This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
In early 1630, representatives of Croatian nobility and Vlachs (Serbs) met in Vienna. Information from Statuta Valachorum article and source is: (Kašić, Dušan (1967). Srbi i pravoslavlje u Slavoniji i sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (in Serbian). Savez udruženja pravosl. sveštenstva SR Hrvatske.)
The Serbs appropriated the Vlach culture and tradition so much that, in one of the most recent books on this topic, the Habsburg document from 1630 entitled Statuta Valachorum is presented as Serbian.[1] Is this the underlying problem Mikola22?
In the Our Lady of Medjugorje article, in the section " Sister Lúcia the main visionary of Our Lady of Fátima" it is said:
Maillard writes that Lucia's nephew, Father Salinho, who is a Salesian priest and lives in Portugal, reported that Sister Lucia had not only continued receiving visions of Fatima but she also confirmed the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje. In some of these apparitions, the Virgin Mary spoke to Sister Lúcia of her continued work in Medjugorje.
Sister Emmanuel Maillard is so far the only author mentioning this. I cannot see this being discuss anywhere else or by any other author. Not even on the pages related directly to the Medjugorje phenomenon.
What I found about the author is only from her website, which gives following bio [3]:
Sister Emmanuel tells that after receiving her first calling to the Beatitudes Community in 1976, she received another calling – to serve Our Lady in Medjugorje. Sent by her community, she initiated the first branch of the community in Medjugorje in 1989. During the Balkan war in the 90s, Sister Emmanuel became known for her regular faxes about the situation in Herzegovina, always related to the mission of Our Lady. She has had an enormous impact on France, stimulating an extensive response to Medjugorje among French pilgrims, but her apostolate has broadened as her books have been translated into 22 languages and she has traveled widely to make Medjugorje known, particularly in the United States. Today, “Les Enfants de Medjugorje” and “Children of Medjugorje, Inc.” allow her to be connected everyday to thousands of people around the world, who are motivated by and spreading, the messages of Our Lady in their own humble way. Sister says that her greatest joy is to be part of a family formed by Our Lady, and being Her extended heart and hands for her children, especially those who do not yet know the love of God.
Thus, we learn she founded and heads the organisation called "Children of Medjugorje", dedicated to "spreading the ( Our Lady of Medjugorje's) messages out" (paraphrasing).
Maillard wrote several books. However, I want the assessment on the reliability of this particular book, which was translated into English under the title "Medjugorje, the 90's - The Triumph of the Heart". Dražen Kutleša writes in his Serbo-Croatian language book titled "Ogledalo pravde" about her book: "Her book, Medjugorje gli anni '90, is sold in Italy with an attached tissue so the reader may wipe tears" (Serbo-Croatian: "Njezina knjiga Medjugorje gli anni ‘90, 1998, u Italiji se prodaje s priloženim rupčićem da čitatelj može brisati suze.", p. 283).
That put aside, I cannot find her book being used as a reference in any scientific paper [4]. Moreover, I cannot find any of her books being used as a reference anywhere [5].
The same author had a list of statements affirmative towards the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje, attributed to Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Ratzinger assessed as "mere fabrications" (Ich kann dazu nur sagen, dass die dem Heiligen Vater und mir zugeschriebenenen Äusserungen über Medjugorje frei erfunden sind) (Ogledalo pravde, p. 283; Nacional (weekly) [6]).
-- Governor Sheng ( talk) 23:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Panbiogeography is a fringe theory that asserts that the distribution of all organisms can be explained by drawing lines or 'tracks' between their distributions, ignoring other mechanisms of dispersal other than vicariance. The article is currently a mess, treating the subject as a legitimate scientific discipline and not mentioning any criticism that the theory has received. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 07:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit war happening at Ecclesiastes. A newbie who is a WP:PROFRINGE POV pusher shits on WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm concerned to have discovered an IP editor who makes edits to promote the idea that white people are not people. The editor does not seem to have been challenged about it so far, probably due to the small number of edits. Although some of the edits have been reverted, some have not. IP address being: 88.106.233.198
Diffs I noticed include: [7] , [8] [9]
I don't think me warning this IP would be useful considering their obvious prejudice, but I would hope that others would agree this is unacceptable and this kind of fringe POV pushing does not belong on Wikipedia. It is blatant racism. Perhaps needs admin attention? I am not experienced with reporting things, but as it is a fringe idea this editor is promoting, this seemed like the place to bring it up. JohnmgKing ( talk) 14:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A fringe theory has arisen and is being pursued vigorously where it has taken root at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. Contributions welcome. GPinkerton ( talk) 09:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. An AI tool can distinguish between a conspiracy theory and a true conspiracy – it comes down to how easily the story falls apart -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Still, the caravans were often looted. In the case of dispute, the joint Dubrovnik-Serbian courts held jurisdiction. [10] I do not know which source provide this information but there exist two sources, one is "Pejčić, Grozda (2006). Угоститељско туристичка школа - некад и сад 1938-2006...Catering and tourism school - then and now 1938-2006" and internet newspaper portal "Politika".
He is one of the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, and he is a big name among German Corona deniers. His opinion is called "research" in our article, although hes not actually done any peer-reviewed work on the subject, and some editors seem to like it that way. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a really shocking edit to this page. Bhakdi is not a fringe conspiracy theorist nut case. The loaded, barbed language used to describe him now is appalling. The article should be reverted, but the criticism of him should be included. Gd123lbp ( talk) 13:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources.There should be some article text explaining why we can call him a conspiracy theorist and the sources need to be clear. It's not like he's a 5g guy or something like that. FP
...debunked but credentialed so-called experts minting conspiracy theories and undermining fact-based information. One prominent example is Sucharit Bhakdi...
Meinung auch in den meisten Medien und staatlichen Stellen wenig Widerhall und beschränkt sich auf Youtube und Verschwörungsgruppen bzw.[11] I don't think are clear and direct enough to put "conspiracy theorist" in wikivoice. Regardless, the should be enough article text first to explain exactly why we can call him that. fiveby( zero) 14:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Can't you see that saying "he is a spreader of misinformation" is an opinion? Clearly people of his point of view do not think that (such as the thousands of scientists in the great barrington declaration and others who cited him in many now deleted sources). If you are so insistent that he is a conspiracy theorist, then tell me who he thinks is conspiring to do what? He has criticised the science on it, which is normal scientific dispute. You have affixed all these labels to him because you've found an opinion piece that lumps him in with others that it doesn't like. Find other scientists who disagree with him, like I did and add it in (add it back in from what you deleted!) You need to stop being angry and start thinking objectively. Gd123lbp ( talk) 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Also, I might add, I am quite suprised to hear the phrase "covid denier" I have never heard that before. That is the language of the religious zealot - like blasphemy. Gd123lbp ( talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Something about an App which generates concentrations of quantum dots, which could possibly inspire and uplift users, but which mysteriously finds locations of disturbing events. Or something. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
More eyes needed there. An editor keeps edit warring in unverifiable and POV content, [13] in violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CATEGRS. The editor also attacked me on my talk page. [14] Guy Macon, I'm making sure you see this, as you've commented before on the matter of undue weight on speculations of homosexuality. Crossroads -talk- 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A few recent edits have sought to remove the well-sourced word "baseless" from the phrase "Bondi supported Trump's baseless claims that there was large-scale voter fraud...." These efforts have been rebuffed thus far, but more eyes might be a good idea. Neutrality talk 15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Page link here: Schizoid personality disorder#Sexuality
The author of this section cites a few single researchers as evidence that somehow schizoid PD is linked to sexual activity. One was a researcher in the 1930s or 40s ( Ronald Fairbairn), another is Harry Guntrip (1960s - 1970s). The most modern researcher cited is Salman Akhtar (1980s). All who practiced psychodynamic therapy and used observational studies (non-experimental) for their research. Moreover, I noticed source material for this section includes a clinical dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction by a M.A. student at Pepperdine. This is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Additionally, source material from this piece goes back to the 1930s and 40s and doesn't seem update-to-date at all.
No modern-day research on this has ever suggested that any sort of sexual behavior is at all linked to this condition. The current modern psychology handbook DSM-V makes no mention of sexual activity linked to this condition. The DSM-IV doesn't either. In fact, validity markers even identifying it as a disorder is so poor that there is serious debate among the psychology community about removing it in the next version of the DSM (see Hummelen, B., Pedersen, G., Wilberg, T., Karterud, S. (2015) "Poor Validity of the DSM-IV Schizoid Personality Disorder Construct as a Diagnostic Category"; J Pers Disord https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25248009/). For some reason, this information is not included on this page at all.
I'll note too that no Wikipedia article links sexual activity to any personality disorder. The reason they are called personality disorders are that they are linked to personality traits. Not sexual activity. There is a separate section in the DSM for sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria.
Anyway, I've tried in vain to edit this section but it gets reinstated with a one-phrase rebuttal. No discussion is allowed. So trying to appeal to a third-party on this. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bol1966 ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost the usual. Someone thinks ID is science, but also that people are dessert. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
No, not The Secret (book), but some other nutty book, by Blavatsky. Is it pseudoscientific or not? Is the article OK in general? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Jonestown conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm editing a lot of bland, economics-related Guyana articles, but Jonestown conspiracy theories is tagged for EVERYTHING and it just... makes me exhausted. It's practically a fringe fork! Does anyone have some advice for a newb? I was thinking at least cutting the External Links section for redundancies about the actual People's Temple, since that's sort of kindling the OR. And while it's interesting to see a sentence or two about what kinds of conspiracies came from the soviet side, the section just vomits facts without any context, making it read like it's not actually a conspiracy. And a conspiracy about newspaper headlines all reporting different things... That means Wikipedia's own RS must be a conspiracy too! See? I can't. Advice? Estheim ( talk) 19:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Titanic conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My first time here, so hopefully this is the appropriate venue. Could we get some eyes on Titanic conspiracy theories? The article is currently assessed as B-class despite being tagged for presenting fringe theories with improper weight (a tag that, at a brief glance, looks extremely warranted). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
P.Z. Myers has posted this on his blog: [15], and Science-Based Medicine has this: [16]. It looks as if Paul Davies is meddling in a field where he is a layman, with the expected result. I am one too, so maybe some people who are not can have a look at Paul_Davies#Scientific_research, the second part of which is not about physics. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] (the last three are the important ones) :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking into matters related to fringe figure Jean-Pierre Petit, I discovered this page:
Anyone feel like sorting out claims regarding Russian hypersonic aircraft? XOR'easter ( talk) 21:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Can be seen as something, according to Goop. And it seems I am a "logical positivist swindler", whatever that is supposed to mean. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I've discussed this with another editor but I'm not really comfortable dealing with this myself.
The article I believe gives undue weight to conspiracy theories surrounding the bombing. The conspiracy being that Australian intelligence services were behind it.
The sources to support the theory are:
I'm also not certain books should be used as sources here either. It's not exactly hard to write and publish a book. They don't require any review, let alone peer review, but the article leans on many books alleging conspiracy. I'm sure I can find books that say 9/11 was a conspiracy too.
The article is so heavily based on this that it probably needs a total rewrite. I would like some help with it as it's way outside my normal area.
Thanks. Kylesenior ( talk) 06:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it relevant that Richard Dawkins does not want to debate him? Dawkins does not want to debate lots of people. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
David Jubb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've done a lot of cleaning up at the article, but a pro-fringe user with an apparent COI (likely Jubb himself) has been adding more to the article, and I'd appreciate getting some more eyes on it. In addition, I'm unsure the degree to which the information there is appropriate for Wikipedia, particularly the information cited to his website (which has been down since 2017 or so).
Gbear605 ( talk) 01:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
VistaSunset wants to misuse that article as Intelligent design propaganda. I do not want to revert again because that would look as if I am a one-man-show. Maybe somebody could make it clear what WP:FRINGE means and that the whole science community disagrees. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Due to persistent demonization and discrimination, many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats", some changing their names to look more Croatian.
these kinds of people has not being prosecuted for voicing it in public, which is normal thing for any normal country in democratic worldThen Germany, where the analogous
I've had another look at the book, at its contributors and of some reviews of it. It is not my area at all, so don't feel comfortable being in any kind of aribeter role, but it seems to me that in relation to how the source should be used in the article: anecdotal evidence from one reasonably informed but not expert academic from one one moment two decades ago is not enough it itself to base a factual claim in our encyclopedic voice but rather would need attribution and qualification - and if nobody else has said this it might not be due anyway. In relation to whether the source is fringe: I don't think fringe is the right word. The editor and contributors are all academics and the book is published by a respectable academic press and must have gone through some kind of review process, but it is clear that it takes up a position which challenges much recieved wisdom and so is somewhat partisan: the overall argument is that the West is the main bad guy and on the ground all sides were as bad as each other. In scholarship, it is important that academic writing challenges orthodoxies, and this is different from being fringe as such. However, the contributors in most cases lack specific research expertise on Yugoslavia and seem to be writing about it in a quite dilettante-ish way, and many have reputations for being pretty partisan and controversial (e.g. the late media studies professor Edward S. Herman), so WP:DUE would generally require us to balance it with other perspectives. In short, this is more a due weight issue than a frigne theory issue, although it might not be worth the effort to balance and attribute something that is already pretty flimsy. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Is this really a two-sided debate between Uri Geller on the one hand, and skeptics on the other? Alexbrn ( talk) 12:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
All I see is Pocky time. Better than 8:15, I suppose. Estheim ( talk) 16:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Roy McCoy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please give this user discretionary sanctions notice? I have noticed a lot of apologias for conspiracy theories that may eventually require admin intervention.
jps ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Is seeing some recent activity. Probably could benefit from extra eyes, at least while the pandemic is ongoing ... Alexbrn ( talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking for feedback in WP:RSN about the source A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination. The relevant article is June Cobb...
June Cobb ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Thanks! - Location ( talk) 16:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
One of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. ADE is one of the reasons falsely cited by the antivax crown why the vaccines are unsafe. [37] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
aka the BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This article is another of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. The attack vector is seemingly to suppress safety information. [38] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Another traditional medicine article where there is confusion between intention and effective healing, in case anyone is interested to work on it. Examples: "to induce a profound state of healing", "or playing an instrument such as the didgeridoo or flute, and usually involve a mastery of advanced techniques to evoke the healing effects." There also is an explicit invitation to download a magazine article: "is available for free download from this link here", use of style-discouraged second person "you may find", etc. — Paleo Neonate – 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
And the woo continues, this time at the BGR-34 page. Please watchlist it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This deletion discussion may be of interest to the community here.
XOR'easter ( talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Xi Zezong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was a historian of science who opined that an ancient Chinese astronomer discovered and described Ganymede using his bare eyes, without bothering to wait around until telescopes had been invented to make it perceptible from the Earth. This idea is mentioned at Jupiter and possibly elsewhere. 1.) is the article about him worth having? 2.) if so, shouldn't it treat his claims rather more sceptically? and 3.) if not, or even if so, should the claim be included in the Jupiter article? GPinkerton ( talk) 23:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This is disparaging. " "my-country-invented-everything"-ism?" I apologize for taking this on, actually. There is much in Chinese history in every area, that is/was enlightened. If I've misunderstood the comment here I apologize. Sometimes I think we in the West can be a little or a lot arrogant about our place in the world and some days I find that frustrating. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I noticed two other articles, Galilean moons#Discovery and Ganymede (moon)#History that also mention the Chinese claim. The latter article cites a US source (an abstract by K. Brecher in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society that can be read on google scholar [39]). I have no idea whether Brecher is reliable or perhaps returned from Beijing with stars in his/her eyes after an exciting trip to what at the time (1981) was still somewhat of a "forbidden city" for Americans. If current RS say that such a naked-eye sighting of Ganymede was impossible (in other words, that Brecher was being gullible), then those two articles need to be changed to reflect that. NightHeron ( talk) 22:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a slow but on-going discussion at the talk page about whether the Bates Method can be described as "ineffective", whether the Bates method is intended to improve "Eyesight", or the "Refractive power of the eye", and what bearing that distinction has, if any, on how the word "ineffective" may be applied.
More eyes (ha ha! Eyes! Get it?) on this discussion might be helpful. ApLundell ( talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton ( talk) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)M
EN
E MEN
E TEKEL
upharsin
topic ban
Now that someone who clearly understands this mechanism still supports "ineffective", I am dropping the stick. This is for the future if something changes and people want to make sure this doesn't happen again with some other subject. Belteshazzar ( talk) 00:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Pseudoscience or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recovered-memory organization. Someone declaring a conflict of interest and removing criticism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Salvatore Pais ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An aerospace engineer whose patents, such as one claiming to "engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level", have got enthusiasts very excited [41], [42], [43]. No analysis or critique of claims, and lots of text cited only to technical papers and patent filings, which is usually a sign of WP:OR. Could use a review by someone familiar with the technology. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm particularly talking about Mick West, who seems to be an expert on anything and is easily quoted on every fringe/paranormal article. For example in the Pentagon UFO videos article, he offers an explanation of the objects being birds, despite the instrumental showing dark for hot/white for cold, meaning the birds would be colder than the water . I'm well aware due to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT we shouldn't give paranormal subjects undue weight, but how easily should skeptic voices be introduced in an article? This guy's explinations are often so basic. In the case of the famous GIMBAL video, in an article on VICE he's quoted as "He believes GIMBAL to be a plane as well, lit by the infrared flare of the engine and locked in place by a trick of the gimbal mounted camera viewing it." (basically saying due to rotation of the camera, what pilots are seeing are the flare effect of the exhaust of a plane). I'm finding it really hard to believe the two pilots would react that way as if they never saw this effect before (or they're maliciously acting), and the Pentagon would say these are "unidentified aerial phenomena" (whatever that means), just because, and this guy just knows, despite not being an expert in aviation (his Wiki article doesn't even list any education). What I'm getting at is, should any claim made by any skeptic be included, just because they're a skeptic? Loganmac ( talk) 10:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in the RfC at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RFC: Chopin and Sexuality. Crossroads -talk- 23:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egyptian inventions and discoveries. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 05:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Apparently a healer, but I can only find evidence that he's a musician. I believe this is a case of fringe theories because it seems the only reason we're calling him a healer is because he plays music at 432 Hz. Would appreciate a second pair of eyes from someone more knowledgeable and with more time. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I am looking for feedback regarding a conspiracy source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Eclipse of the Assassins. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 17:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Content dispute better pursued at some other venue
|
---|
At Talk:David#Triplestein? Editshmedt posits that there is incontestable objective evidence for the existence of Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
They also contend that this scholar and this source would be fringe: Herzog, Ze'ev (29 October 1999). "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". lib1.library.cornell.edu. Ha'aretz. Archived from the original on 10 November 2001. Retrieved 9 February 2019. According to Editshmedt, Herzog lied through his teeth in his WP:RS/AC claims. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
( talk) 00:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
According to the current version of the article, Intelligent design is opposed by "many in the scientific community". That is certainly true: "everybody except a few religious fanatics" is indeed "many", but that word is a very bad way of putting it. I cited several relevant "WP:" pages, but was reverted anyway. This looks to me like a case of WP:IDHT on the part of User:Supt. of Printing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems to have deteriorated in December. May profit from more eyes, especially psychologist ones. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 23:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Some of the “Career and research” section looks a bit fringey to me, specifically “He came to see cancer as being ultimately an electronic problem at the molecular level”, and the following sentence. There’s no reference (there was one attached to the second sentence but it was to a web page sourced to the Wikipedia article) so I’m not sure what the context for these is. Perhaps someone who knows more than I do about the subject matter could have a look? The “Statement on scientific discovery“ section might also be of interest to people here. Brunton ( talk) 11:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate some eyes on (and comments on) Talk:Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Senate_objections_-_WP:PROFRINGE_or_insufficiently_explained_content_removals. Thanks, Neutrality talk 23:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of this story. In 1978, Outside magazine reported that during the 1960s the CIA secretly placed plutonium-powered surveillance devices on the top Nanda Devi [7,816 m (25,643 ft)] and Nanda Kot [6,861 m (22,510 ft)] without the knowledge of the Indian government. One device was apparently lost over the mountainside during a storm and the other was reportedly disassembled. There are plenty of allegations published about this, but the only government documentation I can find referencing it is a copy of the article and a letter asking the CIA to investigate the report: [44]. Per one mountaineering article: "The CIA planned to intercept radio telemetry signals between the Chinese missiles and ground control. A transceiver, powered by a plutonium battery pack, would beam information to a CIA listening station, where data analysis would reveal the range, speed and payload of the Chinese missile. Reflecting the era’s unbridled enthusiasm for atomic power, the transceiver was powered by a System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) turning radioactive heat into electricity. The Nanda Devi SNAP, designated Model “19C,” hid seven plutonium rods totaling 1,900 grams of alloyed plutonium—Pu-238 (half-life of 87 years) and Pu-239 (half-life of 24,400 years). The unit, expected to run the four-part Nanda Devi sensor for two years, was a round microwave oven-sized metal bin with five radiating fins. Towering above was a six-foot long antenna." [45]
This is well beyond my area of expertise. Is it even possibly to carry the parts and build a mini-nuclear reactor on top of a mountain like this? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Now under pending-changes protection due to an uptick in anti-science advocacy. I would have thought he'd slipped into obscurity, but apparently he still has fans. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I invite other editors to read and participate at the relevant talk page(s), but like the previous thread this is not going anywhere at the moment. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Tgeorgescu ( talk · contribs) claims in this talk page here that the word "United Monarchy" (see Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)) may not include the northern Kingdom of Israel (otherwise just generally called 'Samaria'). However, the definition of the word "United Monarchy", as universal in scholarship, in addition to the linked Wikipedia page (copious with reliable sources), is "the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah united under one monarch". Consequently, this is fringe. It is on this basis that he denies the dozens of reliable sources affirming the United Monarchy in scholarship, simply by dismissing them all because they don't use the word "Samaria". Editshmedt ( talk) 06:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Does this [49] make sense? Also is my revert at Objections to evolution [50] valid? And seasons greetings to everyone! Doug Weller talk 11:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, then let's keep things simple. So far we have three different contexts for your concerns: complex adaptive systems, Charles Darwin, and The Language Instinct. These are somewhat disparate topics, if you ask me, and it seems that you have established your own thread of "evolution" as what connects them. While, except in the case of Charles Darwin, I don't see these subjects as having much of anything to do with "evolutionary views". I note that many of the sources you are using in The Language Instinct and Complex Adaptive Systems do not reference "evolution" at all. What sources are you using to make these judgements and posit these connections? The concern I have here is that this is original research on your part. jps ( talk) 12:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
hmm... how did evolution create sphericity of the earth btw?
Yes, and I should dearly ask them whether biology isn't actually a soft science.
Just saw something about evidence that US judges are being blackmailed due to videos (yes they have the evidence, so they do) of murdering and raping kids are being used to blackmail them to find against Donny. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In the article exist this information: "According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška (Latin: Rascia), included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosna, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija, and the "land" of Duklja..
The emperor Diocletian was much enamoured of the country of Dalmatia, and so he brought folk with their families from Rome and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia, and they were called 'Romani', and this title attaches to them to this day. Now this emperor Diocletian founded the city of Spalato and built therein a a palace beyond the power of any tongue or pen to describe, and remains of its ancient luxury are still preserved to-day, though the long lapse of time has played havoc with them. Moreover, the city of Diocleia, now occupied by the Diocletians, was built by the same emperor Diocletian, for which reason those of that territory have come to be called by the name of 'Diocletians'. The territory possessed by these Romani used to extend as far as the river Danube, and once on a time ... (p. 123)
the emperor then describes the fabled early relations between the Avars and Romans
... Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, as will be related in the narrative concerning the Croats and Serbs, the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians and Arentani, who are also called Pagani *** [a part of the text is missing here] But when the Roman empire, through the sloth and inexperience of those who then governed it and especially in the time of Michael from Amorion, the Lisper, had declined to the verge of total extinction, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia became independent, subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anybody else, and, what is more, the nations of those parts, the Croats and Serbs and Zachlumites, Terbuniotes and Kanalites and Diocletians and the Pagani, shook off the reigns of the empire of the Romans and became self-governing and independent, subject to none. Princes, as they say, these nations had none, but only 'zupans', elders, as is the rule in other Slavonic regions. Moreover, the majority of these Slavs were not even baptized. ... (p. 125)
the foundation and subsequent ruin of the city and palace of Splalatum is described. (p. 137)]— Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 29: "Of Dalmatia and of the adjacent nations in it."
At no point does the 10th-century emperor suggest that Diocleia/Duklja was inhabited by Serbs or that the Diocletianoi were Serbs or Serbian. Since Croats and Serbs and "Diocletians" all appear as separate items in a list, there is no reason to suppose any of these groups was considered to be part of any other by the author of the text, who calls all of them "Slavs" and "Slavonic regions" collectively. If the Greek original is needed I can supply that too. Prima facie, Mikola22 is probably correct that this is a fringe view. GPinkerton ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)The country of Diocleia was also previously possessed by the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome, as has been said in the story about the Croats, and was under the emperor of the Romans. But this country also was enslaved by the Avars and made desolate, and repopulated in the time of Heraclius the emperor, just as were Croatia and Serbia and the country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of Kanali. Diocleia gets its name from the city in this country that the emperor Diocletian founded, but now it is a deserted city, though still called Diocleia.
In the country of Diocleia are the large inhabited cities of Gradetai, Nougrade, Lontodokla. (pp. 163–165)— Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 35: "Of the Diocletians and of the country they now dwell in."
Viral Conspiracy Theory Image of COVID-19 Vaccine "5G Chip" is Actually the Boss Metal Zone Circuit 04:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:9DC2:2F96:B54A:8270 ( talk)
I can't recall where we are about QuackWatch, could someone please review the recent edits at this article? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ugh. Just got rid of a bunch of puffery almost entirely sourced to a quack magazine where Scott Tips contributes. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
One or more True Believers have been editing this one this week. Complete with a badly photoshopped "uncensored" image of The Face. Worth putting on your watchlist, not because the vandalism is coming super fast, but because it's particularly embarrassing when it's allowed to stand. ApLundell ( talk) 06:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am a NASA scientist who worked on the Mars Global Surveyor mission. And his uncle works for Nintendo! XOR'easter ( talk) 11:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
See [60] by User:Bornetjbo. It was originally sourced to a right-wing anti-semitic publication The Social Crediter. [61]. I reverted and it was reinserted with new sources. [62], a New York Daily News article behind a pay wall, and a speech in the Congressional Records. Kent G. Budge reverted. Bornetjbo hasn't reinstated their edit but added this external link [63] which is an article ending with "Out of the disaster on Oahu a revisionist myth emerged that has been masquerading as "history" ever since. In its most extreme form it invites us to stand on our heads and look at everything upside down. It asks us to believe that on December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor. As we approach the fifty-fifth anniversary of that unforgettable Sunday, surely the time has come to lay this flagrant idea to rest." That seems ok. My sources script suggests that one of the ELs is unreliable, the one with something by Anthony Kubek.
Am I wrong or does the original edit include copyvio?
Doug Weller talk 07:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This has been a redirect to A Course in Miracles since 2012 but a new editor has copied mainly unsourced material from de.wiki - reverted once but reinstated it. Got to get back to watching the mini-insurrection in Washington now. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Did Charles Tart somehow establish scientific proof of psychic powers? Could use review by someone familiar with statistical analysis. - LuckyLouie ( talk)
This finding wipes out probably at least half the testimonies against Remote Viewing listed here. I look forward to debunking the next goalpost provided.This doesn't suggest abundant receptivity... Anyway, I made a minor change to the wording of the Tart paragraph in question. It's still dependent on the editor's summary of Marks' findings and Tart's experiment being faithful though. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Ba'athism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is a book by Con Coughlin a fringe source? I think yes, given the many debunked ideas he is trying to spread, including that torture works as a method of finding the truth and that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Enduring classics, fiction and non-fiction reprints from Harper and a vibrant line of paperback originals including new voices, boundary-pushing works, contemporary fiction, and intelligent nonfiction, which has also published
To Kill a Mockingbird, Brave New World, Their Eyes Were Watching God, A People’s History of the United States; Barbara Kingsolver, Ann Patchett, Louise Erdrich, and Michael Chabon; John Brockman, Chad Kultgen, Yannick Murphy, Willy Vlautin, and Blake Butler[1]. It has been cited by serious publications. Apparently also a New York Times bestseller. It's as good as it gets, really.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Regarding Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, the article has a "Transgender portrayal" section at the end. The section does not exhaust all sources that discuss the trans coverage mentioned in reliable sources. (There are additional links on the talk page.) This subtopic has been contentious in the past few years, including the past couple of days. The section has been blanked with the argument that the content is WP:FRINGE, which is not the first time this has been cited. Can editors who are familiar with WP:FRINGE comment here about whether or not it is applicable to this section, whether in part or in whole? Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up question: How would you apply
WP:UNDUE to the matter? Is a section with three paragraphs too little, sufficient, or too much? For what it is worth, it is possible to write even more from additional sources (not to mention having more of a context-establishing primer). In addition, I had expanded other parts of the article so the film has coverage in general, but it does not have too much more. Another consideration is to have a spin-off article at
Lois Einhorn (to discuss the character and the transphobic reaction), with the main article having a one-paragraph summary section. Thoughts? Pinging those involved so far:
XOR'easter,
ApLundell,
ජපස,
Blueboar.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP range in southern Florida has been making edits that resemble the typical behavior of Brad Watson, Miami, as detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brad Watson, Miami. A user Hellbus ( talk · contribs) also identified the user ZenMechanics ( talk · contribs) ( diff) as a possible sock. Please leave any comments you may have at the SPI report. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Operation Mockingbird ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
QAnon supporters apparently don't like being called out on this page. Maybe I could get a couple others to put this on their watchlists, or should I request WP:PP? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of you may recall YouTuber JP Sears from viral videos about gluten intolerance, spirituality, and so on. Nowadays Sears uses his platform to push conspiracy theories related to, among other things, Covid-19, as outlined in this November 2020 article from McGill University science communicator Jonathan Jarry:
None of this is mentioned on his English Wikipedia entry, which read like a promotional piece until I edited it today. I'll go ahead and add this, but this could use more eyes and sources. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
MrDemeanour is continually removing text [65] [66] [67] [68] about anti-vax claims at Antibody-dependent enhancement and despite my efforts to modify things to their satisfaction I have failed dismally. MrDemeanour argues at Talk:Antibody-dependent enhancement#Edit-warring that the claims are found "reasonable", that the vaccine trials have been "rushed", that this topic is not WP:FRINGE (hence the post here), and that invocation of (lack-of) evidence from trials is "sophistry". Wider thoughts on how to handle this content welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Since you are synthesising an utterance not found in your sources<- If you look at the source, [70] this is in fact a verbatim quotation ("CLAIM - COVID-19 vaccines will cause more severe disease through antibody-dependent enhancement"). The needle on my AGF-o-meter is beginning to twitch.
someone who isn't a professional debunkerespecially amusing. Usually, we frown on quoting amateurs, not on quoting professionals. SBM is written by medical professionals pointing out what the evidence says, and only people who disagree with their pro-science stance would call it an "ultra-sceptical journal". Surprise: Wikipedia also has a pro-science stance. Did anybody already point you to WP:FRINGE? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
A journal that only publishes debunking articles is one with an axe to grindAnd it is exactly the same axe that is ground by WP:FRINGE. Does that mean that, although know of WP:FRINGE, you disagree with it? If no, I don't know why you have a problem with SBM. If yes, well, a guideline is stronger than you. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed two links to unreliable PROFRINGE sources, "The Truth About False Memories" which is anything but, and "Survivors Celebrate the End of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation", but the dissolution of the organization is still sourced to the Survivors article because I could not find a source for that which is not written by quacks (or their fans) celebrating the end of an enemy of their quackery.
I think the article would profit from attention by someone more familiar with this specific subject. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Input is needed on someone's edits at Talk:Capitalism#Wikivoice and false balance. ( article history) Crossroads -talk- 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Revealed today not by some random quack, but the highly accomplished co-founder of the Israeli Space Program. I detail this breaking story here: Talk:Israel_Space_Agency#What_is_going_on_with_Chaim_Eshed?(!) (with a courtesy note here). I acknowledge that this post is a bit FORUMy, since as far as the project goes, there is nothing to really do at this time. Still, I just wanted to bring this unusual story to the attention of FTN regulars. Happy Saturday! El_C 19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Aliens walk among us. Trump was on the verge of revealing this, but ended up thinking better of it.I was also on the verge of revealing this, along with Spain's treaty with the mountain trolls and the secret smurf population in Togo, but I also thought better of it.
There is a "Galactic Federation." These aliens wish for their existence to remain secret, for now, because "humanity is not ready."So, Chaim Eshed thinks humanity is ready? Apparently, the aliens were wrong in thinking that Chaim Eshed was ready. Once again, conspiracies are shown not to work - there is always a blabbermouth. SCNR. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
How quickly conspiracy Saturday turns into comic relief Sunday! Anyway, intergalactic liaison — I like that. A couple of notes. I made a mistake about Eshed being the head of the Israel Space Agency. He was actually the head of the Ministry of Defense entity (from 1983 to 2011) which is tasked with maintaining Israel's space industry, overall. Judging solely from the respective Wikipedia articles, its annual budget does, however, appear to greatly exceed that of the ISA (needless to say, this is not an area with which I am too familiar). At any rate, Eshed does seem to have been instrumental in the Israeli air and space field since the sixties. And his clearance level must have been off the charts, seeing as he was a brigadier-general in the super-hush-hush Unit 81 — so put on your tinfoil hats, everyone! Eshed has also been the recipient of three Israel Defense Prizes, all for ground-breaking work the nature of which remains classified to this day. Finally, a quick note on 7 Days. Despite (or perhaps because) of it being the most popular publication put to print in the country (I, myself, have read hundreds of em over the years, though not so much recently), it always seem to contrast somewhat awkwardly with the Yedioth Ahronoth/ Ynet brand. Almost as if to say: serious journalism on the day-by-day, but letting loose with the more yellowish 7 Days on Saturdays. So, while 7 Days, to its credit, has had some major history-setting scoops over the years, it is also equally infamous for its many (at times, spectacular) blunders. Note that I have not read the full aforementioned Eshed interview (grr...paywall), so what I have described has been mostly gleaned from other sources which discuss the interview. Apparently, he also speaks about travelling to a black hole, and more — speaking of which, I've always dreamed of eating spaghetti while being spaghettified... Delicious! El_C 21:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we collect some more sources here? The article I read (through some backchannels -- maybe try resource exchange, El_C ( talk · contribs)) makes me think that there is possibly something close to a WP:FRINGEBLP here worth documenting. jps ( talk) 13:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Expect a boatload of additional coverage in the next few days. Hugely popular site fark.com just linked to this article in The Jerusalem Post. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the little story that could, apparently. [71] If we don't get on it, someone else probably will. jps ( talk) 20:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
People don't like it when we stick to the assertion of facts, apparently. jps ( talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
User blocked for 48 hours after being WP:BOOMERANGed at ANI. Meanwhile, is this vandalism? jps ( talk) 12:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
More different user says, "Obviously, nothing in any field of science is ever considered a fact by scientists, even things as universally accepted as gravity." jps ( talk) 04:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it time to bring RKOwens444 ( talk · contribs) to WP:AE? There is absolutely no engagement on talkpages. jps ( talk) 04:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Here we go again: [73]. jps ( talk) 05:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that I have closed both AE complaints with indefinite blocks having been issued to both editors (as a normal admin action). I'd also like to convey my pleasure that we now have a Haim Eshed biography available here at en! El_C 18:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I exported parts of the lead of death panels to the body of the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. [75] It was promptly removed by the User:Bonewah who said it "Too loaded with editorializing. You cant prove or disprove an idiom and in any event". [76] What the editor appears to be saying is that it unclear whether Palin was wrong about death panels in the ACA, and that the fact-checkers who said it was false are themselves wrong. Is Bonewah right? Is it a violation of NPOV to say that Palin's death panels claims are false? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Avi Loeb, a Harvard University astrophysicist, is continuing to proclaim that ʻOumuamua is in fact an alien spacecraft, with the publication of his new book Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth coming out later this month. This has caused another wave of press coverage for the theory. The book article could do with some more sceptical coverage. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
James Harder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Almost entirely unsourced. Should we stub it? jps ( talk) 20:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we stub it?I just looked at it again and considering it's mostly unsourced it may be the solution (if not AfD?). The difference between the initial 2006 article (around the time of obituary) and the current one are minimal... — Paleo Neonate – 04:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does Younger Dryas impact hypothesis give way too much consideration to Graham Hancock's views even though all sources used as himself and he does not appear to have any WP:RS credentials? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Today, browsing Google News, I came across an article on "perineum sunning" and was amused to learn that it is (or was) a fad practice going viral on social media. Since I don't follow social media sites (Wikipedia talk pages are the closest I get), I checked Wikipedia for the topic — and got nothing, not even any articles mentioning it. This surprised me because when I Googled it I saw quite a lot of coverage. Therefore, I started perineum sunning, trying to be mindful of WP:FRINGE.
The sources are decent but could be better for WP:MEDRS purposes. There sure wasn't anything on Google Scholar about it.
I liked this medical blogger's acronym: SCAM = So-Called Alternative Medicine. I think I'll put that in External links. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Ivermectin is the latest "miracle cure" being proposed for COVID-19, and these pages are running > 10,000 views/day. The NIH has recently issue guidelines that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against its use. Nevertheless, there is an increasing editorial push across multiple articles to boost it unduly. A quick way to get uo-to-speed quickly on the context is probably this news piece on MedPage Today. All of these articles could probably benefit from additional eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
An "end of days" preacher, see Survival Guide For The End of Days and read the Kindle excerpt. The books I've looked at are self-published. The article appears to have been written by fans. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
"Five prominent anti-vaccine organizations that have been known to spread misleading information about the coronavirus received more than $850,000 in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program, raising questions about why the government is giving money to groups actively opposing its agenda and seeking to undermine public health during a critical period." Source: MSN News. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Opinions welcome at Talk:Casimir_effect#Energy_extraction?. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I notice a new template, Template:Fringe Theory has started appearing here and there. While a template of this sort might be okay (though overlaps with Template:Pseudoscience), I'm not sure about this - starting with the word "theory" as problematic ... Alexbrn ( talk) 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently at AfD. There seem to be fringe concerns which I am not in a position to evaluate for several reasons. Mangoe ( talk) 05:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Iruña-Veleia needs responses. It's about claims and counterclaims that inscriptions found in a Roman town in Spain "contain the oldest known texts written in the Basque language as well as, allegedly, the oldest representation of the crucifixion of Jesus found to date". Doug Weller talk 07:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at this and it's clear that there's no WP:CONSENSUS for the changes Mmthomson proposes and that their (apparent COI) advocacy at the article seems overwhelming. This particular topic was the sole purpose of editing since day one... @ Mmthomson: since you have already made your suggestions and proposed the sources, repetition and huge posts are unlikely to be useful and may eventually be considered disruptive (and maybe even not here for the encyclopedia). I suggest to slow down and wait, maybe some uninvolved editors will eventually see some merit in them, article talk pages remain in the archives. If you have more sources, post them at the talk page for review, but please try to keep the posts short and concise... — Paleo Neonate – 17:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor is adding a lot of fringe material to this article, claiming this mission really happened and found an alien ship on the moon. Sources are instagram and a blog/personal website. They've been reverted twice but have re-added the material. More eyes would be much appreciated. Squeakachu ( talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
MyPillow CEO Hires Gawker-Killing Lawyer to Go After Daily Mail for Jane Krakowski Affair Story -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits adding POV material, mainly I think copyvio. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion which seems likely to turn ugly and involve a lot of calling the other side fringe. Mangoe ( talk) 06:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
In early 1630, representatives of Croatian nobility and Vlachs (Serbs) met in Vienna. Information from Statuta Valachorum article and source is: (Kašić, Dušan (1967). Srbi i pravoslavlje u Slavoniji i sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (in Serbian). Savez udruženja pravosl. sveštenstva SR Hrvatske.)
The Serbs appropriated the Vlach culture and tradition so much that, in one of the most recent books on this topic, the Habsburg document from 1630 entitled Statuta Valachorum is presented as Serbian.[1] Is this the underlying problem Mikola22?
In the Our Lady of Medjugorje article, in the section " Sister Lúcia the main visionary of Our Lady of Fátima" it is said:
Maillard writes that Lucia's nephew, Father Salinho, who is a Salesian priest and lives in Portugal, reported that Sister Lucia had not only continued receiving visions of Fatima but she also confirmed the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje. In some of these apparitions, the Virgin Mary spoke to Sister Lúcia of her continued work in Medjugorje.
Sister Emmanuel Maillard is so far the only author mentioning this. I cannot see this being discuss anywhere else or by any other author. Not even on the pages related directly to the Medjugorje phenomenon.
What I found about the author is only from her website, which gives following bio [3]:
Sister Emmanuel tells that after receiving her first calling to the Beatitudes Community in 1976, she received another calling – to serve Our Lady in Medjugorje. Sent by her community, she initiated the first branch of the community in Medjugorje in 1989. During the Balkan war in the 90s, Sister Emmanuel became known for her regular faxes about the situation in Herzegovina, always related to the mission of Our Lady. She has had an enormous impact on France, stimulating an extensive response to Medjugorje among French pilgrims, but her apostolate has broadened as her books have been translated into 22 languages and she has traveled widely to make Medjugorje known, particularly in the United States. Today, “Les Enfants de Medjugorje” and “Children of Medjugorje, Inc.” allow her to be connected everyday to thousands of people around the world, who are motivated by and spreading, the messages of Our Lady in their own humble way. Sister says that her greatest joy is to be part of a family formed by Our Lady, and being Her extended heart and hands for her children, especially those who do not yet know the love of God.
Thus, we learn she founded and heads the organisation called "Children of Medjugorje", dedicated to "spreading the ( Our Lady of Medjugorje's) messages out" (paraphrasing).
Maillard wrote several books. However, I want the assessment on the reliability of this particular book, which was translated into English under the title "Medjugorje, the 90's - The Triumph of the Heart". Dražen Kutleša writes in his Serbo-Croatian language book titled "Ogledalo pravde" about her book: "Her book, Medjugorje gli anni '90, is sold in Italy with an attached tissue so the reader may wipe tears" (Serbo-Croatian: "Njezina knjiga Medjugorje gli anni ‘90, 1998, u Italiji se prodaje s priloženim rupčićem da čitatelj može brisati suze.", p. 283).
That put aside, I cannot find her book being used as a reference in any scientific paper [4]. Moreover, I cannot find any of her books being used as a reference anywhere [5].
The same author had a list of statements affirmative towards the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje, attributed to Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Ratzinger assessed as "mere fabrications" (Ich kann dazu nur sagen, dass die dem Heiligen Vater und mir zugeschriebenenen Äusserungen über Medjugorje frei erfunden sind) (Ogledalo pravde, p. 283; Nacional (weekly) [6]).
-- Governor Sheng ( talk) 23:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Panbiogeography is a fringe theory that asserts that the distribution of all organisms can be explained by drawing lines or 'tracks' between their distributions, ignoring other mechanisms of dispersal other than vicariance. The article is currently a mess, treating the subject as a legitimate scientific discipline and not mentioning any criticism that the theory has received. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 07:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit war happening at Ecclesiastes. A newbie who is a WP:PROFRINGE POV pusher shits on WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm concerned to have discovered an IP editor who makes edits to promote the idea that white people are not people. The editor does not seem to have been challenged about it so far, probably due to the small number of edits. Although some of the edits have been reverted, some have not. IP address being: 88.106.233.198
Diffs I noticed include: [7] , [8] [9]
I don't think me warning this IP would be useful considering their obvious prejudice, but I would hope that others would agree this is unacceptable and this kind of fringe POV pushing does not belong on Wikipedia. It is blatant racism. Perhaps needs admin attention? I am not experienced with reporting things, but as it is a fringe idea this editor is promoting, this seemed like the place to bring it up. JohnmgKing ( talk) 14:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
A fringe theory has arisen and is being pursued vigorously where it has taken root at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. Contributions welcome. GPinkerton ( talk) 09:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. An AI tool can distinguish between a conspiracy theory and a true conspiracy – it comes down to how easily the story falls apart -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Still, the caravans were often looted. In the case of dispute, the joint Dubrovnik-Serbian courts held jurisdiction. [10] I do not know which source provide this information but there exist two sources, one is "Pejčić, Grozda (2006). Угоститељско туристичка школа - некад и сад 1938-2006...Catering and tourism school - then and now 1938-2006" and internet newspaper portal "Politika".
He is one of the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, and he is a big name among German Corona deniers. His opinion is called "research" in our article, although hes not actually done any peer-reviewed work on the subject, and some editors seem to like it that way. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a really shocking edit to this page. Bhakdi is not a fringe conspiracy theorist nut case. The loaded, barbed language used to describe him now is appalling. The article should be reverted, but the criticism of him should be included. Gd123lbp ( talk) 13:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources.There should be some article text explaining why we can call him a conspiracy theorist and the sources need to be clear. It's not like he's a 5g guy or something like that. FP
...debunked but credentialed so-called experts minting conspiracy theories and undermining fact-based information. One prominent example is Sucharit Bhakdi...
Meinung auch in den meisten Medien und staatlichen Stellen wenig Widerhall und beschränkt sich auf Youtube und Verschwörungsgruppen bzw.[11] I don't think are clear and direct enough to put "conspiracy theorist" in wikivoice. Regardless, the should be enough article text first to explain exactly why we can call him that. fiveby( zero) 14:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Can't you see that saying "he is a spreader of misinformation" is an opinion? Clearly people of his point of view do not think that (such as the thousands of scientists in the great barrington declaration and others who cited him in many now deleted sources). If you are so insistent that he is a conspiracy theorist, then tell me who he thinks is conspiring to do what? He has criticised the science on it, which is normal scientific dispute. You have affixed all these labels to him because you've found an opinion piece that lumps him in with others that it doesn't like. Find other scientists who disagree with him, like I did and add it in (add it back in from what you deleted!) You need to stop being angry and start thinking objectively. Gd123lbp ( talk) 18:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Also, I might add, I am quite suprised to hear the phrase "covid denier" I have never heard that before. That is the language of the religious zealot - like blasphemy. Gd123lbp ( talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Something about an App which generates concentrations of quantum dots, which could possibly inspire and uplift users, but which mysteriously finds locations of disturbing events. Or something. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
More eyes needed there. An editor keeps edit warring in unverifiable and POV content, [13] in violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:CATEGRS. The editor also attacked me on my talk page. [14] Guy Macon, I'm making sure you see this, as you've commented before on the matter of undue weight on speculations of homosexuality. Crossroads -talk- 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A few recent edits have sought to remove the well-sourced word "baseless" from the phrase "Bondi supported Trump's baseless claims that there was large-scale voter fraud...." These efforts have been rebuffed thus far, but more eyes might be a good idea. Neutrality talk 15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Page link here: Schizoid personality disorder#Sexuality
The author of this section cites a few single researchers as evidence that somehow schizoid PD is linked to sexual activity. One was a researcher in the 1930s or 40s ( Ronald Fairbairn), another is Harry Guntrip (1960s - 1970s). The most modern researcher cited is Salman Akhtar (1980s). All who practiced psychodynamic therapy and used observational studies (non-experimental) for their research. Moreover, I noticed source material for this section includes a clinical dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction by a M.A. student at Pepperdine. This is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Additionally, source material from this piece goes back to the 1930s and 40s and doesn't seem update-to-date at all.
No modern-day research on this has ever suggested that any sort of sexual behavior is at all linked to this condition. The current modern psychology handbook DSM-V makes no mention of sexual activity linked to this condition. The DSM-IV doesn't either. In fact, validity markers even identifying it as a disorder is so poor that there is serious debate among the psychology community about removing it in the next version of the DSM (see Hummelen, B., Pedersen, G., Wilberg, T., Karterud, S. (2015) "Poor Validity of the DSM-IV Schizoid Personality Disorder Construct as a Diagnostic Category"; J Pers Disord https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25248009/). For some reason, this information is not included on this page at all.
I'll note too that no Wikipedia article links sexual activity to any personality disorder. The reason they are called personality disorders are that they are linked to personality traits. Not sexual activity. There is a separate section in the DSM for sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria.
Anyway, I've tried in vain to edit this section but it gets reinstated with a one-phrase rebuttal. No discussion is allowed. So trying to appeal to a third-party on this. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bol1966 ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost the usual. Someone thinks ID is science, but also that people are dessert. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
No, not The Secret (book), but some other nutty book, by Blavatsky. Is it pseudoscientific or not? Is the article OK in general? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Jonestown conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm editing a lot of bland, economics-related Guyana articles, but Jonestown conspiracy theories is tagged for EVERYTHING and it just... makes me exhausted. It's practically a fringe fork! Does anyone have some advice for a newb? I was thinking at least cutting the External Links section for redundancies about the actual People's Temple, since that's sort of kindling the OR. And while it's interesting to see a sentence or two about what kinds of conspiracies came from the soviet side, the section just vomits facts without any context, making it read like it's not actually a conspiracy. And a conspiracy about newspaper headlines all reporting different things... That means Wikipedia's own RS must be a conspiracy too! See? I can't. Advice? Estheim ( talk) 19:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Titanic conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My first time here, so hopefully this is the appropriate venue. Could we get some eyes on Titanic conspiracy theories? The article is currently assessed as B-class despite being tagged for presenting fringe theories with improper weight (a tag that, at a brief glance, looks extremely warranted). {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
P.Z. Myers has posted this on his blog: [15], and Science-Based Medicine has this: [16]. It looks as if Paul Davies is meddling in a field where he is a layman, with the expected result. I am one too, so maybe some people who are not can have a look at Paul_Davies#Scientific_research, the second part of which is not about physics. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] (the last three are the important ones) :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking into matters related to fringe figure Jean-Pierre Petit, I discovered this page:
Anyone feel like sorting out claims regarding Russian hypersonic aircraft? XOR'easter ( talk) 21:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Can be seen as something, according to Goop. And it seems I am a "logical positivist swindler", whatever that is supposed to mean. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I've discussed this with another editor but I'm not really comfortable dealing with this myself.
The article I believe gives undue weight to conspiracy theories surrounding the bombing. The conspiracy being that Australian intelligence services were behind it.
The sources to support the theory are:
I'm also not certain books should be used as sources here either. It's not exactly hard to write and publish a book. They don't require any review, let alone peer review, but the article leans on many books alleging conspiracy. I'm sure I can find books that say 9/11 was a conspiracy too.
The article is so heavily based on this that it probably needs a total rewrite. I would like some help with it as it's way outside my normal area.
Thanks. Kylesenior ( talk) 06:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it relevant that Richard Dawkins does not want to debate him? Dawkins does not want to debate lots of people. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
David Jubb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've done a lot of cleaning up at the article, but a pro-fringe user with an apparent COI (likely Jubb himself) has been adding more to the article, and I'd appreciate getting some more eyes on it. In addition, I'm unsure the degree to which the information there is appropriate for Wikipedia, particularly the information cited to his website (which has been down since 2017 or so).
Gbear605 ( talk) 01:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
VistaSunset wants to misuse that article as Intelligent design propaganda. I do not want to revert again because that would look as if I am a one-man-show. Maybe somebody could make it clear what WP:FRINGE means and that the whole science community disagrees. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Due to persistent demonization and discrimination, many younger Serbs in Croatia have converted from Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism in order to "become Croats", some changing their names to look more Croatian.
these kinds of people has not being prosecuted for voicing it in public, which is normal thing for any normal country in democratic worldThen Germany, where the analogous
I've had another look at the book, at its contributors and of some reviews of it. It is not my area at all, so don't feel comfortable being in any kind of aribeter role, but it seems to me that in relation to how the source should be used in the article: anecdotal evidence from one reasonably informed but not expert academic from one one moment two decades ago is not enough it itself to base a factual claim in our encyclopedic voice but rather would need attribution and qualification - and if nobody else has said this it might not be due anyway. In relation to whether the source is fringe: I don't think fringe is the right word. The editor and contributors are all academics and the book is published by a respectable academic press and must have gone through some kind of review process, but it is clear that it takes up a position which challenges much recieved wisdom and so is somewhat partisan: the overall argument is that the West is the main bad guy and on the ground all sides were as bad as each other. In scholarship, it is important that academic writing challenges orthodoxies, and this is different from being fringe as such. However, the contributors in most cases lack specific research expertise on Yugoslavia and seem to be writing about it in a quite dilettante-ish way, and many have reputations for being pretty partisan and controversial (e.g. the late media studies professor Edward S. Herman), so WP:DUE would generally require us to balance it with other perspectives. In short, this is more a due weight issue than a frigne theory issue, although it might not be worth the effort to balance and attribute something that is already pretty flimsy. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Is this really a two-sided debate between Uri Geller on the one hand, and skeptics on the other? Alexbrn ( talk) 12:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
All I see is Pocky time. Better than 8:15, I suppose. Estheim ( talk) 16:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Roy McCoy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please give this user discretionary sanctions notice? I have noticed a lot of apologias for conspiracy theories that may eventually require admin intervention.
jps ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Is seeing some recent activity. Probably could benefit from extra eyes, at least while the pandemic is ongoing ... Alexbrn ( talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking for feedback in WP:RSN about the source A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination. The relevant article is June Cobb...
June Cobb ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Thanks! - Location ( talk) 16:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
One of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. ADE is one of the reasons falsely cited by the antivax crown why the vaccines are unsafe. [37] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
aka the BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This article is another of many COVID-19 related articles which are a target for disinformation spreaders. The attack vector is seemingly to suppress safety information. [38] Eyes on this during the pandemic would probably be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Another traditional medicine article where there is confusion between intention and effective healing, in case anyone is interested to work on it. Examples: "to induce a profound state of healing", "or playing an instrument such as the didgeridoo or flute, and usually involve a mastery of advanced techniques to evoke the healing effects." There also is an explicit invitation to download a magazine article: "is available for free download from this link here", use of style-discouraged second person "you may find", etc. — Paleo Neonate – 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
And the woo continues, this time at the BGR-34 page. Please watchlist it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This deletion discussion may be of interest to the community here.
XOR'easter ( talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Xi Zezong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was a historian of science who opined that an ancient Chinese astronomer discovered and described Ganymede using his bare eyes, without bothering to wait around until telescopes had been invented to make it perceptible from the Earth. This idea is mentioned at Jupiter and possibly elsewhere. 1.) is the article about him worth having? 2.) if so, shouldn't it treat his claims rather more sceptically? and 3.) if not, or even if so, should the claim be included in the Jupiter article? GPinkerton ( talk) 23:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This is disparaging. " "my-country-invented-everything"-ism?" I apologize for taking this on, actually. There is much in Chinese history in every area, that is/was enlightened. If I've misunderstood the comment here I apologize. Sometimes I think we in the West can be a little or a lot arrogant about our place in the world and some days I find that frustrating. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I noticed two other articles, Galilean moons#Discovery and Ganymede (moon)#History that also mention the Chinese claim. The latter article cites a US source (an abstract by K. Brecher in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society that can be read on google scholar [39]). I have no idea whether Brecher is reliable or perhaps returned from Beijing with stars in his/her eyes after an exciting trip to what at the time (1981) was still somewhat of a "forbidden city" for Americans. If current RS say that such a naked-eye sighting of Ganymede was impossible (in other words, that Brecher was being gullible), then those two articles need to be changed to reflect that. NightHeron ( talk) 22:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a slow but on-going discussion at the talk page about whether the Bates Method can be described as "ineffective", whether the Bates method is intended to improve "Eyesight", or the "Refractive power of the eye", and what bearing that distinction has, if any, on how the word "ineffective" may be applied.
More eyes (ha ha! Eyes! Get it?) on this discussion might be helpful. ApLundell ( talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton ( talk) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)M
EN
E MEN
E TEKEL
upharsin
topic ban
Now that someone who clearly understands this mechanism still supports "ineffective", I am dropping the stick. This is for the future if something changes and people want to make sure this doesn't happen again with some other subject. Belteshazzar ( talk) 00:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Pseudoscience or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recovered-memory organization. Someone declaring a conflict of interest and removing criticism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Salvatore Pais ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An aerospace engineer whose patents, such as one claiming to "engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level", have got enthusiasts very excited [41], [42], [43]. No analysis or critique of claims, and lots of text cited only to technical papers and patent filings, which is usually a sign of WP:OR. Could use a review by someone familiar with the technology. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm particularly talking about Mick West, who seems to be an expert on anything and is easily quoted on every fringe/paranormal article. For example in the Pentagon UFO videos article, he offers an explanation of the objects being birds, despite the instrumental showing dark for hot/white for cold, meaning the birds would be colder than the water . I'm well aware due to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT we shouldn't give paranormal subjects undue weight, but how easily should skeptic voices be introduced in an article? This guy's explinations are often so basic. In the case of the famous GIMBAL video, in an article on VICE he's quoted as "He believes GIMBAL to be a plane as well, lit by the infrared flare of the engine and locked in place by a trick of the gimbal mounted camera viewing it." (basically saying due to rotation of the camera, what pilots are seeing are the flare effect of the exhaust of a plane). I'm finding it really hard to believe the two pilots would react that way as if they never saw this effect before (or they're maliciously acting), and the Pentagon would say these are "unidentified aerial phenomena" (whatever that means), just because, and this guy just knows, despite not being an expert in aviation (his Wiki article doesn't even list any education). What I'm getting at is, should any claim made by any skeptic be included, just because they're a skeptic? Loganmac ( talk) 10:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in the RfC at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RFC: Chopin and Sexuality. Crossroads -talk- 23:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egyptian inventions and discoveries. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 05:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Apparently a healer, but I can only find evidence that he's a musician. I believe this is a case of fringe theories because it seems the only reason we're calling him a healer is because he plays music at 432 Hz. Would appreciate a second pair of eyes from someone more knowledgeable and with more time. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I am looking for feedback regarding a conspiracy source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Eclipse of the Assassins. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 17:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Content dispute better pursued at some other venue
|
---|
At Talk:David#Triplestein? Editshmedt posits that there is incontestable objective evidence for the existence of Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
They also contend that this scholar and this source would be fringe: Herzog, Ze'ev (29 October 1999). "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". lib1.library.cornell.edu. Ha'aretz. Archived from the original on 10 November 2001. Retrieved 9 February 2019. According to Editshmedt, Herzog lied through his teeth in his WP:RS/AC claims. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
( talk) 00:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
According to the current version of the article, Intelligent design is opposed by "many in the scientific community". That is certainly true: "everybody except a few religious fanatics" is indeed "many", but that word is a very bad way of putting it. I cited several relevant "WP:" pages, but was reverted anyway. This looks to me like a case of WP:IDHT on the part of User:Supt. of Printing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems to have deteriorated in December. May profit from more eyes, especially psychologist ones. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 23:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Some of the “Career and research” section looks a bit fringey to me, specifically “He came to see cancer as being ultimately an electronic problem at the molecular level”, and the following sentence. There’s no reference (there was one attached to the second sentence but it was to a web page sourced to the Wikipedia article) so I’m not sure what the context for these is. Perhaps someone who knows more than I do about the subject matter could have a look? The “Statement on scientific discovery“ section might also be of interest to people here. Brunton ( talk) 11:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate some eyes on (and comments on) Talk:Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Senate_objections_-_WP:PROFRINGE_or_insufficiently_explained_content_removals. Thanks, Neutrality talk 23:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of this story. In 1978, Outside magazine reported that during the 1960s the CIA secretly placed plutonium-powered surveillance devices on the top Nanda Devi [7,816 m (25,643 ft)] and Nanda Kot [6,861 m (22,510 ft)] without the knowledge of the Indian government. One device was apparently lost over the mountainside during a storm and the other was reportedly disassembled. There are plenty of allegations published about this, but the only government documentation I can find referencing it is a copy of the article and a letter asking the CIA to investigate the report: [44]. Per one mountaineering article: "The CIA planned to intercept radio telemetry signals between the Chinese missiles and ground control. A transceiver, powered by a plutonium battery pack, would beam information to a CIA listening station, where data analysis would reveal the range, speed and payload of the Chinese missile. Reflecting the era’s unbridled enthusiasm for atomic power, the transceiver was powered by a System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) turning radioactive heat into electricity. The Nanda Devi SNAP, designated Model “19C,” hid seven plutonium rods totaling 1,900 grams of alloyed plutonium—Pu-238 (half-life of 87 years) and Pu-239 (half-life of 24,400 years). The unit, expected to run the four-part Nanda Devi sensor for two years, was a round microwave oven-sized metal bin with five radiating fins. Towering above was a six-foot long antenna." [45]
This is well beyond my area of expertise. Is it even possibly to carry the parts and build a mini-nuclear reactor on top of a mountain like this? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Now under pending-changes protection due to an uptick in anti-science advocacy. I would have thought he'd slipped into obscurity, but apparently he still has fans. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I invite other editors to read and participate at the relevant talk page(s), but like the previous thread this is not going anywhere at the moment. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Tgeorgescu ( talk · contribs) claims in this talk page here that the word "United Monarchy" (see Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)) may not include the northern Kingdom of Israel (otherwise just generally called 'Samaria'). However, the definition of the word "United Monarchy", as universal in scholarship, in addition to the linked Wikipedia page (copious with reliable sources), is "the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah united under one monarch". Consequently, this is fringe. It is on this basis that he denies the dozens of reliable sources affirming the United Monarchy in scholarship, simply by dismissing them all because they don't use the word "Samaria". Editshmedt ( talk) 06:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Does this [49] make sense? Also is my revert at Objections to evolution [50] valid? And seasons greetings to everyone! Doug Weller talk 11:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, then let's keep things simple. So far we have three different contexts for your concerns: complex adaptive systems, Charles Darwin, and The Language Instinct. These are somewhat disparate topics, if you ask me, and it seems that you have established your own thread of "evolution" as what connects them. While, except in the case of Charles Darwin, I don't see these subjects as having much of anything to do with "evolutionary views". I note that many of the sources you are using in The Language Instinct and Complex Adaptive Systems do not reference "evolution" at all. What sources are you using to make these judgements and posit these connections? The concern I have here is that this is original research on your part. jps ( talk) 12:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
hmm... how did evolution create sphericity of the earth btw?
Yes, and I should dearly ask them whether biology isn't actually a soft science.
Just saw something about evidence that US judges are being blackmailed due to videos (yes they have the evidence, so they do) of murdering and raping kids are being used to blackmail them to find against Donny. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In the article exist this information: "According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška (Latin: Rascia), included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosna, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija, and the "land" of Duklja..
The emperor Diocletian was much enamoured of the country of Dalmatia, and so he brought folk with their families from Rome and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia, and they were called 'Romani', and this title attaches to them to this day. Now this emperor Diocletian founded the city of Spalato and built therein a a palace beyond the power of any tongue or pen to describe, and remains of its ancient luxury are still preserved to-day, though the long lapse of time has played havoc with them. Moreover, the city of Diocleia, now occupied by the Diocletians, was built by the same emperor Diocletian, for which reason those of that territory have come to be called by the name of 'Diocletians'. The territory possessed by these Romani used to extend as far as the river Danube, and once on a time ... (p. 123)
the emperor then describes the fabled early relations between the Avars and Romans
... Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, as will be related in the narrative concerning the Croats and Serbs, the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians and Arentani, who are also called Pagani *** [a part of the text is missing here] But when the Roman empire, through the sloth and inexperience of those who then governed it and especially in the time of Michael from Amorion, the Lisper, had declined to the verge of total extinction, the inhabitants of the cities of Dalmatia became independent, subject neither to the emperor of the Romans nor to anybody else, and, what is more, the nations of those parts, the Croats and Serbs and Zachlumites, Terbuniotes and Kanalites and Diocletians and the Pagani, shook off the reigns of the empire of the Romans and became self-governing and independent, subject to none. Princes, as they say, these nations had none, but only 'zupans', elders, as is the rule in other Slavonic regions. Moreover, the majority of these Slavs were not even baptized. ... (p. 125)
the foundation and subsequent ruin of the city and palace of Splalatum is described. (p. 137)]— Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 29: "Of Dalmatia and of the adjacent nations in it."
At no point does the 10th-century emperor suggest that Diocleia/Duklja was inhabited by Serbs or that the Diocletianoi were Serbs or Serbian. Since Croats and Serbs and "Diocletians" all appear as separate items in a list, there is no reason to suppose any of these groups was considered to be part of any other by the author of the text, who calls all of them "Slavs" and "Slavonic regions" collectively. If the Greek original is needed I can supply that too. Prima facie, Mikola22 is probably correct that this is a fringe view. GPinkerton ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)The country of Diocleia was also previously possessed by the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian translated from Rome, as has been said in the story about the Croats, and was under the emperor of the Romans. But this country also was enslaved by the Avars and made desolate, and repopulated in the time of Heraclius the emperor, just as were Croatia and Serbia and the country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of Kanali. Diocleia gets its name from the city in this country that the emperor Diocletian founded, but now it is a deserted city, though still called Diocleia.
In the country of Diocleia are the large inhabited cities of Gradetai, Nougrade, Lontodokla. (pp. 163–165)— Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 35: "Of the Diocletians and of the country they now dwell in."
Viral Conspiracy Theory Image of COVID-19 Vaccine "5G Chip" is Actually the Boss Metal Zone Circuit 04:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:9DC2:2F96:B54A:8270 ( talk)
I can't recall where we are about QuackWatch, could someone please review the recent edits at this article? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ugh. Just got rid of a bunch of puffery almost entirely sourced to a quack magazine where Scott Tips contributes. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
One or more True Believers have been editing this one this week. Complete with a badly photoshopped "uncensored" image of The Face. Worth putting on your watchlist, not because the vandalism is coming super fast, but because it's particularly embarrassing when it's allowed to stand. ApLundell ( talk) 06:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am a NASA scientist who worked on the Mars Global Surveyor mission. And his uncle works for Nintendo! XOR'easter ( talk) 11:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
See [60] by User:Bornetjbo. It was originally sourced to a right-wing anti-semitic publication The Social Crediter. [61]. I reverted and it was reinserted with new sources. [62], a New York Daily News article behind a pay wall, and a speech in the Congressional Records. Kent G. Budge reverted. Bornetjbo hasn't reinstated their edit but added this external link [63] which is an article ending with "Out of the disaster on Oahu a revisionist myth emerged that has been masquerading as "history" ever since. In its most extreme form it invites us to stand on our heads and look at everything upside down. It asks us to believe that on December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor. As we approach the fifty-fifth anniversary of that unforgettable Sunday, surely the time has come to lay this flagrant idea to rest." That seems ok. My sources script suggests that one of the ELs is unreliable, the one with something by Anthony Kubek.
Am I wrong or does the original edit include copyvio?
Doug Weller talk 07:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This has been a redirect to A Course in Miracles since 2012 but a new editor has copied mainly unsourced material from de.wiki - reverted once but reinstated it. Got to get back to watching the mini-insurrection in Washington now. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Did Charles Tart somehow establish scientific proof of psychic powers? Could use review by someone familiar with statistical analysis. - LuckyLouie ( talk)
This finding wipes out probably at least half the testimonies against Remote Viewing listed here. I look forward to debunking the next goalpost provided.This doesn't suggest abundant receptivity... Anyway, I made a minor change to the wording of the Tart paragraph in question. It's still dependent on the editor's summary of Marks' findings and Tart's experiment being faithful though. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Ba'athism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is a book by Con Coughlin a fringe source? I think yes, given the many debunked ideas he is trying to spread, including that torture works as a method of finding the truth and that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Enduring classics, fiction and non-fiction reprints from Harper and a vibrant line of paperback originals including new voices, boundary-pushing works, contemporary fiction, and intelligent nonfiction, which has also published
To Kill a Mockingbird, Brave New World, Their Eyes Were Watching God, A People’s History of the United States; Barbara Kingsolver, Ann Patchett, Louise Erdrich, and Michael Chabon; John Brockman, Chad Kultgen, Yannick Murphy, Willy Vlautin, and Blake Butler[1]. It has been cited by serious publications. Apparently also a New York Times bestseller. It's as good as it gets, really.-- JBchrch ( talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Regarding Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, the article has a "Transgender portrayal" section at the end. The section does not exhaust all sources that discuss the trans coverage mentioned in reliable sources. (There are additional links on the talk page.) This subtopic has been contentious in the past few years, including the past couple of days. The section has been blanked with the argument that the content is WP:FRINGE, which is not the first time this has been cited. Can editors who are familiar with WP:FRINGE comment here about whether or not it is applicable to this section, whether in part or in whole? Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up question: How would you apply
WP:UNDUE to the matter? Is a section with three paragraphs too little, sufficient, or too much? For what it is worth, it is possible to write even more from additional sources (not to mention having more of a context-establishing primer). In addition, I had expanded other parts of the article so the film has coverage in general, but it does not have too much more. Another consideration is to have a spin-off article at
Lois Einhorn (to discuss the character and the transphobic reaction), with the main article having a one-paragraph summary section. Thoughts? Pinging those involved so far:
XOR'easter,
ApLundell,
ජපස,
Blueboar.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP range in southern Florida has been making edits that resemble the typical behavior of Brad Watson, Miami, as detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brad Watson, Miami. A user Hellbus ( talk · contribs) also identified the user ZenMechanics ( talk · contribs) ( diff) as a possible sock. Please leave any comments you may have at the SPI report. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Operation Mockingbird ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
QAnon supporters apparently don't like being called out on this page. Maybe I could get a couple others to put this on their watchlists, or should I request WP:PP? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of you may recall YouTuber JP Sears from viral videos about gluten intolerance, spirituality, and so on. Nowadays Sears uses his platform to push conspiracy theories related to, among other things, Covid-19, as outlined in this November 2020 article from McGill University science communicator Jonathan Jarry:
None of this is mentioned on his English Wikipedia entry, which read like a promotional piece until I edited it today. I'll go ahead and add this, but this could use more eyes and sources. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
MrDemeanour is continually removing text [65] [66] [67] [68] about anti-vax claims at Antibody-dependent enhancement and despite my efforts to modify things to their satisfaction I have failed dismally. MrDemeanour argues at Talk:Antibody-dependent enhancement#Edit-warring that the claims are found "reasonable", that the vaccine trials have been "rushed", that this topic is not WP:FRINGE (hence the post here), and that invocation of (lack-of) evidence from trials is "sophistry". Wider thoughts on how to handle this content welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Since you are synthesising an utterance not found in your sources<- If you look at the source, [70] this is in fact a verbatim quotation ("CLAIM - COVID-19 vaccines will cause more severe disease through antibody-dependent enhancement"). The needle on my AGF-o-meter is beginning to twitch.
someone who isn't a professional debunkerespecially amusing. Usually, we frown on quoting amateurs, not on quoting professionals. SBM is written by medical professionals pointing out what the evidence says, and only people who disagree with their pro-science stance would call it an "ultra-sceptical journal". Surprise: Wikipedia also has a pro-science stance. Did anybody already point you to WP:FRINGE? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
A journal that only publishes debunking articles is one with an axe to grindAnd it is exactly the same axe that is ground by WP:FRINGE. Does that mean that, although know of WP:FRINGE, you disagree with it? If no, I don't know why you have a problem with SBM. If yes, well, a guideline is stronger than you. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed two links to unreliable PROFRINGE sources, "The Truth About False Memories" which is anything but, and "Survivors Celebrate the End of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation", but the dissolution of the organization is still sourced to the Survivors article because I could not find a source for that which is not written by quacks (or their fans) celebrating the end of an enemy of their quackery.
I think the article would profit from attention by someone more familiar with this specific subject. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Input is needed on someone's edits at Talk:Capitalism#Wikivoice and false balance. ( article history) Crossroads -talk- 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Revealed today not by some random quack, but the highly accomplished co-founder of the Israeli Space Program. I detail this breaking story here: Talk:Israel_Space_Agency#What_is_going_on_with_Chaim_Eshed?(!) (with a courtesy note here). I acknowledge that this post is a bit FORUMy, since as far as the project goes, there is nothing to really do at this time. Still, I just wanted to bring this unusual story to the attention of FTN regulars. Happy Saturday! El_C 19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Aliens walk among us. Trump was on the verge of revealing this, but ended up thinking better of it.I was also on the verge of revealing this, along with Spain's treaty with the mountain trolls and the secret smurf population in Togo, but I also thought better of it.
There is a "Galactic Federation." These aliens wish for their existence to remain secret, for now, because "humanity is not ready."So, Chaim Eshed thinks humanity is ready? Apparently, the aliens were wrong in thinking that Chaim Eshed was ready. Once again, conspiracies are shown not to work - there is always a blabbermouth. SCNR. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
How quickly conspiracy Saturday turns into comic relief Sunday! Anyway, intergalactic liaison — I like that. A couple of notes. I made a mistake about Eshed being the head of the Israel Space Agency. He was actually the head of the Ministry of Defense entity (from 1983 to 2011) which is tasked with maintaining Israel's space industry, overall. Judging solely from the respective Wikipedia articles, its annual budget does, however, appear to greatly exceed that of the ISA (needless to say, this is not an area with which I am too familiar). At any rate, Eshed does seem to have been instrumental in the Israeli air and space field since the sixties. And his clearance level must have been off the charts, seeing as he was a brigadier-general in the super-hush-hush Unit 81 — so put on your tinfoil hats, everyone! Eshed has also been the recipient of three Israel Defense Prizes, all for ground-breaking work the nature of which remains classified to this day. Finally, a quick note on 7 Days. Despite (or perhaps because) of it being the most popular publication put to print in the country (I, myself, have read hundreds of em over the years, though not so much recently), it always seem to contrast somewhat awkwardly with the Yedioth Ahronoth/ Ynet brand. Almost as if to say: serious journalism on the day-by-day, but letting loose with the more yellowish 7 Days on Saturdays. So, while 7 Days, to its credit, has had some major history-setting scoops over the years, it is also equally infamous for its many (at times, spectacular) blunders. Note that I have not read the full aforementioned Eshed interview (grr...paywall), so what I have described has been mostly gleaned from other sources which discuss the interview. Apparently, he also speaks about travelling to a black hole, and more — speaking of which, I've always dreamed of eating spaghetti while being spaghettified... Delicious! El_C 21:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we collect some more sources here? The article I read (through some backchannels -- maybe try resource exchange, El_C ( talk · contribs)) makes me think that there is possibly something close to a WP:FRINGEBLP here worth documenting. jps ( talk) 13:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Expect a boatload of additional coverage in the next few days. Hugely popular site fark.com just linked to this article in The Jerusalem Post. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the little story that could, apparently. [71] If we don't get on it, someone else probably will. jps ( talk) 20:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
People don't like it when we stick to the assertion of facts, apparently. jps ( talk) 04:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
User blocked for 48 hours after being WP:BOOMERANGed at ANI. Meanwhile, is this vandalism? jps ( talk) 12:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
More different user says, "Obviously, nothing in any field of science is ever considered a fact by scientists, even things as universally accepted as gravity." jps ( talk) 04:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it time to bring RKOwens444 ( talk · contribs) to WP:AE? There is absolutely no engagement on talkpages. jps ( talk) 04:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Here we go again: [73]. jps ( talk) 05:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that I have closed both AE complaints with indefinite blocks having been issued to both editors (as a normal admin action). I'd also like to convey my pleasure that we now have a Haim Eshed biography available here at en! El_C 18:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I exported parts of the lead of death panels to the body of the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. [75] It was promptly removed by the User:Bonewah who said it "Too loaded with editorializing. You cant prove or disprove an idiom and in any event". [76] What the editor appears to be saying is that it unclear whether Palin was wrong about death panels in the ACA, and that the fact-checkers who said it was false are themselves wrong. Is Bonewah right? Is it a violation of NPOV to say that Palin's death panels claims are false? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Avi Loeb, a Harvard University astrophysicist, is continuing to proclaim that ʻOumuamua is in fact an alien spacecraft, with the publication of his new book Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth coming out later this month. This has caused another wave of press coverage for the theory. The book article could do with some more sceptical coverage. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
James Harder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Almost entirely unsourced. Should we stub it? jps ( talk) 20:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we stub it?I just looked at it again and considering it's mostly unsourced it may be the solution (if not AfD?). The difference between the initial 2006 article (around the time of obituary) and the current one are minimal... — Paleo Neonate – 04:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does Younger Dryas impact hypothesis give way too much consideration to Graham Hancock's views even though all sources used as himself and he does not appear to have any WP:RS credentials? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Today, browsing Google News, I came across an article on "perineum sunning" and was amused to learn that it is (or was) a fad practice going viral on social media. Since I don't follow social media sites (Wikipedia talk pages are the closest I get), I checked Wikipedia for the topic — and got nothing, not even any articles mentioning it. This surprised me because when I Googled it I saw quite a lot of coverage. Therefore, I started perineum sunning, trying to be mindful of WP:FRINGE.
The sources are decent but could be better for WP:MEDRS purposes. There sure wasn't anything on Google Scholar about it.
I liked this medical blogger's acronym: SCAM = So-Called Alternative Medicine. I think I'll put that in External links. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Ivermectin is the latest "miracle cure" being proposed for COVID-19, and these pages are running > 10,000 views/day. The NIH has recently issue guidelines that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against its use. Nevertheless, there is an increasing editorial push across multiple articles to boost it unduly. A quick way to get uo-to-speed quickly on the context is probably this news piece on MedPage Today. All of these articles could probably benefit from additional eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
An "end of days" preacher, see Survival Guide For The End of Days and read the Kindle excerpt. The books I've looked at are self-published. The article appears to have been written by fans. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
"Five prominent anti-vaccine organizations that have been known to spread misleading information about the coronavirus received more than $850,000 in loans from the federal Paycheck Protection Program, raising questions about why the government is giving money to groups actively opposing its agenda and seeking to undermine public health during a critical period." Source: MSN News. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Opinions welcome at Talk:Casimir_effect#Energy_extraction?. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I notice a new template, Template:Fringe Theory has started appearing here and there. While a template of this sort might be okay (though overlaps with Template:Pseudoscience), I'm not sure about this - starting with the word "theory" as problematic ... Alexbrn ( talk) 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Currently at AfD. There seem to be fringe concerns which I am not in a position to evaluate for several reasons. Mangoe ( talk) 05:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Iruña-Veleia needs responses. It's about claims and counterclaims that inscriptions found in a Roman town in Spain "contain the oldest known texts written in the Basque language as well as, allegedly, the oldest representation of the crucifixion of Jesus found to date". Doug Weller talk 07:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at this and it's clear that there's no WP:CONSENSUS for the changes Mmthomson proposes and that their (apparent COI) advocacy at the article seems overwhelming. This particular topic was the sole purpose of editing since day one... @ Mmthomson: since you have already made your suggestions and proposed the sources, repetition and huge posts are unlikely to be useful and may eventually be considered disruptive (and maybe even not here for the encyclopedia). I suggest to slow down and wait, maybe some uninvolved editors will eventually see some merit in them, article talk pages remain in the archives. If you have more sources, post them at the talk page for review, but please try to keep the posts short and concise... — Paleo Neonate – 17:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor is adding a lot of fringe material to this article, claiming this mission really happened and found an alien ship on the moon. Sources are instagram and a blog/personal website. They've been reverted twice but have re-added the material. More eyes would be much appreciated. Squeakachu ( talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
MyPillow CEO Hires Gawker-Killing Lawyer to Go After Daily Mail for Jane Krakowski Affair Story -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits adding POV material, mainly I think copyvio. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion which seems likely to turn ugly and involve a lot of calling the other side fringe. Mangoe ( talk) 06:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)