, excavated and published by a competent colleague. Azd0815 ( talk) 08:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Could someone with some knowledge of checking medical claims take a look at Valproate? It makes some exceptional claims in regard to autism.
E.g. "Sodium valproate is so heavily associated with autism that it has been used to induce autism in rodents to reliably study some of the qualia of certain autisms. The various molecular pathways thought to mediate this induction of autism are also found in humans."
I don't have the knowledge, or experience of checking medical claims to investigate the sources. 92.5.9.21 ( talk) 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
A little help. Clearly there are many Muslims who believe in miracles. Clearly there are few who are not Muslim who think these miracles are well documented. Compare literally any other religion on Wikipedia.
jps ( talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Quran_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles seems particularly problematic. Starting there might be good. I know that the belief in "scientific miracles" is one that is promoted in certain Islamic circles, but compare, for example, Wikipedia's work on documenting anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The Qu'ran is a product of its time just as the Book of Mormon is a product of its time. There is plenty of scholarship on this, but it is essentially absent from this section. jps ( talk) 22:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I've watched this article on and off for several years and it's quite common to get visits from new accounts trying to whitewash it and/or add unreliably-sourced boostery of the Method. This has happened again recently with a NY-based editor, and I reverted the changes - so far so normal (though this time I got an aggressive email too). However, searching for new sources I happened across this 2016 communication from the "New York Region of the Feldenkrais® Guild of North America" which appears to be encouraging a group effort to get the page changed. If nothing else this may explain the steady attention the article has received in the last few years. More eyes from experienced fringe-savvy editors may be useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Article Pomorje with information that Pomorje is also known as Littoral Serbia ie (Latin: Serbia Maritima). Source for this information is: Јанковић, Ђорђе(Jankovic, Djordje) (2007). Српско Поморје од 7. до 10. столећа (Serbian Maritime from 7th to 10th Century).
"The immediate reason for writing this text, in addition to the need to publish new material and resist the growing spread of arbitrary, unprofessional interpretations of archaeological facts, was the regular annual meeting of the Section for Medieval Archeology of the Serbian Archaeological Society in Herceg Novi in 2001 (Jankovic, report in U.S. Gazette 18, 2002: 329-331, and 19, 2003: 181). The gathering was organized in cooperation with the Homeland Museum, which is publishing this book with the Serbian Archaeological Society."So a publication of an academic conference all about the subject, seems legit. The relevant section is the only place where the stem "maritim-" appears (at least in Latin characters) and it (again, machine translated) says (emphasis added):
I would guess at not fringe, and the Serbia Maritima name derived from this royal titulature of this queen: "Lady Queen of Serbia and All [Serbia] Maritima" though of course this is the Balkans, its history is confused, and I haven't read the book (I don't read Serbian). GPinkerton ( talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"According to Latin sources, the land of Sclavona, Slauonia, is located next to Dalmatia, from the capture of Salona until 10. century and later (VIS 1967: 89, 94, 97, 106 107, etc.). Describers of the crusade from 1096, as a rule, call Serbia Sclavonia (Sclauonia and variants); so do Peter Tudebode, Anonymous, Raymond of Aguilers, Baldric, Tudebod's successor; the name Dalmatia is exceptionally used (IBI 1965: 18, 24, 55, 79, 85, 102, 107). The country is Slavic (Sclavorum terra), and its capital is Shkodra, according to Raymond of Aguilers (IBI 12:59). According to William of Tyre, Serbia is located between Dalmatia (determined by the cities of Zadar, Split and Dubrovnik), Hungary and Illyria: "... Servia… inter Dalmatiam et Hungariam et Illyricum media iacet,… “(IBI 1965: 195). ¶ A similar picture was obtained from Dubrovnik and Kotor sources written in Latin and Italian, respectively (it should be noted that notaries were often foreigners, immigrants from Italy). As a rule, there is no Serbia or Diocletian, Zeta, Pomorje, or even Dalmatia in that material, at least not in the sense in which they are recorded in Serbian sources. In both Dubrovnik and Kotor, Serbia is called Sclauonia, then rarely Rassa, Raxia, Rascia, and exceptionally Servia together with Pomorje, for example, Queen Jelena is "domine Regine Seruie et totius maritime". Dalmatia, lower, as a rule, is mentioned together with Croatia, as a Hungarian banovina, and very rarely in general. The cities of Dalmatia-Serbian sources are listed individually (Shkodra, Bar, Ulcinj, etc.). Zeta and Trebinje are listed mainly as geographical determinants, parishes (de Genta, de Trebigna), Hum (Chelmo) as principalities. Dubrovnik was transferred to Ragusa. It has already been stated that the archdeacon of Split, Tom, is the city of Diocletian in Serbia, ie Russia."
It can be concluded that Serbs began the taking over of Dalmatia towards the end of the 4th century, and completed it at the beginning of the 7th.from an english summary here. Isn't this a nationalist ethnogenisis theory? fiveby( zero) 21:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton ( talk) 22:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Post haec secundum continentiam priuiligiorum, quae lecta coram populo fuerant, scripsit priuilegia, diisit prouincias et regiones regni sui ac terminos et fines earum hoc modo: secundum cursum aquarum, quae a montanis fluunt et intrant in mare contra meridianam plagam, Maritima uocauit; aquas uero, quae a montanis fluunt contra septentrionalem plagam et intrant in magnum flumen Donaui, uocauit Surbia. Deinde Maritima in duas diuisit prouincias: a loco Dalmae, ubi rex tunc manebat et synodus tunc facta est, usque ad Ualdeuino uocauit Croatium Album, quae et inferior Dalmatia dicitur ...
Problem @ Fiveby and GPinkerton: We have problem with this article because he is based on one source. Sources which are listed below the article do not speak about medieval "Serbia Maritima" term. Possible they mention titles of Serbian rulers. Mikola22 ( talk) 13:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I've recently created a stub on Tom Rowsell and Survive the Jive. An alt-right YouTuber, Rowsell recently received some academic attention for promoting pseudoscience and fringe theories via his channel (in The International Far-Right: Fascism for the 21st century?, 2020). He also wrote for Breitbart, but I believe there's an issue with linking to that. The article is currently a stub and could not only use watchers but also expansion. I noticed that Rowsell has featured similarly aligned figures such as Rachel Fulton Brown on his channel and has also appeared on white nationalist site Red Ice, but I am having trouble finding secondary sources that discuss this so far. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In May 2014, archaeologists from DigVentures discovered... the bones of an unusually but not extraordinarily large mastiff in the remains of Leiston Abbey. The news spread like wild fire first into the local Leviston newspaper then into the East Anglian Daily Times before finally moving into the national news terrifying... anyone who hoped the WP:Daily Fail would not claim that it was a 6ft hellhound Black Shuck. Digventure's page on the skeleton https://folklorethursday.com/urban-folklore/proof-black-shuck-definitely-not-discovered/ East Anglian article Daily Mail article
Okay but seriously my question is over whether and how to include the Leviston Abbey Dog in the Black Shuck Wikipedia page. The discovery of the dog skeleton is a known fact as reported on by DigVenture's Dr. Brendon Wilkins, visiting lecturer at Durham and UCL. The idea that it is a 7ft hellhound as reported by International Bussiness Times [67] is a known falsehood as reported by the aforementioned doctor in Museum, Gallery and Heritage Practice.
The problem is that the skeleton is only relevant to the article because it was linked to Black Shuck by the media. As such IBT has been used in the article for at least 5 years as a self source to show that they linked the skeleton to Black Shuck. I made the article a bit more specific a year ago and started using the Daily Mail as a self source as well.
Several editors have deleted the text about the Daily Mail and IBT linking the two as they were cited from those sources which are obviously unreliable to which I suggested 4 options: continue citing those articles as self sources as they have been for 5 years, remove the reference to Yahoo! News (there seemed to be a specific objection to this), use DigVetnure's report to try to outline what the Daily Mail had said, or remove the section entirely.
I have created these options because, as I explained on the article's talk page, I feel that including the section without referencing the Daily Mail article leaves a massive chunk of the story missing.
None of the editors involved have stated which of these options they prefer or if they prefer an alternate option and they have failed to reply to my latest talk page post (made 2 days ago). The most I have got is a suggestion that I raise it here. And so I have decided to raise it here, thank-you. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 13:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I know we all hate the Daily Mail but pretending that it doesn't exist isn't going to simply make it go away. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 17:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor claims that the "autochthonous", "possibly Daco-Thracian" origin of the name of Basarab I of Wallachia is widely accepted by Romanian historians ( [68]). The editor also claims that the theory about the Turkic origin of the name was proposed by Neagu Djuvara. The editor refers to Sorin Paliga's book to verify these statements. 1. I think the "autochthonous" origin of Basarab's name is a marginal (rather fringe) theory. I have not read other book or article published in English (written either by a Romanian or by a non-Romanian historian) that contains reference to the autochthonous origin of Basarab's claim. 2. I think the statement that Romanian historians have accepted Paliga's etymology is unverified. 3. I think the statement that Djuvara was the first to propose a Turkic etymology is also unverified. All comments are welcome at the article's Talk page. Borsoka ( talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Planet of the Humans, an environmental documentary with fringe claims like wind/solar being equally bad for the climate as fossil (alongside more accurate portrayal of biomass), is attracting many IPs who discount criticism. The lede now contains lovely sentences like: Upon its release, Planet of the Humans generated intense controversy, was criticized by renewable energy proponents for what they claimed as being outdated and misleading. Some more eyes on this would be greatly appreciated; I can't find the time to keep this to standards. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Charles Koch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just noticed: the article has the word "Climate" in it, but only in the title of one of the sources. How did it come to that? That man paid for one of the biggest fringe pushing campaigns in the last decades, but it is not even mentioned. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE edit warring at Bryant G. Wood. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia user O Govinda is a reincarnation believer, he also disclosed that he is affiliated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I am not convinced all his edits on Robert Todd Carroll were done in good faith. For example, the old lead was "Robert Todd Carroll (May 18, 1945 – August 25, 2016) was an American writer and academic. Carroll was best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism; he achieved notability by publishing The Skeptic's Dictionary." On October 5, this was changed to "American writer and academic, best known for his website The Skeptic's Dictionary". This is downplaying Carroll's influence and confining the man to a website. You can see some of the changes in this edit [70]. If you also scroll down and check the "skeptic" section, O Govinda has also deliberately deleted "long-time advocate of scientific skepticism and critical thinking". O Govinda doesn't seem to like the idea of scientific skepticism and he has removed those links on the article.
Also on the article was the following "Carroll's views attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media and local newspapers, such as the Davis Enterprise and he was quoted in the New York Times." This content was removed by O Govinda and the replaced content was that Carroll spoke at a few skeptic conferences. Based on these edits, O Govinda seems to be downplaying Carroll's influence. I think this users edits need to looked at, I think there is some stealthy removals going on here. I believe the old lead should be restored. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The recipe for "round" burek was developed in the Serbian town of Niš. In 1498, it was introduced by a famous Turkish baker, Mehmed Oğlu from Istanbul. [76]
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, "The College of Medicine is a champion for social prescribing and integrated medicine, particularly within mainstream healthcare and the NHS." It must be right cos it says so in the lead. - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you heard? Autism can be cured at home! (Or maybe not.) See Son-Rise ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for further information. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the refs are too vague to check. David Frawley is of course not an RS nor would I use his books as ELs. A google search finds some very old dictionaries and some recent fringe, including this] I also found this which might be useful. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
An author of the Great Barrington Declaration. We have the same kind of problems here as we had at Sucharit Bhakdi. Needs eyes and work. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:36, 21 November 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. |
A number of changes have been made to this article by User:Cjbaiget. Some seem to be improvements, but I'm not sure about two. One is a statement by Sergey Glazyev, a dubious source at best - why should we use it? The other is:
"Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science". [1]"
This is odd because Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." Also most of the source (and I think it's a reliable source given the author) is critical of Fomenko but you wouldn't know that from its use. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing."the "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The edit, therefore, is dishonest in its form and should be reverted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
A new film about that will happen if Trump isn't re-elected. I wouldn't post it here if it hadn't suggested that the AntiChrist will come, and that's surely fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I have AFD'd it. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't sure whether to post this here or on BLPN, I decided to post it here but would urge editors to remember this is a BLP. Anyway I'm concerned that the article Li-Meng Yan seems to be getting into coatracking territory at it has a lot of info on a pre-print. While this pre-print has apparently generated a lot of media attention including comments from notable experts I'm unconvinced we really need to cover that level of detail in a biography. I guess it was has received enough attention that it probably should be mentioned, and we obviously also have to reflect the fact it's thoroughly rejected, but I would suggest maybe 3 or 4 sentences at most. How do others feel? Nil Einne ( talk) 18:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
While I am not surprised that already extant anti-intellectualism and distrust of government have allowed the far right to recruit and radicalize previously liberal-leaning subculture members, how does that concern Wikipedia? We already have rules in place against the promotion of pseudoscience. Dimadick ( talk) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
"It has been my observation that those who embrace one fringe theory tend to embrace multiple fringe theories." RationalWiki has an article on the topic, called Crank magnetism.:
Not everyone is an American, we we should not wp:soapbox. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Even in the past, the association between the left wing and antivax beliefs was pretty much a mirage. Antivax lunacy was a bipartisan thing, even if the prominent image of it among a certain class of pundit was very crunchy-granola. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
List of people who have learned Transcendental Meditation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can anybody explain why we have that article? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
26 citations to fringe authors, Kenyon, Childress and Hancock. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hagia Sophia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Holding, carrying, and bearing a sword without being armed — is this possible?
Dispute has arisen over whether Ali Erbaş, state-owned high priest of Erdogan's government Diyanet and well-known pro-fringe activist, was "armed with" a sword while preaching the first caliphal sermon ( khutbah) in the Justinianic cathedral since its appropriation by Erdogan and reconversion into a mosque. Apparently, it's possible to merely possess and publicly show off a weapon at a ceremonial event without the weapon being a weapon and without the person so armed being, well, armed. No-one appears to dispute that the man carried a sword and that the sword was a revival of the mediaeval tradition of delivering such sermons armed as a symbol of Constantinople's conquest by the righteous, predicted by the Prophet Himself (no less). I know not what to do. GPinkerton ( talk) 09:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
"definitely implies intent"? Certainly not; It means carrying a weapon on one's person, nothing more. The fringe element is Erbaş's own ideology, which centres on holy war against the Kurds/Syrians/anyone Erdogan disagrees with and manifests itself in himself claiming the mantle of the caliphs of yore, including the practice of delivering the Friday sermon in the caliph's mosque armed with the "weapon of the day". (Hadith records that the Prophet himself used sometimes a staff, other times a bow. It's this that drives the Iranian interpretation that the Islamic armies' frontline weapon of choice should accompany the sermon, in modern times an assault rifle.) GPinkerton ( talk) 13:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Welteislehre ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Historical part has recently been cut down because of missing sources. Maybe someone here has the sources? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I have to attend a real-life commitment. Could someone please look into the following?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shilajit&curid=4632952&diff=980663459&oldid=979938374
Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
There are signs of edit warring at Vernon Coleman. The subject is a British former medical doctor best known for his self-published books which make a number of fringe-sounding claims. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 17:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Stumbled on this bio of a doctor which makes the bold claim that "Diseases that are thought of as distinct and unrelated such as hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatomyositis, nephrosis, glomerulonephritis, lupus erythematous are variants of a single disease stemming from the same bacterial cause." The article attributes several other inventions and discoveries to him but it is all referenced to primary sources (his own papers and patents). I think this could use more eyes (and possibly an AfD). Spicy ( talk) 17:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Journal articles published in major journals can be evidence of notability. They are not, however, the kinds of serious, in-depth reliable sources we need to write a biography necessarily. jps ( talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors at this noticeboard may like to be informed of and weigh in at this discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Genetically modified food controversies. Crossroads -talk- 18:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiverse (religion).
Unserious side question: If all the parallel universes are part of the multiverse, then what entity contains all the multiverses? Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Areas to watch: Misinformation spikes as Trump confirms COVID-19 diagnosis -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The publisher
Visible Ink Press claims that In our 28 years, we've published nearly 400 titles and currently publish about ten titles a year. All have been exclusively references
[2]. However, this seems to include titles such as "The Illuminati: The Secret Society That Hijacked the World"
[3], "The Government UFO Files: The Conspiracy of Cover-Up"
[4], and "Lost Civilizations: The Secret Histories and Suppressed Technologies of the Ancients"
[5]. Any idea how to address this from an
WP:NPOV on the article page?
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 05:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this article after seeing this edit. [8] The book in question is published by Red Pill Press, clearly a fringe publisher. [9] The introduction is written by this fringe writer. [10] She's mentioned in Thomas French who wrote about her and her website is an EL there. She's used as a source for Theodore Illion who claimed to have discovered an underground city in Tibet and in Succubus.
Back to "political ponerology". There's in article in Psychology Today by Steve Taylor (author) which briefly mentions it as an example of "pathocracy" and another in Sri Lanka's daily business paper. [11] It's also mention in Salon [12] and that article seems pretty convincing evidence that it's not fringe.
So, should it be cleaned up and also restored to Ponerology despite its intro by a kook? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help) just a bare mentionOne of the pioneers in this area was a Polish survivor of Nazi Germany, then Communist occupation, named Andrew Lobaczewski. But his book on Political Ponerology is very difficult to read. It claims to be a product of a larger group of mostly Eastern European scientists who struggled to understand totalitarian systems with deep roots in that region that resulted in so much killing during the 20th century. So they were highly motivated, but much of their original material was allegedly lost.
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Not much to inspire confidence, nothing in academic sources so far. fiveby( zero) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Biomedical Sciences: An idea to identify acceptable primary research for citations (in addition to citing reviews). People who watch this page may wish to comment - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I left the Cayce article unattended for a few months (Watchlist too long), and POV edits crept in. I reverted some, but the article would probably profit from more eyes. Also, Atomidine (or rather, the article it redirects to, Nascent iodine (dietary supplement)) seems to be in need of work. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love. High-quality reliable sources, including academic publications, describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory.
The Wikipedia article on Love Jihad, for some time, did not explicitly label Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory, which caused the article to be in violation of WP:PROFRINGE. I have attempted to address this in Special:Diff/978047396/979186634 by adding the conspiracy theory descriptor to the first sentence, but the remainder of the article (particularly the example farm in the "History" section) still portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory, rather than a confirmed conspiracy theory.
One solution is to introduce more content cited to peer-reviewed academic sources rather than relying solely on popular press. This would provide the appropriate weight to the scholarship that counterbalances the sundry unconfirmed allegations that are reported in the media.
If you have any other suggestions for improving this article, please feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 23:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone have a look at this change of content, tone and source at Orgone, accompanied by this wall of text on the talk page? - DVdm ( talk) 23:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion between me and Korny O'Near and how to describe US Senate candidate Tuberville's position on climate change (only God causes climate change/nobody will be able to feel it in the next 400 years), Talk:Tommy_Tuberville#Content_sourced_to_InsideClimate_News_should_be_restored. Editors here may be interested. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
[15] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I discovered this (and related page Hinduphobia in Academia) while doing new page review. It's unclear to me whether Hinduphobia is a legitimate, recognized term, as all the sources seem (as one might expect) POV-pushing. Would appreciate any guidance on this. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on the timing, this article looks like an attack on the academic sources cited in the Love Jihad article. See #Love Jihad conspiracy theory for details. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead states, with sources (2 the same person) that he was a pioneer of aviation, yet the article casts strong doubts on the story of his alleged flight. This doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced that the sources are adequate. Maybe I should go to RSN, but this seems more of a fringe issue. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
feathers and mobile wingsthat's not aviation and flying like that only works in cartoons and the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. It would be charitable to call it gliding rather than outright falling. This no more a precursor to aviation than were Da Vinci's unbuilt and unflyable machines. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Lost in the mall technique ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The criticism seems fringey to me, but I am not a psychologist. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Griffin sent a representative to argue for him to remove the "conspiracy theorist" label, and the representative has asked why all the people who watch the article are not coming to discuss him. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I part-rewrote the lead to Persecution of Christians to attempt a more neutral tone, but the body of the article, especially the post-Cold War section, could use its sources examining and its tone in places distanced from its subject. The introduction of that section starts with some commentary from neutral observer Benedict XVI (ret'd), and ends with a conclusion that uncritically backs the ex-papal claim Christians are (win?) "the most persecuted religion", (prize at the) 2019 (awards?). GPinkerton ( talk) 19:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
On White House COVID-19 outbreak, I added mention of the White House rally on October 10 where Trump spoke unmasked to a 2,000 person crowd. I characterized his status as "potentially infectious" based on The Independent. NYT goes even further, saiyng "might be contagious to those around him".
This change has been objected to, because "President Donald Trump’s doctor said Saturday the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus." I have argued we should include the Oct 10 event along with the doctor's claim, but that suggestion has been rejected. Feoffer ( talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Would welcome any input on this from the fine people at FTN. It looks like a WP:POVFORK of Currency lads and lasses, but I'm not sure. (I posted at WP:AUSTRALIA as well.) AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
First lesson: Don't say "anti-vaxxers". In all seriousness, the Vaccine Confidence Project is not just an exercise in double-speak but one in information delivery. That is something we should be good at. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of Aid#Food_as_a_means_of_increasing_carrying_capacity_and_undesirable_population_growth. (Or, rather, [18], as I have at least temporarily removed the relevant content.) It looks either WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHetic, but at least some of the sources do seem to have been legitimately published. Would appreciate any comments (and apologies for spamming FTN lately). AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI, there is an ongoing requested move at Talk:Trump administration political interference with science agencies. Input welcome. Neutrality talk 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Criticism of the British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) now exists and appears pro-fringe. Gupta, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens all rife, with a for-and-against layout and Screaming Lord Sumption going unopposed. Some apparent attempts to smuggle the Mail in through third-party sources. Worth looking over; it certainly needs overall improvement. GPinkerton ( talk) 08:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
‘Film Your Hospital’ – The Anatomy of a COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory
Key quote: "The pandemic has fuelled at least ten conspiracy theories this year. Some linked the spread of the disease to the 5G network, leading to phone masts being vandalised. Others argued that COVID-19 was a biological weapon. Research has shown that conspiracy theories could contribute to people ignoring social distancing rules."
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Really embarrassing as I'm a Yalie. Valerie Hansen [21] Doug Weller talk 10:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
New article on some sort of NRM. Looks fringe but what do I know about this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
We have an article for this guy Jeremy Griffith whom I suspect is some kind of quack/fringe scientist. His website www.humancondition.com just screams SCAM to me. His article here is completely uncritical of him and feels like it was written by a paid stooge. I would like somebody to take a closer look at this, I don't trust it. Kurzon ( talk) 08:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I had added the reference to the SMH article that was critical of Griffith's work. I would have added more extensive discussion of the criticisms - but I was also criticized here for soapboxing and posting too much on certain anthropological theories. Therefore I thought if I elaborated on the criticisms of the Griffith article that would be taken as further soapboxing. So someone has said the material from the SMH article (which is critical of Griffith) should have a greater presence on his page - while someone else said I am posting too much on one topic and potentially soapboxing. These mixed messages are a little confusing - some clarification would be appreciated so I know the parameters and accepted protocols for making edits. I intend to make some editions to Jordan Peterson's Wiki page based on recently released research in evolutionary anthropology and Jungian studies. I hope this is not deleted for "soapboxing" - but that I can also receive critical feedback if anything I do is inappropriate. Divinecomedy666 ( talk)
I've just reverted some pov, but it still has fringe nonsense in it from Blackett and Wilson and Lee Pennington. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
An open letter from anti-lockdown proponents, that appears to have received a universal raspberry from mainstream scientists. Add to that a rumour doing the rounds that the declaration's true greatness is being censored by Google, and we have a rich fringe cocktail. Editing seems to be hotting up so could probably use eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
At one level this declaration is a statement of a series of scientific truths and as such is non-controversial...That said, the declaration omits some rather critical scientific information that would help better inform policy makers...It is absolutely proper that scientists offer their best advice to government, especially perhaps, when that advice differs from the mainstream, as this does...Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.[32] This is not "a bunch of rogue scientists...analagous to vaccine denial, climate denial, creationism, etc." fiveby( zero) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
GPinkerton (
talk) 22:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)of interest The Gorsky take. ADDED Though I see from the article history that Alex is ahead of me, as usual. - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Predictably, the "WHO caves to free-market economics" non-story is now being added to World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is the
Great Barrington Declaration listed in a section in
WP:FTN?
Knowledge Contributor0 (
talk) 01:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
"evidence fiasco". [2] Not to say, that his opinion by itself is evidence, but the peer reviewed studies published by him showing that that the early mathematical models used to justify the lcokdowns were overestimated cannot be called fringe. [3]
Which other "fringe theory" can claim this?Just off the top of my head:
all non-mainstream ideas. Do you really think it should apply to such as ethics or moral values? Religious beliefs? (where there is no claim of support from science) You're right tho about being academic for the article, i think it's mostly well done in a difficult subject area. fiveby( zero) 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Low-level laser therapy: science or pseudoscience? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not happy with all the changes here [36], particularly the many times an obituary was used in ways that seem to promote him and the major deletion of "In1961 non-fiction writer Carleton Putnam published Race and Reason: A Yankee View, a popular theory of racial segregation. A special session of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists voted to censure Putnam's book. Coon, who was then the president of the association, and was present at the meeting, asked how many of the participants had actually read the book; only one hand was raised in response. Coon resigned in protest, criticizing the meeting for representing scientific irresponsibility [1] and arguing its actions violated free speech. [2] Coon published The Origin of Races in 1962." I'll tell the editor. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Gopi Warrier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
is a best known as an expert in Indian Ayurvedic medicine. For some reason, lots of his YouTube videos are linked, and also quantum. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
According to Serbian archaeologist Đorđe Janković, the western boundary of Serbian Cyrillic tombstones reached the Split– Benkovac– Kordun line in the High Middle Ages. [37]
There seems to be some fringe claims on a few articles claiming plants have consciousness or are sentient. For example, at
Plant cognition and on the
Plant perception (physiology) article an IP added to the lead "According to research, plants could perceive the world around them (
"Earth - Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond". BBC. 10 January 2017.) and might be able to emit airborne sounds similar to "screaming" when stressed. Those noises could not be detectable by human ears, but organisms with a
hearing range that can hear ultrasonic frequencies—like mice, bats or perhaps other plants—could hear the plants' cries from as far as 15 feet (4.6 m) away.(I. Khait; O. Lewin-Epstein; R. Sharon; K. Saban; R. Perelman; A. Boonman; Y. Yovel; L. Hadany (2 December 2019).
"Plants emit informative airborne sounds under stress" (PDF). bioRxiv.
doi:
10.1101/507590. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help))." This content should be removed or at least put somewhere else.
There is an academic field of study called "plant neurobiology" (which is a silly term because plants do not have neurons) that studies the idea of plant "intelligence" (see plant intelligence), but this is not a mainstream view and contrary to what is sometimes reported in the media its proponents are not claiming plants have consciousness. I think we need to sort some of these articles out and make it clear what the consensus is. I have spoken to botanists over the years and they do not hold these views. Plants lack a nervous system, they do not have consciousness which is obvious. We do have an article on Plant perception (paranormal) which is very much a field of quackery. I think we need to make clear the fringe field of plant neurobiology is not actually claiming plants have consciousness. Any ideas about what to do here? The plant cognition article is not in a good way. The consensus view is not stated. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This is presented as an academic discipline in the article, but as far as I understand, it is a loose set of beliefs and services, probably combining some scientific measurements and findings (such as air quality) and pseudoscience (such as "electrosmog"). The sources are various "institutes of building biology" and even business websites, often in German. The criticism section has been gutted due to lack of citation. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to proceed: It seems like the whole article should be completely rewritten or even deleted, but I wouldn't know how to word it (Is it a movement? A (partially) pseudoscientific belief system? A service? Some combination?) or how I would go about sourcing it. Pink pipes ( talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Mary Midgley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[Richard Dawkins] nonetheless slides over to saying that "we are born selfish"
Philosopher misrepresents biologist. Wikipedia repeats misrepresentation without refutation. Calling FTN. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
she is talking about the approach to the subject that Dawkins assumed in the Selfish GeneThis might be the case, but the prose right now does not say that. It doesn't say anything close to what you are saying here. It would be better if the prose said what you just wrote than its currently tortured arrangement. jps ( talk) 00:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"the view that altruism is an evolutionary strategy"is precisely the main point of the Selfish Gene. If Midgley disagrees, then that's what the article should say. GPinkerton ( talk) 03:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
John Ioannidis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He is in the minority in his opinions about anti-COVID-19 measures, but you wouldn't know that from the COVID-19 section, owing to edits like this. Could some medical expert have a look at that? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds rather dubious to me. Does anybody know more? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It's the Institute for American Indian Studies 15th Annual Native American-Archaeology RoundTable. Free registration here. [45] Agenda and speakers here. [46]
It should be brilliant! Doug Weller talk 20:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Did you know that UVa's Division of Perceptual Studies along with UA's Center for Consciousness Studies are the last two "Parapsychology Institutes" at R1 institutions in the US? Well, Jim B. Tucker recently showed up in a fluff piece in the New York Times: [47].
This guy seems to be really good at getting into journalist pieces without having to deal with the headache of people who might challenge his extraordinary claims. It's rather surprising.
So I went to the article and found a practical apologia for quantum mysticism. Tried to clean it up a bit, but more balance towards the mainstream would be appreciated in spite of the media being unable to find people who can explain why no one with any chops takes this stuff seriously.
jps ( talk) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This new page looks like a heap of Bio 101 oversimplifications and WP:MEDRS violations. Thoughts? XOR'easter ( talk) 19:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
(Not to be confused with The Gay Ghost or with The Grim Ghost.)
Majority of Gays Are Possessed by Ghosts, So-Called Study Says
Sounds legit. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Should we have categories of haunted locations? [48] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in the following RfC:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should we move WP:ONUS to WP:CONSENSUS?
Crossroads -talk- 05:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Fringe material and removals of sourced content is repeatedly being added to this article. Debate has spilled out from the talk-page, now here [49] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
This looks like a fringe theory to me. I think we should have at least a stub article for
John H. Field, and I question whether we should redirect
Time contraction to
Time dilation. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 03:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know about this topic? Some of the sources seem dubious. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I have a gut feeling that the Stansberry Research article is somewhat understated in its description of the entity, given that for at least the past decade they have been pushing an imminent collapse of the U.S. economy (usually stemming from a misrepresentation of some piece of pending legislation or other as enabling confiscation of currency or the like) as a reason for subscribing to their investment advice. For example, this recent promotion. BD2412 T 19:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Man with some fringe views on Irish history listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Fogarty. FDW777 ( talk) 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking for editors who deal with difficult content disputes, and I thought of y'all. Please see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#No consensus in article pages, recent edits. The main concern is that WP:NOCON and WP:ONUS might be telling different stories about what to do when the discussion results in no consensus (i.e., a true no consensus, with an evenly divided discussion, resulting in neither a consensus to include nor a consensus to exclude – not a consensus against inclusion).
AIUI, ONUS says that if someone wants to include some content, and that content is disputed, and the result is discussion there's no consensus, the disputed content is removed, but NOCON says that under exactly the same circumstances, editors should revert to the WP:STATUSQUO (which could be either inclusion or exclusion, mostly depending upon how long ago the information was added).
It would be good for policies (a) to match each other and (b) to represent best practices. If you can help us achieve these goals, I would be grateful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between me and User:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West about whether or not Richard Lynn, Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and J. Philippe Rushton should be cited at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.
Dutton and Lynn are both closely tied to Mankind Quarterly and both have been involved with neo-Nazi groups such as Washington Summit Publishers and Red Ice. At Race and intelligence, the work of this group is handled carefully and contextualized by more reliable sources. In this article they are just added to the pile of sources, which suggests the article has deeper issues. Grayfell ( talk) 20:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
All these people are fringe. Whether they are neo-Nazis or not, I leave for to another venue to discuss. jps ( talk) 21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I prefer primary sources on scientific issues as they tend to be more fact-based and less subverted by politics, but I've come to understand Wikipedia prefers secondary or even tertiary sources. I can respect that. Surely we should be able to find some non-primary sources properly summarising the hypotheses and controversies around Ashkenazi intelligence. Iroh ( talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
All right, now I've had enough of "edit warring" and off-topic discussions for months to come and then some. Let's start presenting and examining some non-primary sources so we can improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines (with which I like to belive I have now familiarised myself quite well). Iroh ( talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
If you compare the word "autists
" to "nigger
", call the Kalergi Plan just a "meme
", and childishly use rape and murder to score points in an argument, you will eventually be blocked for 4chan style trolling.
Grayfell (
talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
To avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at an obscure article, I would appreciate additional eyes. Specifically, this is regarding these edits by me, which Iroh has reverted.
These edits removed this source, which was the key source for the bulk the article.
As I said on the talk page, this was heavily over-represented without significant support from reliable secondary sources. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending's work should be supported and contextualized by sources, not editors. Cochran and Harpending's credibility as a reliable source is disputed by many other academics. Further, this source is almost fifteen years old. Since then,more research has been done, and more information about Harpending and Cochran's extremist and pseudoscientific views has come to light (easy-to-find sources on this: [58] [59]). Any update should contextualize this based on newer sources, but fringe sources are not a good starting point for a controversial topic. Grayfell ( talk) 07:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
No, not that AfD, but I can see why it might be confusing:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination).
jps ( talk) 06:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
These sources seem to have spilled-over into mentions of the Nobel Prizes. We have Cochran et al, Charles Murray, and now Richard Lynn (again!) being cited at List of Jewish Nobel laureates.
Jews#Contributions now includes a lengthy, extremely vague paragraph supported by Cochran et al, as well as an opinion from Charles Murray. As I said on that article's talk, most of these sources don't unambiguously support this content even if they were usable. Both of these sections were added by User:Maxim.il89 who has also repeatedly copy.pasted this into Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Grayfell ( talk) 19:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
...good luck writing an article about Nazism without using Hitler as a source for it.Stop and think about that for a bit, please. There are many thousands of in-depth reliable sources about Nazism. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we cite reliable sources about a topic to explain that topic. Instead, what you've been doing is sharing your own understanding of a topic based on unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources. This is a form of original research. I've tried to explain this to you on multiple talk pages, and if you presume I must be wrong anyway I don't know how else to collaborate with you. Grayfell ( talk) 01:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Those sources are reliable in the sense of describing the point of view of those who support it— which is not " reliable" in the sense that we need sources to be reliable. After years of reading documents from creationists, UFO enthusiasts, homeopaths, perpetual-motion mechanics, relativity denialists, etc., etc., it becomes clear that fringe authors are not reliable sources about their own positions. They lie. They shift the goalposts, hide their motivations, pretend to be scientific in one venue and abandon the pretense in another. Sorting through the mess is often a thankless task, and it is not what Wikipedia is suited for. We rely upon other analyses to do that for us. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
trying to use statistical achievements to build some weird theory of genetic superiority.You added the statistical achievements to the article but completely failed to explain why this was pseudoscience. Grayfell ( talk) 23:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Why hasn't WP:JUDAISM been alerted about this discussion? I remedied this omission. [60] Debresser ( talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
well-established statistical facts" devoid of all context or nuance makes this a loaded question. I have very little patience for that game, and as I've already said many times for this issues, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Ignoring the context of a source to imply that this is a bland "statistical fact" is cherry-picking. Look at what reliable sources are actually saying, not what you wish they were saying. Grayfell ( talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I was thinking of creating a draft now that the AfD has gone through... but I cannot even decide what title to use. Perhaps the best thing would be to start collecting sources. There were four I listed at the AfD, but these are largely of the "editorial commentary" sort except for the last one which is an excellent summary of the attendant race realism/antisemitism involvement. jps ( talk) 14:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, sock has a point if, perhaps, sock doesn't realize what that point is. It is sometimes hard for even certain well-meaning people to see the antisemitism contained within this topic because, typically (though, crucially, not universally), the claim seems superficially to be to the benefit of the people being profiled. Seeing through this charade is not difficult for the majority of the reliable sources commenting, but there is a rather large group of people who are convinced by their own love-ins that they're just following the research wherever it may lead.
This really is an offshoot of race and intelligence, so perhaps it would be a good idea to start a section in that article and see if a WP:CFORK is really necessary. Perhaps a redirect can suffice.
jps ( talk) 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The premise of the paper itself is problematic. The entire crew is, well, *gulp*. This is not the source to start from. It probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. jps ( talk) 16:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Both need work. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Confusing article, I'm not sure if it's fringe or just confusing. But the name seems wrong - eg the lead says it has had various names, eg "Ubar, Wabar and Iram" and when you click on Ubar at Wabar Craters you get Iram of the Pillars which has some of the same material as Atlantis of the Sands. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
"It's very clear on Ptolemy's second century map of the area. It says in big letters "Iobaritae". And in his text that accompanied the maps, he's very clear about that."This is gibberish. The 2nd-century maps of Ptolemy, if they were ever circulated at all, are long lost and are not gathering dust in some California university library. The texts are all that survive of his work. The most ancient maps based on the text are 2nd-millenium, not 2nd-century. The manuscripts are hardly older. Whatever or however names are written on medieval interpretations of Ptolemy's text are neither here nor there. The concept of an Atlantis of the Sands is obviously a thing, whether or not it existed or can be identified with one or more real place should be irrelevant. The Ubar issue is another matter. Still, the archaeological papers should be given more prominence in the text and less shrift given to the travelogues of Fiennes, which are old news in archaeological terms. GPinkerton ( talk) 00:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, 'Atlantis of the Sands' was a project which Sir Ranulph Feinnes and Nicholas Clapp developed, recruiting the established Arabia archaeologist Juris Zarins from U of Missouri. Clapp & Co. first approached the Saudi government in order to search there for Ubar/Wabar, which did not resonate. They were never turned down, but rather the Saudis chose simply not to answer. Bertram Thomas, Wilfred Thesiger, Wendel Phillips and Charles Weston Baker all mused about the position Ubar/Wabbar of the folktales in '1001 Nights' between Saudia or perhaps Oman's Zafar Province (Yule 2001 I, p. 10). They hoped to find it in there during their travels and surveys from the late 1920s onwards. With the support of Prince Charles, the project won the financial and moral support of Oman's Ministry of Information. It facilitated tourism to Oman. The project group made many announcements about their "discovery" of Ubar/Wabbar at Shisr. The idea gained public recognition as a result of the repetition in much the same way as the false claim that Barack Obama has no birth certificate. Archaeologists of Arabia never take the Ubar/Wabbar identification even of Zarins seriously (e.g. publicly M. Macdonald, I and others). In Zarins's serious book about the archaeology of Zafar, The land of incense, Muscat, 2001, map opposite p. 138 he plotted the position of "IOBARITAE", "Marimatha ("place of the Mahra" =Shisr/Ubar)". Aside from Shisr, which has been on maps of Oman for decades, the other identifications are at best hopeful, if not improbable. For example, Marimatha can hardly include the Semitic word root for the place-name and tribal name 'Mahra'. When the study group claimed "Iram" of the Quran to be Shisr, this lead to diplomatic complaints to Oman from Indonesia of misusing the holy scripture. The ministry backed off with their support. Atlantis of the Sand was successful to funde Zarin's useful fieldwork into the prehistory of the region including Shisr. The "Atlantis of the Sands" equation is a scandel, since the '1001 and Nights' is not a book of history, but rather one of medieval stories. Actually, no-one found Atlantis either. The repeated identification of Shisr with Ubar/Wabbar was central to the publication effort of the authors. It frequently appears in the 2° and 3° literature on Oman. Azd0815 ( talk) 06:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Good morning, Joe Roe! Solid and used in our field is Zarins's book of 2001 which I mention above. Contrasts such as the Ubar hype and his serious work are striking and rare in our discipline. Ubar is an 'artefact' of research. I have not yet seen the article on Shisr, but that is a serious archaeological topic, excavated and published by a competent colleague. Azd0815 ( talk) 08:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Could someone with some knowledge of checking medical claims take a look at Valproate? It makes some exceptional claims in regard to autism.
E.g. "Sodium valproate is so heavily associated with autism that it has been used to induce autism in rodents to reliably study some of the qualia of certain autisms. The various molecular pathways thought to mediate this induction of autism are also found in humans."
I don't have the knowledge, or experience of checking medical claims to investigate the sources. 92.5.9.21 ( talk) 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
A little help. Clearly there are many Muslims who believe in miracles. Clearly there are few who are not Muslim who think these miracles are well documented. Compare literally any other religion on Wikipedia.
jps ( talk) 01:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Quran_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles seems particularly problematic. Starting there might be good. I know that the belief in "scientific miracles" is one that is promoted in certain Islamic circles, but compare, for example, Wikipedia's work on documenting anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The Qu'ran is a product of its time just as the Book of Mormon is a product of its time. There is plenty of scholarship on this, but it is essentially absent from this section. jps ( talk) 22:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I've watched this article on and off for several years and it's quite common to get visits from new accounts trying to whitewash it and/or add unreliably-sourced boostery of the Method. This has happened again recently with a NY-based editor, and I reverted the changes - so far so normal (though this time I got an aggressive email too). However, searching for new sources I happened across this 2016 communication from the "New York Region of the Feldenkrais® Guild of North America" which appears to be encouraging a group effort to get the page changed. If nothing else this may explain the steady attention the article has received in the last few years. More eyes from experienced fringe-savvy editors may be useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Article Pomorje with information that Pomorje is also known as Littoral Serbia ie (Latin: Serbia Maritima). Source for this information is: Јанковић, Ђорђе(Jankovic, Djordje) (2007). Српско Поморје од 7. до 10. столећа (Serbian Maritime from 7th to 10th Century).
"The immediate reason for writing this text, in addition to the need to publish new material and resist the growing spread of arbitrary, unprofessional interpretations of archaeological facts, was the regular annual meeting of the Section for Medieval Archeology of the Serbian Archaeological Society in Herceg Novi in 2001 (Jankovic, report in U.S. Gazette 18, 2002: 329-331, and 19, 2003: 181). The gathering was organized in cooperation with the Homeland Museum, which is publishing this book with the Serbian Archaeological Society."So a publication of an academic conference all about the subject, seems legit. The relevant section is the only place where the stem "maritim-" appears (at least in Latin characters) and it (again, machine translated) says (emphasis added):
I would guess at not fringe, and the Serbia Maritima name derived from this royal titulature of this queen: "Lady Queen of Serbia and All [Serbia] Maritima" though of course this is the Balkans, its history is confused, and I haven't read the book (I don't read Serbian). GPinkerton ( talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"According to Latin sources, the land of Sclavona, Slauonia, is located next to Dalmatia, from the capture of Salona until 10. century and later (VIS 1967: 89, 94, 97, 106 107, etc.). Describers of the crusade from 1096, as a rule, call Serbia Sclavonia (Sclauonia and variants); so do Peter Tudebode, Anonymous, Raymond of Aguilers, Baldric, Tudebod's successor; the name Dalmatia is exceptionally used (IBI 1965: 18, 24, 55, 79, 85, 102, 107). The country is Slavic (Sclavorum terra), and its capital is Shkodra, according to Raymond of Aguilers (IBI 12:59). According to William of Tyre, Serbia is located between Dalmatia (determined by the cities of Zadar, Split and Dubrovnik), Hungary and Illyria: "... Servia… inter Dalmatiam et Hungariam et Illyricum media iacet,… “(IBI 1965: 195). ¶ A similar picture was obtained from Dubrovnik and Kotor sources written in Latin and Italian, respectively (it should be noted that notaries were often foreigners, immigrants from Italy). As a rule, there is no Serbia or Diocletian, Zeta, Pomorje, or even Dalmatia in that material, at least not in the sense in which they are recorded in Serbian sources. In both Dubrovnik and Kotor, Serbia is called Sclauonia, then rarely Rassa, Raxia, Rascia, and exceptionally Servia together with Pomorje, for example, Queen Jelena is "domine Regine Seruie et totius maritime". Dalmatia, lower, as a rule, is mentioned together with Croatia, as a Hungarian banovina, and very rarely in general. The cities of Dalmatia-Serbian sources are listed individually (Shkodra, Bar, Ulcinj, etc.). Zeta and Trebinje are listed mainly as geographical determinants, parishes (de Genta, de Trebigna), Hum (Chelmo) as principalities. Dubrovnik was transferred to Ragusa. It has already been stated that the archdeacon of Split, Tom, is the city of Diocletian in Serbia, ie Russia."
It can be concluded that Serbs began the taking over of Dalmatia towards the end of the 4th century, and completed it at the beginning of the 7th.from an english summary here. Isn't this a nationalist ethnogenisis theory? fiveby( zero) 21:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton ( talk) 22:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Post haec secundum continentiam priuiligiorum, quae lecta coram populo fuerant, scripsit priuilegia, diisit prouincias et regiones regni sui ac terminos et fines earum hoc modo: secundum cursum aquarum, quae a montanis fluunt et intrant in mare contra meridianam plagam, Maritima uocauit; aquas uero, quae a montanis fluunt contra septentrionalem plagam et intrant in magnum flumen Donaui, uocauit Surbia. Deinde Maritima in duas diuisit prouincias: a loco Dalmae, ubi rex tunc manebat et synodus tunc facta est, usque ad Ualdeuino uocauit Croatium Album, quae et inferior Dalmatia dicitur ...
Problem @ Fiveby and GPinkerton: We have problem with this article because he is based on one source. Sources which are listed below the article do not speak about medieval "Serbia Maritima" term. Possible they mention titles of Serbian rulers. Mikola22 ( talk) 13:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I've recently created a stub on Tom Rowsell and Survive the Jive. An alt-right YouTuber, Rowsell recently received some academic attention for promoting pseudoscience and fringe theories via his channel (in The International Far-Right: Fascism for the 21st century?, 2020). He also wrote for Breitbart, but I believe there's an issue with linking to that. The article is currently a stub and could not only use watchers but also expansion. I noticed that Rowsell has featured similarly aligned figures such as Rachel Fulton Brown on his channel and has also appeared on white nationalist site Red Ice, but I am having trouble finding secondary sources that discuss this so far. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In May 2014, archaeologists from DigVentures discovered... the bones of an unusually but not extraordinarily large mastiff in the remains of Leiston Abbey. The news spread like wild fire first into the local Leviston newspaper then into the East Anglian Daily Times before finally moving into the national news terrifying... anyone who hoped the WP:Daily Fail would not claim that it was a 6ft hellhound Black Shuck. Digventure's page on the skeleton https://folklorethursday.com/urban-folklore/proof-black-shuck-definitely-not-discovered/ East Anglian article Daily Mail article
Okay but seriously my question is over whether and how to include the Leviston Abbey Dog in the Black Shuck Wikipedia page. The discovery of the dog skeleton is a known fact as reported on by DigVenture's Dr. Brendon Wilkins, visiting lecturer at Durham and UCL. The idea that it is a 7ft hellhound as reported by International Bussiness Times [67] is a known falsehood as reported by the aforementioned doctor in Museum, Gallery and Heritage Practice.
The problem is that the skeleton is only relevant to the article because it was linked to Black Shuck by the media. As such IBT has been used in the article for at least 5 years as a self source to show that they linked the skeleton to Black Shuck. I made the article a bit more specific a year ago and started using the Daily Mail as a self source as well.
Several editors have deleted the text about the Daily Mail and IBT linking the two as they were cited from those sources which are obviously unreliable to which I suggested 4 options: continue citing those articles as self sources as they have been for 5 years, remove the reference to Yahoo! News (there seemed to be a specific objection to this), use DigVetnure's report to try to outline what the Daily Mail had said, or remove the section entirely.
I have created these options because, as I explained on the article's talk page, I feel that including the section without referencing the Daily Mail article leaves a massive chunk of the story missing.
None of the editors involved have stated which of these options they prefer or if they prefer an alternate option and they have failed to reply to my latest talk page post (made 2 days ago). The most I have got is a suggestion that I raise it here. And so I have decided to raise it here, thank-you. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 13:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I know we all hate the Daily Mail but pretending that it doesn't exist isn't going to simply make it go away. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 17:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor claims that the "autochthonous", "possibly Daco-Thracian" origin of the name of Basarab I of Wallachia is widely accepted by Romanian historians ( [68]). The editor also claims that the theory about the Turkic origin of the name was proposed by Neagu Djuvara. The editor refers to Sorin Paliga's book to verify these statements. 1. I think the "autochthonous" origin of Basarab's name is a marginal (rather fringe) theory. I have not read other book or article published in English (written either by a Romanian or by a non-Romanian historian) that contains reference to the autochthonous origin of Basarab's claim. 2. I think the statement that Romanian historians have accepted Paliga's etymology is unverified. 3. I think the statement that Djuvara was the first to propose a Turkic etymology is also unverified. All comments are welcome at the article's Talk page. Borsoka ( talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Planet of the Humans, an environmental documentary with fringe claims like wind/solar being equally bad for the climate as fossil (alongside more accurate portrayal of biomass), is attracting many IPs who discount criticism. The lede now contains lovely sentences like: Upon its release, Planet of the Humans generated intense controversy, was criticized by renewable energy proponents for what they claimed as being outdated and misleading. Some more eyes on this would be greatly appreciated; I can't find the time to keep this to standards. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Charles Koch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just noticed: the article has the word "Climate" in it, but only in the title of one of the sources. How did it come to that? That man paid for one of the biggest fringe pushing campaigns in the last decades, but it is not even mentioned. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE edit warring at Bryant G. Wood. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia user O Govinda is a reincarnation believer, he also disclosed that he is affiliated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I am not convinced all his edits on Robert Todd Carroll were done in good faith. For example, the old lead was "Robert Todd Carroll (May 18, 1945 – August 25, 2016) was an American writer and academic. Carroll was best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism; he achieved notability by publishing The Skeptic's Dictionary." On October 5, this was changed to "American writer and academic, best known for his website The Skeptic's Dictionary". This is downplaying Carroll's influence and confining the man to a website. You can see some of the changes in this edit [70]. If you also scroll down and check the "skeptic" section, O Govinda has also deliberately deleted "long-time advocate of scientific skepticism and critical thinking". O Govinda doesn't seem to like the idea of scientific skepticism and he has removed those links on the article.
Also on the article was the following "Carroll's views attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media and local newspapers, such as the Davis Enterprise and he was quoted in the New York Times." This content was removed by O Govinda and the replaced content was that Carroll spoke at a few skeptic conferences. Based on these edits, O Govinda seems to be downplaying Carroll's influence. I think this users edits need to looked at, I think there is some stealthy removals going on here. I believe the old lead should be restored. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 04:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The recipe for "round" burek was developed in the Serbian town of Niš. In 1498, it was introduced by a famous Turkish baker, Mehmed Oğlu from Istanbul. [76]
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, "The College of Medicine is a champion for social prescribing and integrated medicine, particularly within mainstream healthcare and the NHS." It must be right cos it says so in the lead. - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Have you heard? Autism can be cured at home! (Or maybe not.) See Son-Rise ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for further information. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the refs are too vague to check. David Frawley is of course not an RS nor would I use his books as ELs. A google search finds some very old dictionaries and some recent fringe, including this] I also found this which might be useful. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
An author of the Great Barrington Declaration. We have the same kind of problems here as we had at Sucharit Bhakdi. Needs eyes and work. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)