This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
In case someone would like to work on this, I noticed that this article directly quotes Rockwell's view of environmentalism using a primary source but lacks any treatment of such nonsense... — Paleo Neonate – 22:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the actual problem is hereI think the problem is that the third party sources you found are not in the article. Instead, the statement is sourced to Rockwell himself. Also,
the quote itself ought to come from a primary sourceis problematic for fringe sources and especially problematic for hate propaganda. There is a reason why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. Academic rigour works only if the sources one uses also apply academic rigour. See GIGO.
I'm wondering when "refuting" him got to be something we, in the voice of WP, need to be doing in his article.If the reliable sources see his position as fringe, then yes, that is what we need to do.
My personal reaction is that that impulse comes all too close to proving his point.Hmmm... so, if someone disagrees with him, that means he is right. Sounds like Catch-22 to me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Matter to be aware of: Talk:Straightwashing#Straightwashed artists Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted three times already this morning... XOR'easter ( talk) 15:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
New article about a recent web video series, sources appear to be press releases with claims like: not by believers, not to promote beliefs but explore, scientific, etc. — Paleo Neonate – 08:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
— Paleo Neonate – 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful that this is notable woo, but wanted to make people aware one way or the other. Mangoe ( talk) 20:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
May become more active again, see [1]. More eyes could be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is another conspiracy theory I never heard of before today. Worth a separate article?
Despite Google CEO Sundar Pichai being grilled about it in front of the House Judiciary Committee, it has the usual problem with Internet conspiracy theories, which is that only sources that cover the Internet (Vice, Vox, Dalydot) cover it. I don't think we will see this on CNN or NYT unless someone gets arrested in connection with it.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion is taking place here: Talk:Frédéric Chopin#New article: Sexuality of Chopin
I would have AfD'ed it but someone tagged it for merger first. There's an RfC on the same talk page about how to cover the material. Crossroads -talk- 05:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
It was converted to a redirect and taken to RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin. The RfD is meant to cover whether it should stay a redirect or be a separate article. Comments welcome. Crossroads -talk- 22:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Could probably use attention of those familiar with hermeticism. Mangoe ( talk) 13:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS? Doug Weller talk 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This article in relation to a diet may benefit from more page watchers. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 22:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I fear our article on
Jaggi Vasudev (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) (aka "Sadhguru") takes an insufficiently critical stance. His dubious positions on politics and the laws of physics are only given place at the bottom of the article, and while much is made of his purported public speaking events and connections (though less of the financial and ideological ones) with the president of India, I feel not enough is made of his legal vicissitudes, seeing as he reportedly killed and hurriedly cremated his wife before fleeing to the US and his disciples all swore they witnessed his spouse's conscious abandonment of this life and ascent into higher planes through her powers of spiritual advancement, etc. I can find little independent evidence, for instance, of the claim he addressed the House of Lords, though he did apparently appear at Davos for a meditation session. Or something.
GPinkerton (
talk) 04:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"Pro-government media gave widespread publicity to Bandara who claimed the formula was revealed to him by Kali, a Hindu goddess of death and destruction of evil... The government has scrambled to distance itself from Bandara, whose preparation was approved as a food supplement by the official indigenous medicine unit." [2] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Fresh input is requested in recent discussions at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, on the question of the relationship between Holocaust denial and the Great Barrington Declaration's author(s). GPinkerton ( talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Spotted in today's AfD log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Your comments welcome:
Dueling Banjoes?
jps ( talk) 20:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The Mao Zedong page needs more eyes, in particular in regards to what appears to be revisionist histories that portray Mao's actions as having a positive impact and making extraordinary claims about his actions (e.g. the Cultural Revolution is responsible for the economic growth that mainstream scholars attribute to Deng Xiapeng's liberalizing reforms). An examination of the cited sources, as well as the broader academic literature, is needed to make sure that fringe viewpoints are not given UNDUE weight. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
See also the discussion at WT:MOSWTW. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll start with stating simply that does Marjorie Taylor Greene believe in and espouse conspiracy theories (i.e. is a conspiracy theorist)? isn't really the question here. The obvious answer is yes, from multiple RS. I also dismiss any arguments regarding bias from the same, given that the sources used to support the claim include AP, the Independent, AL.com among others.
This is about the weight applied to her beliefs in fringe theories, as it relates to the lede. There may be some nuance that I'm missing, but this is I think a reasonable starting point. Jdphenix ( talk) 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
One note - Greene is the only serving or served 21st century American politician that has conspiracy theorist in the entire article in Wikivoice. Only one other article, Donald Trump, has the phrase, but in an attributed quote. Other articles are candidates who failed to be elected. Jdphenix ( talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it in the lede first sentence. Pretty much every main-stream news story I see that mentions her in detail, and some that only do so in passing, refers to this in some manner. In part this is because they have so little to otherwise contextualize her, but it is what it is. It shouldn't be whitewashed simply due to her election success - that made her also a congresswoman, not instead a congresswoman. Agricolae ( talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
One other question - should the level of discussion that any particular option may attract be a factor in our decision here? Jdphenix ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
level of discussionon the article's Talk page, then no. Some options will undoubtedly make people upset, but it's not our job to placate them. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Calling her a conspiracy theorist is giving her too much credit in my opinion, because its somehow implies deep thought. I'd say something like, "Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is an American politician, businesswoman, who supports multiple baseless conspiracy theories." Without the baseless theories she propagates and acts on I doubt we'd know much about her. Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
the conspiracy theorist just elected to Congress from Georgia[3]. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to keep this sane, keep the discussion above and add reasonably possible outcomes here. Hopefully it will be obvious what we settle on.
I don't see why this was kept the last time around, but in any case this needs review/work from people who know both about fringe physics and real QM stuff. THe whole thing smells off to me but I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. Mangoe ( talk) 04:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Great Barrington Declaration concerning whether long lists of signatories make a manifesto less FRINGE. Additional perspectives on this could be helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed this for the first time. May need more watchers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know if I should come here with this, or go to WPMED. I just wanted some bright people to see if they see what I see. - Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: Now a redirect, — Paleo Neonate – 06:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that this article is curated to push a race realist POV. I can find no sources which identify something called the "Black Egyptian hypothesis" as a coherent proposal made, for example, in any serious literature.
jps ( talk) 22:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: Now deleted by consensus and a redirect, — Paleo Neonate – 06:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
In which it is discussed whether scientists see this as pseudoscience, or not. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: this was still about Tuomisto's claims (as if an apparently misrepresented poll would change that the AAH is not science) and the editor who was recently pushing it seems to have stopped for now, — Paleo Neonate – 04:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Science Fictions" -- A comic based upon the work of Stuart J. Ritchie: [4] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Key quote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
For editors interested in fringe viewpoints on the subject of abortion, the article Geneva Consensus Declaration could do with some watchers. (And assuming a response is forthcoming to my recent edits, some additional attention as well). Currently, the central claim seems to be that faithfully reporting the criticism published by RS is a manifestation of systemic bias. Sunrise ( talk) 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A moral pov hardly qualifies as fringe. PailSimon ( talk) 00:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it a hoax, and if so, a notable one? Deletion is being discussed now. Mangoe ( talk) 17:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Linking at closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map for archives, — Paleo Neonate – 04:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It's the question of the moment at the Talk page of
This would seem to be a WP:FRINGE-pertinent question. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was recently created by a new account, probably a sock-puppet [6]. Kirkegaard is a well known fringe figure associated with eugenics. There was a previous deletion discussion. Kirkegaard himself was banned from Wikipedia [7] in 2019. Any idea what to do here? The article contains no criticism of his fringe theories and seems to play Kirkegaard in an entirely positive light. Should there be a new afd? Or should the article be redirected/fixed? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much about [Rationalwiki] but the articles on race theorists and intelligence researchers appear to be too negative. I was recently asked by Emil Kirkegaard to personally write a Wikipedia article which I have now done on Wikipedia without any of the criticisms found on this website about him. Wikipedia has better traffic than RationalWiki. Our aim is to get his Wikipedia article to the top above the RationalWiki article on the first page of Google which contains too many criticisms of Kirkegaard.
More and more people are waking up to the fact racial intelligence is a reality. The Wikipedia article for Emil Kirkegaard will be above the RationalWiki in less than a month. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I was interested in knowing why you guys hate Kirkegaard so much but I see now this appear to be an anti-white man website. You seem to smear white intelligence researchers as "pseudoscientists" but we are published in peer-review
All new and stubby. Is there such a thing? Who knows? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
More input is needed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#MEDLEAD. Crossroads -talk- 06:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
After a long period of quiet, a new account and some embedded WP:SPAs have popped up at over at cryptozoology (see for example Talk:Cryptozoology#Henry_Gee's_2004_Nature_article_quote). If you're not already watching this article for activity, it is periodically a hotbed for fringe promoters angry about the numerous sources we have on the article listing cryptozoology as a pseudoscientific subculture. :bloodofox: ( talk) 09:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Also see the amazingly convoluted Talk:Cryptozoology#Concerns_that_the_article_does_not_meet_NPOV_standards,_proposed_revision_for_introductory_text, and the bluntly familiar Talk:Cryptozoology#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_5_January_2021_(2). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Sphinx water erosion hypothesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is too generous by half. Needs a review and a toning down of the fringe. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Quantum cognition actually a thing? The article describes it as an "emerging field which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception.". "Quantum cognition" is apparently distinct from Orchestrated objective reduction the fringe theory pushed by Penrose and others that consciousness originates at a quantum level via microtubules. The article provides no critique of the methodology. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Avi Loeb at Harvard, with a list of credentials as long as your arm, thinks it did. [9] Our article on him is out of date because he at first thought ʻOumuamua was a meteor. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This theory will likely grow legs. There is a two-page spotlight article in the latest issue of Guardian Weekly, 5 February 2021, Vol 204, No7, pp30-31 -- Whiteguru ( talk) 21:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
To answer the question posed by the OP, NO, it was me, joyriding. - Roxy the astronaut. wooF 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure whether to ask this here or at WP:CATEGORIZATION (so let me know if this is the wrong place)... a while ago, I included our article on Robert Lomas in cat:Pseudohistorians - based on what various reliable sources said about his books and theories. This categorization has been challenged by an editor who feels it is libelous for us to include him in that category. Rather than engage in an edit war, I figured I would ask for additional opinions. Is the categorization appropriate or not? Blueboar ( talk) 14:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I biefly searched and found various criticism in the sense of pseudohistory but mostly by non-notable blog authors, among bookstore links (it makes me wonder if the article meets BLPN?) But also found this mention by Colavito: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/searching-for-the-templar-merica-star . Anyone can infer pseudoarchaeology and pseudohistory from reading it, although those terms are not used as-is (except "pseudo-science" in a user comment). It could serve to add yet more attributed criticism but I'm ambivalent about if the category is necessary. — Paleo Neonate – 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Pretty persistent denialist demanding extraordinary evidence for the "extraordinary claim" that climatologists are doing their job right. Also does not understand what Talk pages are for. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Doug Weller for this [13]. In my view a disruptive edit like this [14], with a mendacious edit summary, would warrant an immediate block. - Darouet ( talk) 15:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
At this Creationist archaeologist's article User:Niqmadu22 is deleting the fact that another archaeologist is also a Creationist and adding a Creationist site to the external links. An earlier relevant discussion is at Talk:Bryant G. Wood#PROFRINGE controversy. The OP there is no longer active having stopped editing shortly after the discussion (and after I gave them an AP alert), but I'll ping the rest: @ ජපස, Joe Roe, Hob Gadling, and Tgeorgescu:. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A commercial weight-loss programme without much evidential support. Has seen much recent activity following an apparently abortive WP:DR attempt (of which I was a participant). [15] More eyes could help I think. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We might want to keep an eye on W727 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have a real world commitment and cannot deal with this right now.
Samples:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The word "QUANTUM" does not mean "quantum mysticism."If the whole word is capitalized, then, yes, it does.
My brain is sending me little warning messages. Is this another one channelling Deepak? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: @ XOR'easter: Not possible. A formal logical system that is claimed a logical unification of the classical and the quantum worlds with different applications can only be academic and noble. Reputable publications and recognitions can be found on this topic. Logically definable causality should be very significant in science and AI, especially, in mind-boddy unification. If the bottom is reached, it is formal science. If the bottom has not been reached, lets getting to the bottom. Please, no hasty conclusions. -- User:W727
@ W727: I'm not sure the word "Quantum" means what you think it means. You're talking about philosophy here, much like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The difference is that this interpretation starts from the physics itself. The theory you're talking about starts with "Ying-Yang" being the most fundamental property of the universe, whatever that means. I have spent enough all-nighters doing 50 pagers quantum mechanics homework to know that what you're talking about is not included in the mainstream view of it. If it ever were to be included here, it would require at least a few physicists to cite that work in order to give it some credibility. And I mean, you don't get to touch pages like causality and the 2nd law of thermodynamics without having VERY solid stuff. There are plenty of pseudoscientists who think that "Einstein was wrong" enough at it is. [16] I looked at the work done by this Wen-Ran Zhang [17] and it's not exactly what one would call mainstream. Feynstein ( talk) 18:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Feynstein: To my knowledge Zhang's work is in computing and information science that belong to formal science. Einstein did say "Physics constitutes a logical system of thought." But physicists are not logicians, computer and information scientists are. Now, should we wait for physicists to become logicians so that they can reinvent logically definable causality? Is Einstein's physics mainstream?— Preceding unsigned comment added by W727 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@
W727: This sentence from Zhang: "Based on bipolar dynamic logic and bipolar quantum linear algebra, a causal theory of YinYang bipolar atom is introduced in a completely background independent geometry that transcends spacetime. The causal theory leads to an equilibrium-based super symmetrical quantum cosmology of negative-positive energies.
" means exactly nothing. "Bipolar quantum linear algebra": not a thing. "The causal theory leads to an equilibrium-based super symmetrical quantum cosmology of negative-positive energies"... This one I'm not even commenting. It has the hallmarks of quack pseudoscience. It's literally a bunch of buzzwords put together. The rest of the article unironically looks like the original
Sokal affair paper. And yes, relativity is pretty mainstream. GPS wouldn't work of it wasn't for relativistic corrections.
Feynstein (
talk) 04:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Feynstein: Thanks for the message. The bashing of the causal and logical approach to quantum theory seems to me unjustified. To my knowledge definable causality has been a major pursuit in quantum theory without success. The algebraic model seems provide a mathematical bridge from the quantum world to the classic world for mind-matter unity. I read his succeeding IEEE Journal papers (1) From Equilibrium-Based Business Intelligence to Information Conservational Quantum-Fuzzy Cryptography — A Cellular Transformation of Bipolar Fuzzy Sets to Quantum Intelligence Machinery, IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, 2017. (2) Ground-0 Axioms vs. First Principles and Second Law: From the Geometry of Light and Logic of Photon to Mind-Light-Matter Unity-AI&QI, IEEE/CAA J. 2021. It seems a dramatic logical/mathematical bridge from AI to quantum intelligence and mind-light-matter unity. I do not think it is an easy matter to get the word "AI" "QI" "mind-light-matter unity" together to IEEE Journals in the classical world. Therefore, bashing the logical approach may not help. -- W727 ( talk) 11:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@ W727: I just read parts of your comments higher up. You're talking about the wave-particle duality as if it's something fundamental in quantum physics. It's not. It's an historical artefact dating back to De Broglie's Matter wave. Wave functions describe objects both as particles and waves at the same time without needing two separate theories to analyse the evolution of a system. Are you aware of that? Your "Ying Yang" symbol instead of being made with a black and a white part is actually a big dull gray circle. Feynstein ( talk) 04:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Feynstein: Thanks for the comment. I read a paper about De Broglie's natter wave and Bohm's causal wave. It seems to me they did not reach logically definable causality and mind-light-matter unity as Zhang presented (re. above). Do I have a "Ying Yang" symbol or a big dull gray circle? Confused. I know Yin-Yang can be black-white or red-blue. But in Bohr's Coat of Arms the Yin-Yang symbol is red-black. It seems you have more knowledge on this matter. -- W727 ( talk) 11:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
An article that may benefit from improvements in relation to climate change denialism (I've not checked for independent sources but the article currently describes its own views with its "scientists confuse" and "catastrophist" language). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
User RenatUK ( talk · contribs) repeatedly removes my contribution (diff) or changes it to mean the exact opposite.
As written, the article is intentionally misleading/fraudulent, because it neglects to mention that the imagery is high-quality Computer-generated imagery and not the real-world photographs they are easily mistaken for. It is also interesting to know how they are copyrighted to Creative Commons, being stills captured from a video release from Navalny's FBK, which is also nearly entirely computer-generated. Nonetheless, it should be their copyright and not the posters.
I provided a link to a video actually taken on site by YouTube channel Mash Video, which demonstrated that there are absolutely none of the extravagant luxury furnishings the computer animation features. It is merely an empty concrete shell with no interior furnishings whatsoever yet. This is documentary footage, which should speak for itself.
RenatUK ( talk · contribs) claims that Mash is either obscure, or not reliable due to being "pro-Kremlin" (which he happens to do with every Russian media) citing marginal sources and sources hidden behind the paywall. Now, even if it is labelled "pro-Kremlin" by somebody else, it is not necessarily false, being documentary footage touring the actual site. As opposed to fancy CGI intended to misrepresent itself as such? Incidentally, is my provided reference, Mash, a major new media outlet with an office and full-time editorial stuff, best known for their Telegram channel Mash on Telegram https://t.me/breakingmash with over 900000 subscribers. As you may well know, Telegram has a policy of non-cooperation with the Russian government, which has tried to shut it down on multiple occasions (via Forbes) Muchandr ( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
1. The library room is an exact replica of a room in the Czech National Library in Prague
2. The double-headed eagle seen on the wrought iron gates is the coat-of-arms of Montenegro, not Russia
[20]
Also note that the original Navalny's video misidentifies the source of no-flight zone as requested by the FSO (Federal Security Service, a new agency in charge of guarding government VIPs including Putin). The article text already corrected this to the real no-flight zone id really issue to the FSB for Krasnodar region, who are really really regular border guards and the cost guard. Which ought to surprise no one, given that the property is smack between the busiest port on the Russian Black Sea, Novorossiysk, and the busiest airport, Adler.
It is fringe context insulting to anyone's intelligence, because Putin already has a free use of an even larger and more luxurious government mansion at nearby [21] which he retains even as ex-President of Russia, free of charge. Why would he want to buy another one and pay the running costs? Muchandr ( talk) 08:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Needs more eyes on it ( page history) and there are also separate issues on the talk page that could use comments from those familiar with the topic. Crossroads -talk- 17:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Does yoga have a conspiracy theory problem? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Background: there exists a cottage industry of painting historical, mythical and fictional individuals as somehow being gay icons despite a lack of evidence. Anne Frank, Shakespeare. Robin Hood. You can always find some fringe source that supports the claim, but never any actual historians or social scientists.
This brings me to:
By my count the article has 1840 words out of a 3214 word article (57%) that discuss whether or not David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. In particular, the "Traditional Christian interpretation" section, despite millions of words written on other aspects of David and Jonathan, paints a picture of bible scholars only discussing whether they were gay.
In my opinion, this is far too much WP:WEIGHT given to a WP:FRINGE theory, but we all know what will happen if I try to reduce the sections on homoeroticism.
So, what to do? RfC? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
millions of words written on other aspects of David and Jonathan; what aspects do they describe? GPinkerton ( talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we need to require that any source is a longterm historian who has thoroughly studied this particular person in depth, otherwise the author has absolutely no hope of knowing what Anne Frank was "really like". That means: 1) No dabblers who flit from one subject to the next, writing a book on a different subject every year. 2) No authors from outside the history field, in fact no one from outside the subfield of WWII or mid-20th century history. 3) Absolutely no political activists, novelists, playwrights, etc. 4) Preferably someone who has written at least three or four books on Anne Frank or a closely related topic. That means even if the source is an article in the NYTimes (normally an RS), if it was written by a fashion editor trying to link a historical person to their favorite political cause then that's just an opinion by someone who doesn't have anything relevant to say about the subject. This is frankly just the normal procedure for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic.Obviously this advice can be adapted to other historical figures.In this case, I don't see that we have grounds to remove all reference to the idea that David and Jonathan were homoerotically involved. It seems to have been brought up too much to do so and to have made an impact on modern religious LGBT culture, and since the idea is out there, it educates readers who may otherwise be unaware to show them the arguments against. Still, I haven't read this article closely, so it's possible there is some unreliable material that can be cut.I will say that I much prefer this idea be covered in this article rather than twice in the articles on the individuals themselves, unduly weighting them. Crossroads -talk- 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
any historical or fictional character who has a close friendship with someone of the same sexis the best evidence we are ever going to get for a same-sex sexual relationship of any historical or fictional character. Besides rumour, a close friendship the best evidence any of their contemporaries (co-fictionaries?) would have had, given the risks involved, let alone the ancient historians and scripture-writers at centuries' remove from the hypothetical sweaty minutes. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Proposal - honestly, I suspect that the best thing might be to see whether David and Jonathan slash fiction is a notable topic - based on the sourcing of the existing article, I suspect that it is - and SPLIT the content. The real FRINGE view is that David and Jonathan were historical figures documented in the texts about them, and given the mainstream view that their relationship was not historical, its reception as homoerotic is a fairly normal part of the overall reception to their story in modern times. Of course social scientists aren't weighing in on this any more than they do in the case of other mythical or fictional characters, but that isn't in itself an argument that litcrit and even biblical critical scholarship aren't RS for how the story is received and appropriated more recently. Nor do any BLP issues arise. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has appeared in mainspace, placed by Arcturus. I attempted a bold redirect [24] but Arcturus has edit-warred it back into place [25] (ironically, citing WP:BRD and referring ro the COVID general sanctions, which this restoration was in breach of). This looks to me like a loving, detailed fringe WP:POVFORK of a by-now thorough debunked conspiracy theory. Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of cleanup and discovered that Physics Essays has published papers claiming to derive spacetime from consciousness, that energy conservation refutes relativity, that relativistic length contraction is a logical contradiction, and so forth. It's now listed among the "questionable" journals on Wikipedia:CITEWATCH. I've been looking into the articles that cite Physics Essays for their sources and have found a few that need attention.
XOR'easter ( talk) 20:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
bodiless consciousnessthat supposedly
takes place during near-death-experiences[27] is the latter. So is
A parallel nonphysical universe containing dreams, thoughts, emotions, and memories [...] based on dark matter[28]. That's His Dark Materials, not physics. The existence of an editorial board with some reputable affiliations just means that the editorial board isn't doing any editing. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The extent if any to which time and space exist outside human experience is an ongoing problem in philosophy and theoretical physics.in metaphysics philosophy, but there's no valid reason today to believe that physics rely on the mind or conscious observers (other than via some flawed interpretations) and much evidence points to the contrary. For the journal, if it publishes anything, I agree that it then depends on notability (we'll find better sources about the topic including criticism if so), but these also are primary sources and should be treated as such, as always the author, their credentials and if it's due also matter, — Paleo Neonate – 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
there's no valid reason today to believe that physics rely on the mind or conscious observersNot sure what you mean by that, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well. Science is conducted by conscious observers with minds. That doesn't mean that if there were no people that the universe would disappear.
hidden error overlooked for 130 yearsin the Michelson–Morley experiment [38], that is wrong [39] [40], that conscious observers send signals back in time to change quantum probabilities [41], that special relativity is unnecessary because we just didn't understand Newton hard enough [42] [43], that
radiation, matter and consciousnessare the
three ways in which existence (energy) manifests itself[44]... Whatever the editors are doing, it's not editing. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Per XOreaster and Tercer:
Hope someone finds these remarks useful. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 06:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I nominated Combinatorial hierarchy for deletion. -- mfb ( talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the current guidance on whether offensive fringe theories about BLPs warrant an article, even if some mainstream sources have reported on the theory. Case in point, the brand new Michelle Obama transgender conspiracy theory. Fram ( talk) 09:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry it's behind the NYTimes Paywall, but perhaps someone can provide a liberated link.
Thought this article was very interesting and wonder if SIFT technique might make a good article as there appears to be enough published sources on this to make a go of it (need to disambiguate from Selected-ion flow-tube mass spectrometry, perhaps.
“ | As a journalist who can be a bit of a snob about research methods, it makes me anxious to type this advice. Use Wikipedia for quick guidance! Spend less time torturing yourself with complex primary sources! A part of my brain hears this and reflexively worries these methods could be exploited by conspiracy theorists. But listening to Ms. Ladam and Mr. Caulfield describe disinformation dynamics, it seems that snobs like me have it backward. | ” |
jps ( talk) 14:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The user
Jean-Louis Pinault has created and extensively edited several articles related to
Milankovitch cycles and
orbital forcing. I have concerns that their edits may engage in self promotion and the promotion of fringe theories. The
Milankovitch's theory and
Subharmonic modes of the climate system articles created by them appear to be
WP:POVFORKs of
Milankovitch cycles, with the former up for a merge proposal with Milankovitch cycle. Their editing of the
Mid-Pleistocene Transition (which I reverted) and Milankovitch cycles articles was solely sourced to a
MDPI journal Journal of Marine Science and Engineering article entitled
Resonantly Forced Baroclinic Waves in the Oceans: A New Approach to Climate Variability of whom the sole author is also called "Jean-Louis Pinault", who is described as an "independent scholar".
according to google scholar Jean-Louis Pinault is a published academic, but their main expertise is not climate modelling, but groundwater. This
2014 blog post by climate change denialist
Denis Rancourt is the only independent source I can find about Pinault's ideas. The blog post states that Dr. Pinault has developed a model, which he supports with extensive statistical analyses of global spatio-temporal data, whereby relatively small solar variations (relative to the large variations occurring on the lifetime of the Sun) acquire leverage on global climate via an oceanic resonance tuning that operates on the global ocean oscillations on Earth.
stating that Pinault had been met with sufficiently significant resistance from the dominant scientific cabal, know as "peer review"
.This makes me think that Pinault's ideas about climate modelling are fringe, and possibly have connections to global warming denial. Their current editing focus is the
Rossby wave article, but I honestly don't know enough about the mathematics involved to make a judgement, but their other editing gives me pause.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This article by Martin Neukamm in The Panda's Thumb (blog) about a numerological nonsense paper pretending to find evidence for Intelligent Design made me search for "Maxim Makukov", one of the authors, in Wikipedia articles, and I found the paper used as a source in Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and Genetic code. Can someone who understands biochemistry take a look at it? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that the credibility of my reading of MOS:CLAIM will be questioned soon. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed a lost tribes bit from Yamaye, would appreciate a volunteer to watchlist it in case of recurrence. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Over at JP Sears (specifically Talk:JP_Sears#RFC_on_conspiracy_theorist_in_lede), we've got a user making bizarre claims about the Office for Science and Society with the aim of keeping Sears's promotion of conspiracy theories out of the article's lead. This article definitely needs more users from this board watching it. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A marvelous presentation by Irving Finkel, a curator at the British Museum - funny and informative. [49] Doug Weller talk 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of McGill University's Office for Science and Society in the context of an article about JP Sears. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § JP Sears. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Adrenal fatigue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be switching from pseudoscience to science and back a lot at the moment. May or may not need more attention. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Power nap ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could use a review; some of the sources are dubious or could be updated. I have particular concerns about the "stimulant nap" section's sourcing, but (some) other sources are (maybe) legitimate but old (1990s medical stuff) GPinkerton ( talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This one is called Coronil and was invented by Yoga Guru Ramdev. [50] See Ramdev#Claimed cure for COVID-19. I am starting to see the usual flood of SPAs sent here by OpIndia such as 157.36.207.177 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently tagged uncited, then deleted, claims that I considered undue and were apparently only sourced to the movie itself. Since it's contested I expressed my concerns at its talk page. More input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
From your edits and wording, I don't think you are a "conspiracist", but I am also not keen on some of your editorial skills. It requires considerable care to get articles on topics like these exactly correct and I caught a number of fairly egregious mistakes that makes me wonder whether you have sufficiently understood the sources you are using. jps ( talk) 14:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Another person who has own ideas about COVID-19. Somebody said on the Talk page that the article seems fringe-friendly. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual child abuse.
It looks to me like there is a QAnon infestation going on. YMMV.
jps ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to Jason Colavito. [51] Doug Weller talk 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
After having read this by a professional archaeologist, I took a look at the article. Am I right in thinking it needs an overhaul? Doug Weller talk 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be an obvious POV fork of Unidentified flying object to me. Thoughts? What is the best way forward for this? AFD? Redirect? - MrOllie ( talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This article about Devra Davis grossly misrepresents the subject as if she were somebody who mainly operates within mainstream epidemiology. She's actually best known for her fringe work as an anti-5G activist with The Environmental Health Trust, an organization that she founded. The article has a "controversies" section, which is always a sign that a promoter is seeking to white-wash a person's reputation, but this section oddly omits the most glaring controversy which is that she has been strongly criticized by mainstream publishers like Science Based Medicine for talking nonsense about Radio Frequency systems. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 10:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was previously called whole food. It has now been changed to Whole-food plant-based diet which is inaccurate. The article also states that a plant based diet reverses cardiovascular diseases. As of 2021 research is being done on this topic but there is currently no robust clinical evidence that supports this view. The consensus is that a plant-based diet can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease not reverse it.
The same content was added to the plant-based diet article which I removed [52]. See talk page. So we now have two plant based diet articles which is problematic. I suggest the whole-food plant-based diet article should be removed or reverted. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Wakefield fanboi and multivitamin salesman. Some stuff seems to be unsourced, according to a recent Talk page contribution. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Obsolete theory or pseudoscience? At the moment, Terrain theory is a redirect to Germ theory denialism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Article seems to be an ad space for colleges that sell that thing, sometimes containing a list of the n best providers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems like there is a lot of homeopathic hospital stuff we need to start weeding. I'll begin a list:
jps ( talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
These articles are about people and organizations relating to homeopathy. The information seems factual and somewhat well sourced. What is the problem? The fringe theory is homeopathy itself, attention should be on its article. If there is a problem here it is rather notability. Rollo ( talk) 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
There is yet again agitation at Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Spinning_off_accidental_leak_theory and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology to give credence to the fringe "Lab Leak" origin of SARS COV 2, feel free to assist if interested. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's a neatly threaded "oh fuck no" of my response to the @nymag's cover story of irresponsibility, asking "but what if" nCov2019 really was a lab escape. Protip, @nymag: leave What If to Marvel.And a virologist:
Baker is in no way qualified to write a deep dive about this topic unless it is regarded as the work of fiction this is. After all, this is the searing insight of a man who once published a entire collection of Literary with a capital L fantasies about people fucking trees.XOR'easter ( talk) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Most are probably already aware but in case, there's a related RSN thread: WP:RSN § Are New York Magazine and Infection Control Today reliable sources for the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab? — Paleo Neonate – 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Do any of you know the difference between serial passage and virus construction? Feynstein ( talk) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As happens from time to time, SPAs have been showing up to socionics and causing trouble. Crossroads -talk- 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: the article has been semiprotected for 6 months for rampant sockpuppetry. Thank goodness! People may still show up on the talk page, but this helps. Crossroads -talk- 05:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And its sequel, The Mahabharata Quest: The Alexander Secret. Too long, too pov, especially the leads. I think I brought it here a couple of years ago and several editors improved it, but the leads concern me. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a different virus, but a "new" user is insisting on a controversy section which feeds into the COVID lab leak conspiracy theories, using familiar dodgy sources (e.g. Yuri Deigin's). More eyes needed. Probably this article should be protected like others which have been under attack. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"QAnon cultivates interesting bedfellows. It's one of the things I've found most horribly fascinating about it. It's a conspiracy theory that represents the perfect apex of every exploitative cult tactic that con artists and snake-oil salespeople have used over the years—an inevitable evolutionary endpoint of the art on preying on peoples' desires. " -- QAnon has some weird overlaps with MMA, WWE, and Wellness Influencer Culture
I found the linked MIT Technology Review article [53] to be especially insightful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a page about homeopathic treatment for "a fishbone in their throat, or a splinter under the nail, or sliver in some other place" [54]
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
This one I did work on today quite a bit as it major changes had been made. It could still use some work but needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This article could use some eyes from those with more time than I currently have - the creator's been blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and I'm rather skeptical of any article about a medical treatment that cites sources such as "Energy of man’s body cures enlarged prostate" from the Times of India blog. Spicy ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Back in July there was a major discussion surrounding articles created by Peipsi-Pihkva about supposed "Pan-ethnic groups" such as Northwestern European people, which appear to have massive WP:SYNTH issues, see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Northwestern_European_people for a refresher. The discussion ultimately ended up with no action. Should these articles be taken to AfD? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems that someone has been too fanciful in ascribing descriptions of aliens to H.G.Wells, and somebody has compared them with the originals and found them lacking. Anybody interested? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", science fiction author H. G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes.[1]
References
There are open recent threads at the article's talk page about properly covering the topic and various proposed sources to assess. Since it's a perennial issue I thought a notification would be a good idea, — Paleo Neonate – 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Review of recent changes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! So, an editor who was POV pushing rather extreme interpretations of population dynamics was recently blocked. The worst offending content on most pages they edited, tends to get cleaned up during the course of normal editing. However, @ Nsae Comp: and I were having a really hard time cleaning up/reviewing the content on Human overpopulation and we could use some help. The topic is well discussed in the scholarly literature, but the way the page has been maintained for the last few years -- it has become a confusing mix of legitimate opinions about the topic, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It would be helpful -- if anyone is interested-- to get some additional attention on the page, Sadads ( talk) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Africologist has raised issues at Talk:Afrocentrism and has made major changes in Welsing's article that I think should be discussed first. At Talk:Frances Cress Welsing they argue that she is not an Afrocentrist. I'm on a semi-break right now until I get my study back in order so no time for this discussion. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
How would reading my contributions make it sound like "Afrocentricity is just a word for Afrocentrism at universities"? I fail to see how writing "they are not the same" reads as "they are the same in this context". They are simply not the same. Afrocentricity is a very specific idea in the field of Africana Studies (and it's various nomenclature: Black Studies, Pan-African Studies, African American Studies, Africology, etc.) Afrocentrism is a word that is used as a sort of catch-all term used by non-academics as well as academics who are not in Black studies fields and understand the difference. Therefore, among some academics who don't specialize (and non-academic alike) they will lump Afrocentricity in with Afrocentrism. For further clarity, I need to know what do you mean by difference in content. Do you mean the difference in the texts written on Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism? Africologist ( talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Asante may be used as a source to distinguish. However, to your earlier comment about understanding the properties of the two. I think that is the issue. One must understand the inherent difference between the two. I believe you still view them as similar things. Afrocentrism could/has encompass views on history, but there's no methodological framework in which it exists. It's just a collection of scholarly and (largely) unscholarly ideas mangled together by circumstance of confusion. However, Afrocentricity is not at all a set of ideas about history. So Afrocentricity wouldn't "see African influence in China and Mesoamerica". Afrocentricity is simply a theoretical paradigm "based on the idea that African people should re-assert a sense of agency" (Asante, Afrocentric Idea). It is also a paradigm that seeks the establishment of cultural plurality and not cultural hierarchy; so it does not adhere to supremacism. It is simply meant for the academic to write and describe the world while keeping centered the perspective of African people (in acknowledgement of the reality that there are a plurality of cultural perspectives and all are not the same). Blaut ("Eight Eurocentric Historians"), De Sousa Santos ("Epistemologies of the South"), and other European scholars, as well as some Asian scholars (Said, "Orientalism") have written about the way the European world has asserted their view of world-phenomena as universal and other cultural perspectives as "fringe" or marginal. Afrocentricity is simply the same critique that wishes to establish the African perspective in a non-hierarchical way. That is much different from some of the ideas espoused by people who have been placed under the label of Afrocentrism. Afrocentrists (those who are trained in the academy under the paradigm of Afrocentricity) are flexible scholars who utilize a range of scientific information from interests in other academic fields in order to create scholarship that both center African perspectives and provides unbiased scientific evidence. Would you like a list of articles/books? Africologist ( talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I am becoming more and more convinced that a new page called Afrocentricity should be made which can probably effectively deal with some of these WP:FRINGE disambiguation issues. User:Africologist is rightly identifying that there are two strands here: the fringe strand which is currently (perhaps overly) developed at Afrocentrism and the academic strand (centered around three scholars at Temple University) which does not yet have a home at Wikipedia. I am a little worried that all the scholars are at one institution as walled gardens can exist in some departments, as we all know. But for right now I'm not seeing many sources that critique this particular group as a cohesive unit that is making the argument that they are part-and-parcel to the fringe ideologies under the afrocentrism umbrella. If anyone knows of such, feel free to identify it.
I note that an article on afrocentricity was deleted 15 years ago as a neologism: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrocentricity. That may have been the correct WP:TOOSOON argument at the time, but the sources may be steadily indicating that it may be time to create a separate article. Should we start a draft? jps ( talk) 11:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this is about [67]. Was my revert correct? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Anti-psychiatry POV-pushing loud and clear at [68]. WP:PRIMARY studies are WP:MEDRS violations. See also WP:MEDDATE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Fringe author, a lot of self-sourcing of his ideas (which needs removal) and use of unreliable sources, eg parapsychologist Jeffrey Mishlove's YouTube channel. I found two reviews of his book Promethus and Atlas, one in Greg Johnson (white nationalist) Counter-Currents [69] by James O'Meara [70] and the other by Jason Colavito [71] in the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture published by Equinox Publishing (Sheffield). We can definitely use Jason's article. I'm not sure about the article in Jacobin I found. [72] Doug Weller talk 19:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
There has been an extensive discussion about the Plate theory (volcanism) article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Plate_theory_(volcanism). "Plate Theory" appears to a minority view in academic geology that mantle plumes aren't real phenomenon and that all volcanism, even those away from plate boundaries can be entirely explained by plate tectonics. The main promoter of this theory appears to be Professor Gillian Foulger of Durham University, a respected academic. For something as complex as mantle geophysics its difficult to get a sense of how seriously this idea is taken by the wider academic community (her book on the topic "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy" from 2011 has been cited over 200 times). As it stands the article seems like to me (and many other contributors at WikiProject Geology) to be a WP:POVFORK that should be selectively merged into another article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is also Gfoulger ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which based on the name I think can be safely assumed to be Foulger. This account has only a handful of edits but was used to oppose the merge of Plate theory (volcanism) into Intraplate volcanism at Talk:Intraplate volcanism. If there is sufficiently strong evidence that SphericalSong is also Foulger, maybe a sockpuppet investigation is in order. Lennart97 ( talk) 01:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Plate theory (volcanism) for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plate theory (volcanism). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Recent updating of this and other pages to reflect current geological thinking, i.e., that there are two competing theories to explain the region ("Plate" and "Plume"), has been purged, with explanation given earlier on this page. This explanation is based on the perceived numbers of people supporting the two hypotheses and the identities of those involved, which are irrelevant arguments. "SphericalSong" is accused of being a sockpuppet of Gillian Foulger, which is not correct. If I post something, I sign my name.
The purging of the revisions violates the statement at the top of this "fringe theory" page, i.e. "The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained." In any case the "Plate" hypothesis has moved beyond a fringe theory, and to present otherwise is to lag behind current geological thinking. The editings of the pages purged specifically revised them to present the two hypotheses in a neutral and balanced way–the original pages presented only one theory. It is now generally accepted that the Plume hypothesis cannot explain many so-called "hotspots", on strong geological grounds. –G Foulger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfoulger ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. All those insertions basically stating 'One view is X, but due to problems with that Y explains it as...' are not acceptable on those grounds. Proposing new ideas is part of the scientific process, but they can't be argued for using Wikipedia. It is not for righting great wrongs. Conflict of interest ( WP:COI) is also something that editors have to watch out for. Crossroads -talk- 06:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular fieldwhich "Plate Theory" comes under. As the chief advocate of "plate theory" you are not a neutral arbiter when it comes to the support of the theory amongst the wider academic community. From what I have read, mantle plumes are widely accepted and opposition to them comes from a vocal minority. The edits by SphericalSong attempted to present non-mantle plume theories as more prominent than they were. I do agree that many hotspot articles need expansion, but SphericalSong's edit were a poor foundation to base them on. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 07:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There is some more editing along these points here. What concerns me is that from what I can see in the literature, the Society hotspot is not nearly as commonly contested as some other hotspots. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
There is speculation over the existence of ghosts. Sources cited are ghostbusters and ghosthunters. Needs work. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Paranormal investigator being discussed at WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Who should be mentioned as influencing this occult idea of Jung's? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
There is an on-going dispute with a user "Saxon Celt" who has been removing sourced content from Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and Mark Collett. The user says he is removing "defamation" which is not true. What he has removed is sourced content. The same user also tried to whitewash these articles for certain criticisms in the past. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Parental_Alienation For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
[74] Neutral article or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:59, 23 March 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 case someone would like to work on this, I noticed that this article directly quotes Rockwell's view of environmentalism using a primary source but lacks any treatment of such nonsense... — Paleo Neonate – 22:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the actual problem is hereI think the problem is that the third party sources you found are not in the article. Instead, the statement is sourced to Rockwell himself. Also,
the quote itself ought to come from a primary sourceis problematic for fringe sources and especially problematic for hate propaganda. There is a reason why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. Academic rigour works only if the sources one uses also apply academic rigour. See GIGO.
I'm wondering when "refuting" him got to be something we, in the voice of WP, need to be doing in his article.If the reliable sources see his position as fringe, then yes, that is what we need to do.
My personal reaction is that that impulse comes all too close to proving his point.Hmmm... so, if someone disagrees with him, that means he is right. Sounds like Catch-22 to me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Matter to be aware of: Talk:Straightwashing#Straightwashed artists Crossroads -talk- 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted three times already this morning... XOR'easter ( talk) 15:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
New article about a recent web video series, sources appear to be press releases with claims like: not by believers, not to promote beliefs but explore, scientific, etc. — Paleo Neonate – 08:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
— Paleo Neonate – 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful that this is notable woo, but wanted to make people aware one way or the other. Mangoe ( talk) 20:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
May become more active again, see [1]. More eyes could be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is another conspiracy theory I never heard of before today. Worth a separate article?
Despite Google CEO Sundar Pichai being grilled about it in front of the House Judiciary Committee, it has the usual problem with Internet conspiracy theories, which is that only sources that cover the Internet (Vice, Vox, Dalydot) cover it. I don't think we will see this on CNN or NYT unless someone gets arrested in connection with it.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion is taking place here: Talk:Frédéric Chopin#New article: Sexuality of Chopin
I would have AfD'ed it but someone tagged it for merger first. There's an RfC on the same talk page about how to cover the material. Crossroads -talk- 05:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
It was converted to a redirect and taken to RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin. The RfD is meant to cover whether it should stay a redirect or be a separate article. Comments welcome. Crossroads -talk- 22:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Could probably use attention of those familiar with hermeticism. Mangoe ( talk) 13:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of WP:MEDRS? Doug Weller talk 08:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This article in relation to a diet may benefit from more page watchers. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 22:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I fear our article on
Jaggi Vasudev (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) (aka "Sadhguru") takes an insufficiently critical stance. His dubious positions on politics and the laws of physics are only given place at the bottom of the article, and while much is made of his purported public speaking events and connections (though less of the financial and ideological ones) with the president of India, I feel not enough is made of his legal vicissitudes, seeing as he reportedly killed and hurriedly cremated his wife before fleeing to the US and his disciples all swore they witnessed his spouse's conscious abandonment of this life and ascent into higher planes through her powers of spiritual advancement, etc. I can find little independent evidence, for instance, of the claim he addressed the House of Lords, though he did apparently appear at Davos for a meditation session. Or something.
GPinkerton (
talk) 04:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"Pro-government media gave widespread publicity to Bandara who claimed the formula was revealed to him by Kali, a Hindu goddess of death and destruction of evil... The government has scrambled to distance itself from Bandara, whose preparation was approved as a food supplement by the official indigenous medicine unit." [2] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Fresh input is requested in recent discussions at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, on the question of the relationship between Holocaust denial and the Great Barrington Declaration's author(s). GPinkerton ( talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Spotted in today's AfD log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Your comments welcome:
Dueling Banjoes?
jps ( talk) 20:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The Mao Zedong page needs more eyes, in particular in regards to what appears to be revisionist histories that portray Mao's actions as having a positive impact and making extraordinary claims about his actions (e.g. the Cultural Revolution is responsible for the economic growth that mainstream scholars attribute to Deng Xiapeng's liberalizing reforms). An examination of the cited sources, as well as the broader academic literature, is needed to make sure that fringe viewpoints are not given UNDUE weight. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
See also the discussion at WT:MOSWTW. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll start with stating simply that does Marjorie Taylor Greene believe in and espouse conspiracy theories (i.e. is a conspiracy theorist)? isn't really the question here. The obvious answer is yes, from multiple RS. I also dismiss any arguments regarding bias from the same, given that the sources used to support the claim include AP, the Independent, AL.com among others.
This is about the weight applied to her beliefs in fringe theories, as it relates to the lede. There may be some nuance that I'm missing, but this is I think a reasonable starting point. Jdphenix ( talk) 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
One note - Greene is the only serving or served 21st century American politician that has conspiracy theorist in the entire article in Wikivoice. Only one other article, Donald Trump, has the phrase, but in an attributed quote. Other articles are candidates who failed to be elected. Jdphenix ( talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it in the lede first sentence. Pretty much every main-stream news story I see that mentions her in detail, and some that only do so in passing, refers to this in some manner. In part this is because they have so little to otherwise contextualize her, but it is what it is. It shouldn't be whitewashed simply due to her election success - that made her also a congresswoman, not instead a congresswoman. Agricolae ( talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
One other question - should the level of discussion that any particular option may attract be a factor in our decision here? Jdphenix ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
level of discussionon the article's Talk page, then no. Some options will undoubtedly make people upset, but it's not our job to placate them. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Calling her a conspiracy theorist is giving her too much credit in my opinion, because its somehow implies deep thought. I'd say something like, "Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974) is an American politician, businesswoman, who supports multiple baseless conspiracy theories." Without the baseless theories she propagates and acts on I doubt we'd know much about her. Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
the conspiracy theorist just elected to Congress from Georgia[3]. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to keep this sane, keep the discussion above and add reasonably possible outcomes here. Hopefully it will be obvious what we settle on.
I don't see why this was kept the last time around, but in any case this needs review/work from people who know both about fringe physics and real QM stuff. THe whole thing smells off to me but I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. Mangoe ( talk) 04:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Great Barrington Declaration concerning whether long lists of signatories make a manifesto less FRINGE. Additional perspectives on this could be helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed this for the first time. May need more watchers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know if I should come here with this, or go to WPMED. I just wanted some bright people to see if they see what I see. - Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: Now a redirect, — Paleo Neonate – 06:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that this article is curated to push a race realist POV. I can find no sources which identify something called the "Black Egyptian hypothesis" as a coherent proposal made, for example, in any serious literature.
jps ( talk) 22:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: Now deleted by consensus and a redirect, — Paleo Neonate – 06:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
In which it is discussed whether scientists see this as pseudoscience, or not. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: this was still about Tuomisto's claims (as if an apparently misrepresented poll would change that the AAH is not science) and the editor who was recently pushing it seems to have stopped for now, — Paleo Neonate – 04:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Science Fictions" -- A comic based upon the work of Stuart J. Ritchie: [4] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Key quote:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
For editors interested in fringe viewpoints on the subject of abortion, the article Geneva Consensus Declaration could do with some watchers. (And assuming a response is forthcoming to my recent edits, some additional attention as well). Currently, the central claim seems to be that faithfully reporting the criticism published by RS is a manifestation of systemic bias. Sunrise ( talk) 15:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A moral pov hardly qualifies as fringe. PailSimon ( talk) 00:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it a hoax, and if so, a notable one? Deletion is being discussed now. Mangoe ( talk) 17:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Linking at closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map for archives, — Paleo Neonate – 04:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It's the question of the moment at the Talk page of
This would seem to be a WP:FRINGE-pertinent question. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was recently created by a new account, probably a sock-puppet [6]. Kirkegaard is a well known fringe figure associated with eugenics. There was a previous deletion discussion. Kirkegaard himself was banned from Wikipedia [7] in 2019. Any idea what to do here? The article contains no criticism of his fringe theories and seems to play Kirkegaard in an entirely positive light. Should there be a new afd? Or should the article be redirected/fixed? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much about [Rationalwiki] but the articles on race theorists and intelligence researchers appear to be too negative. I was recently asked by Emil Kirkegaard to personally write a Wikipedia article which I have now done on Wikipedia without any of the criticisms found on this website about him. Wikipedia has better traffic than RationalWiki. Our aim is to get his Wikipedia article to the top above the RationalWiki article on the first page of Google which contains too many criticisms of Kirkegaard.
More and more people are waking up to the fact racial intelligence is a reality. The Wikipedia article for Emil Kirkegaard will be above the RationalWiki in less than a month. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I was interested in knowing why you guys hate Kirkegaard so much but I see now this appear to be an anti-white man website. You seem to smear white intelligence researchers as "pseudoscientists" but we are published in peer-review
All new and stubby. Is there such a thing? Who knows? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
More input is needed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#MEDLEAD. Crossroads -talk- 06:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
After a long period of quiet, a new account and some embedded WP:SPAs have popped up at over at cryptozoology (see for example Talk:Cryptozoology#Henry_Gee's_2004_Nature_article_quote). If you're not already watching this article for activity, it is periodically a hotbed for fringe promoters angry about the numerous sources we have on the article listing cryptozoology as a pseudoscientific subculture. :bloodofox: ( talk) 09:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Also see the amazingly convoluted Talk:Cryptozoology#Concerns_that_the_article_does_not_meet_NPOV_standards,_proposed_revision_for_introductory_text, and the bluntly familiar Talk:Cryptozoology#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_5_January_2021_(2). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Sphinx water erosion hypothesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is too generous by half. Needs a review and a toning down of the fringe. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Is Quantum cognition actually a thing? The article describes it as an "emerging field which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception.". "Quantum cognition" is apparently distinct from Orchestrated objective reduction the fringe theory pushed by Penrose and others that consciousness originates at a quantum level via microtubules. The article provides no critique of the methodology. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Avi Loeb at Harvard, with a list of credentials as long as your arm, thinks it did. [9] Our article on him is out of date because he at first thought ʻOumuamua was a meteor. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This theory will likely grow legs. There is a two-page spotlight article in the latest issue of Guardian Weekly, 5 February 2021, Vol 204, No7, pp30-31 -- Whiteguru ( talk) 21:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
To answer the question posed by the OP, NO, it was me, joyriding. - Roxy the astronaut. wooF 14:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure whether to ask this here or at WP:CATEGORIZATION (so let me know if this is the wrong place)... a while ago, I included our article on Robert Lomas in cat:Pseudohistorians - based on what various reliable sources said about his books and theories. This categorization has been challenged by an editor who feels it is libelous for us to include him in that category. Rather than engage in an edit war, I figured I would ask for additional opinions. Is the categorization appropriate or not? Blueboar ( talk) 14:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I biefly searched and found various criticism in the sense of pseudohistory but mostly by non-notable blog authors, among bookstore links (it makes me wonder if the article meets BLPN?) But also found this mention by Colavito: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/searching-for-the-templar-merica-star . Anyone can infer pseudoarchaeology and pseudohistory from reading it, although those terms are not used as-is (except "pseudo-science" in a user comment). It could serve to add yet more attributed criticism but I'm ambivalent about if the category is necessary. — Paleo Neonate – 21:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Pretty persistent denialist demanding extraordinary evidence for the "extraordinary claim" that climatologists are doing their job right. Also does not understand what Talk pages are for. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Doug Weller for this [13]. In my view a disruptive edit like this [14], with a mendacious edit summary, would warrant an immediate block. - Darouet ( talk) 15:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
At this Creationist archaeologist's article User:Niqmadu22 is deleting the fact that another archaeologist is also a Creationist and adding a Creationist site to the external links. An earlier relevant discussion is at Talk:Bryant G. Wood#PROFRINGE controversy. The OP there is no longer active having stopped editing shortly after the discussion (and after I gave them an AP alert), but I'll ping the rest: @ ජපස, Joe Roe, Hob Gadling, and Tgeorgescu:. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A commercial weight-loss programme without much evidential support. Has seen much recent activity following an apparently abortive WP:DR attempt (of which I was a participant). [15] More eyes could help I think. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We might want to keep an eye on W727 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have a real world commitment and cannot deal with this right now.
Samples:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The word "QUANTUM" does not mean "quantum mysticism."If the whole word is capitalized, then, yes, it does.
My brain is sending me little warning messages. Is this another one channelling Deepak? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: @ XOR'easter: Not possible. A formal logical system that is claimed a logical unification of the classical and the quantum worlds with different applications can only be academic and noble. Reputable publications and recognitions can be found on this topic. Logically definable causality should be very significant in science and AI, especially, in mind-boddy unification. If the bottom is reached, it is formal science. If the bottom has not been reached, lets getting to the bottom. Please, no hasty conclusions. -- User:W727
@ W727: I'm not sure the word "Quantum" means what you think it means. You're talking about philosophy here, much like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The difference is that this interpretation starts from the physics itself. The theory you're talking about starts with "Ying-Yang" being the most fundamental property of the universe, whatever that means. I have spent enough all-nighters doing 50 pagers quantum mechanics homework to know that what you're talking about is not included in the mainstream view of it. If it ever were to be included here, it would require at least a few physicists to cite that work in order to give it some credibility. And I mean, you don't get to touch pages like causality and the 2nd law of thermodynamics without having VERY solid stuff. There are plenty of pseudoscientists who think that "Einstein was wrong" enough at it is. [16] I looked at the work done by this Wen-Ran Zhang [17] and it's not exactly what one would call mainstream. Feynstein ( talk) 18:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Feynstein: To my knowledge Zhang's work is in computing and information science that belong to formal science. Einstein did say "Physics constitutes a logical system of thought." But physicists are not logicians, computer and information scientists are. Now, should we wait for physicists to become logicians so that they can reinvent logically definable causality? Is Einstein's physics mainstream?— Preceding unsigned comment added by W727 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@
W727: This sentence from Zhang: "Based on bipolar dynamic logic and bipolar quantum linear algebra, a causal theory of YinYang bipolar atom is introduced in a completely background independent geometry that transcends spacetime. The causal theory leads to an equilibrium-based super symmetrical quantum cosmology of negative-positive energies.
" means exactly nothing. "Bipolar quantum linear algebra": not a thing. "The causal theory leads to an equilibrium-based super symmetrical quantum cosmology of negative-positive energies"... This one I'm not even commenting. It has the hallmarks of quack pseudoscience. It's literally a bunch of buzzwords put together. The rest of the article unironically looks like the original
Sokal affair paper. And yes, relativity is pretty mainstream. GPS wouldn't work of it wasn't for relativistic corrections.
Feynstein (
talk) 04:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Feynstein: Thanks for the message. The bashing of the causal and logical approach to quantum theory seems to me unjustified. To my knowledge definable causality has been a major pursuit in quantum theory without success. The algebraic model seems provide a mathematical bridge from the quantum world to the classic world for mind-matter unity. I read his succeeding IEEE Journal papers (1) From Equilibrium-Based Business Intelligence to Information Conservational Quantum-Fuzzy Cryptography — A Cellular Transformation of Bipolar Fuzzy Sets to Quantum Intelligence Machinery, IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, 2017. (2) Ground-0 Axioms vs. First Principles and Second Law: From the Geometry of Light and Logic of Photon to Mind-Light-Matter Unity-AI&QI, IEEE/CAA J. 2021. It seems a dramatic logical/mathematical bridge from AI to quantum intelligence and mind-light-matter unity. I do not think it is an easy matter to get the word "AI" "QI" "mind-light-matter unity" together to IEEE Journals in the classical world. Therefore, bashing the logical approach may not help. -- W727 ( talk) 11:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@ W727: I just read parts of your comments higher up. You're talking about the wave-particle duality as if it's something fundamental in quantum physics. It's not. It's an historical artefact dating back to De Broglie's Matter wave. Wave functions describe objects both as particles and waves at the same time without needing two separate theories to analyse the evolution of a system. Are you aware of that? Your "Ying Yang" symbol instead of being made with a black and a white part is actually a big dull gray circle. Feynstein ( talk) 04:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Feynstein: Thanks for the comment. I read a paper about De Broglie's natter wave and Bohm's causal wave. It seems to me they did not reach logically definable causality and mind-light-matter unity as Zhang presented (re. above). Do I have a "Ying Yang" symbol or a big dull gray circle? Confused. I know Yin-Yang can be black-white or red-blue. But in Bohr's Coat of Arms the Yin-Yang symbol is red-black. It seems you have more knowledge on this matter. -- W727 ( talk) 11:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
An article that may benefit from improvements in relation to climate change denialism (I've not checked for independent sources but the article currently describes its own views with its "scientists confuse" and "catastrophist" language). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 06:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
User RenatUK ( talk · contribs) repeatedly removes my contribution (diff) or changes it to mean the exact opposite.
As written, the article is intentionally misleading/fraudulent, because it neglects to mention that the imagery is high-quality Computer-generated imagery and not the real-world photographs they are easily mistaken for. It is also interesting to know how they are copyrighted to Creative Commons, being stills captured from a video release from Navalny's FBK, which is also nearly entirely computer-generated. Nonetheless, it should be their copyright and not the posters.
I provided a link to a video actually taken on site by YouTube channel Mash Video, which demonstrated that there are absolutely none of the extravagant luxury furnishings the computer animation features. It is merely an empty concrete shell with no interior furnishings whatsoever yet. This is documentary footage, which should speak for itself.
RenatUK ( talk · contribs) claims that Mash is either obscure, or not reliable due to being "pro-Kremlin" (which he happens to do with every Russian media) citing marginal sources and sources hidden behind the paywall. Now, even if it is labelled "pro-Kremlin" by somebody else, it is not necessarily false, being documentary footage touring the actual site. As opposed to fancy CGI intended to misrepresent itself as such? Incidentally, is my provided reference, Mash, a major new media outlet with an office and full-time editorial stuff, best known for their Telegram channel Mash on Telegram https://t.me/breakingmash with over 900000 subscribers. As you may well know, Telegram has a policy of non-cooperation with the Russian government, which has tried to shut it down on multiple occasions (via Forbes) Muchandr ( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
1. The library room is an exact replica of a room in the Czech National Library in Prague
2. The double-headed eagle seen on the wrought iron gates is the coat-of-arms of Montenegro, not Russia
[20]
Also note that the original Navalny's video misidentifies the source of no-flight zone as requested by the FSO (Federal Security Service, a new agency in charge of guarding government VIPs including Putin). The article text already corrected this to the real no-flight zone id really issue to the FSB for Krasnodar region, who are really really regular border guards and the cost guard. Which ought to surprise no one, given that the property is smack between the busiest port on the Russian Black Sea, Novorossiysk, and the busiest airport, Adler.
It is fringe context insulting to anyone's intelligence, because Putin already has a free use of an even larger and more luxurious government mansion at nearby [21] which he retains even as ex-President of Russia, free of charge. Why would he want to buy another one and pay the running costs? Muchandr ( talk) 08:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Needs more eyes on it ( page history) and there are also separate issues on the talk page that could use comments from those familiar with the topic. Crossroads -talk- 17:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Does yoga have a conspiracy theory problem? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Background: there exists a cottage industry of painting historical, mythical and fictional individuals as somehow being gay icons despite a lack of evidence. Anne Frank, Shakespeare. Robin Hood. You can always find some fringe source that supports the claim, but never any actual historians or social scientists.
This brings me to:
By my count the article has 1840 words out of a 3214 word article (57%) that discuss whether or not David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. In particular, the "Traditional Christian interpretation" section, despite millions of words written on other aspects of David and Jonathan, paints a picture of bible scholars only discussing whether they were gay.
In my opinion, this is far too much WP:WEIGHT given to a WP:FRINGE theory, but we all know what will happen if I try to reduce the sections on homoeroticism.
So, what to do? RfC? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
millions of words written on other aspects of David and Jonathan; what aspects do they describe? GPinkerton ( talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we need to require that any source is a longterm historian who has thoroughly studied this particular person in depth, otherwise the author has absolutely no hope of knowing what Anne Frank was "really like". That means: 1) No dabblers who flit from one subject to the next, writing a book on a different subject every year. 2) No authors from outside the history field, in fact no one from outside the subfield of WWII or mid-20th century history. 3) Absolutely no political activists, novelists, playwrights, etc. 4) Preferably someone who has written at least three or four books on Anne Frank or a closely related topic. That means even if the source is an article in the NYTimes (normally an RS), if it was written by a fashion editor trying to link a historical person to their favorite political cause then that's just an opinion by someone who doesn't have anything relevant to say about the subject. This is frankly just the normal procedure for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic.Obviously this advice can be adapted to other historical figures.In this case, I don't see that we have grounds to remove all reference to the idea that David and Jonathan were homoerotically involved. It seems to have been brought up too much to do so and to have made an impact on modern religious LGBT culture, and since the idea is out there, it educates readers who may otherwise be unaware to show them the arguments against. Still, I haven't read this article closely, so it's possible there is some unreliable material that can be cut.I will say that I much prefer this idea be covered in this article rather than twice in the articles on the individuals themselves, unduly weighting them. Crossroads -talk- 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
any historical or fictional character who has a close friendship with someone of the same sexis the best evidence we are ever going to get for a same-sex sexual relationship of any historical or fictional character. Besides rumour, a close friendship the best evidence any of their contemporaries (co-fictionaries?) would have had, given the risks involved, let alone the ancient historians and scripture-writers at centuries' remove from the hypothetical sweaty minutes. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Proposal - honestly, I suspect that the best thing might be to see whether David and Jonathan slash fiction is a notable topic - based on the sourcing of the existing article, I suspect that it is - and SPLIT the content. The real FRINGE view is that David and Jonathan were historical figures documented in the texts about them, and given the mainstream view that their relationship was not historical, its reception as homoerotic is a fairly normal part of the overall reception to their story in modern times. Of course social scientists aren't weighing in on this any more than they do in the case of other mythical or fictional characters, but that isn't in itself an argument that litcrit and even biblical critical scholarship aren't RS for how the story is received and appropriated more recently. Nor do any BLP issues arise. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has appeared in mainspace, placed by Arcturus. I attempted a bold redirect [24] but Arcturus has edit-warred it back into place [25] (ironically, citing WP:BRD and referring ro the COVID general sanctions, which this restoration was in breach of). This looks to me like a loving, detailed fringe WP:POVFORK of a by-now thorough debunked conspiracy theory. Thoughts? Alexbrn ( talk) 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I was doing a bit of cleanup and discovered that Physics Essays has published papers claiming to derive spacetime from consciousness, that energy conservation refutes relativity, that relativistic length contraction is a logical contradiction, and so forth. It's now listed among the "questionable" journals on Wikipedia:CITEWATCH. I've been looking into the articles that cite Physics Essays for their sources and have found a few that need attention.
XOR'easter ( talk) 20:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
bodiless consciousnessthat supposedly
takes place during near-death-experiences[27] is the latter. So is
A parallel nonphysical universe containing dreams, thoughts, emotions, and memories [...] based on dark matter[28]. That's His Dark Materials, not physics. The existence of an editorial board with some reputable affiliations just means that the editorial board isn't doing any editing. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The extent if any to which time and space exist outside human experience is an ongoing problem in philosophy and theoretical physics.in metaphysics philosophy, but there's no valid reason today to believe that physics rely on the mind or conscious observers (other than via some flawed interpretations) and much evidence points to the contrary. For the journal, if it publishes anything, I agree that it then depends on notability (we'll find better sources about the topic including criticism if so), but these also are primary sources and should be treated as such, as always the author, their credentials and if it's due also matter, — Paleo Neonate – 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
there's no valid reason today to believe that physics rely on the mind or conscious observersNot sure what you mean by that, but perhaps I didn't explain myself well. Science is conducted by conscious observers with minds. That doesn't mean that if there were no people that the universe would disappear.
hidden error overlooked for 130 yearsin the Michelson–Morley experiment [38], that is wrong [39] [40], that conscious observers send signals back in time to change quantum probabilities [41], that special relativity is unnecessary because we just didn't understand Newton hard enough [42] [43], that
radiation, matter and consciousnessare the
three ways in which existence (energy) manifests itself[44]... Whatever the editors are doing, it's not editing. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Per XOreaster and Tercer:
Hope someone finds these remarks useful. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 06:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I nominated Combinatorial hierarchy for deletion. -- mfb ( talk) 21:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the current guidance on whether offensive fringe theories about BLPs warrant an article, even if some mainstream sources have reported on the theory. Case in point, the brand new Michelle Obama transgender conspiracy theory. Fram ( talk) 09:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry it's behind the NYTimes Paywall, but perhaps someone can provide a liberated link.
Thought this article was very interesting and wonder if SIFT technique might make a good article as there appears to be enough published sources on this to make a go of it (need to disambiguate from Selected-ion flow-tube mass spectrometry, perhaps.
“ | As a journalist who can be a bit of a snob about research methods, it makes me anxious to type this advice. Use Wikipedia for quick guidance! Spend less time torturing yourself with complex primary sources! A part of my brain hears this and reflexively worries these methods could be exploited by conspiracy theorists. But listening to Ms. Ladam and Mr. Caulfield describe disinformation dynamics, it seems that snobs like me have it backward. | ” |
jps ( talk) 14:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The user
Jean-Louis Pinault has created and extensively edited several articles related to
Milankovitch cycles and
orbital forcing. I have concerns that their edits may engage in self promotion and the promotion of fringe theories. The
Milankovitch's theory and
Subharmonic modes of the climate system articles created by them appear to be
WP:POVFORKs of
Milankovitch cycles, with the former up for a merge proposal with Milankovitch cycle. Their editing of the
Mid-Pleistocene Transition (which I reverted) and Milankovitch cycles articles was solely sourced to a
MDPI journal Journal of Marine Science and Engineering article entitled
Resonantly Forced Baroclinic Waves in the Oceans: A New Approach to Climate Variability of whom the sole author is also called "Jean-Louis Pinault", who is described as an "independent scholar".
according to google scholar Jean-Louis Pinault is a published academic, but their main expertise is not climate modelling, but groundwater. This
2014 blog post by climate change denialist
Denis Rancourt is the only independent source I can find about Pinault's ideas. The blog post states that Dr. Pinault has developed a model, which he supports with extensive statistical analyses of global spatio-temporal data, whereby relatively small solar variations (relative to the large variations occurring on the lifetime of the Sun) acquire leverage on global climate via an oceanic resonance tuning that operates on the global ocean oscillations on Earth.
stating that Pinault had been met with sufficiently significant resistance from the dominant scientific cabal, know as "peer review"
.This makes me think that Pinault's ideas about climate modelling are fringe, and possibly have connections to global warming denial. Their current editing focus is the
Rossby wave article, but I honestly don't know enough about the mathematics involved to make a judgement, but their other editing gives me pause.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This article by Martin Neukamm in The Panda's Thumb (blog) about a numerological nonsense paper pretending to find evidence for Intelligent Design made me search for "Maxim Makukov", one of the authors, in Wikipedia articles, and I found the paper used as a source in Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase and Genetic code. Can someone who understands biochemistry take a look at it? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that the credibility of my reading of MOS:CLAIM will be questioned soon. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just removed a lost tribes bit from Yamaye, would appreciate a volunteer to watchlist it in case of recurrence. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Over at JP Sears (specifically Talk:JP_Sears#RFC_on_conspiracy_theorist_in_lede), we've got a user making bizarre claims about the Office for Science and Society with the aim of keeping Sears's promotion of conspiracy theories out of the article's lead. This article definitely needs more users from this board watching it. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A marvelous presentation by Irving Finkel, a curator at the British Museum - funny and informative. [49] Doug Weller talk 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of McGill University's Office for Science and Society in the context of an article about JP Sears. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § JP Sears. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Adrenal fatigue ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be switching from pseudoscience to science and back a lot at the moment. May or may not need more attention. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Power nap ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could use a review; some of the sources are dubious or could be updated. I have particular concerns about the "stimulant nap" section's sourcing, but (some) other sources are (maybe) legitimate but old (1990s medical stuff) GPinkerton ( talk) 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This one is called Coronil and was invented by Yoga Guru Ramdev. [50] See Ramdev#Claimed cure for COVID-19. I am starting to see the usual flood of SPAs sent here by OpIndia such as 157.36.207.177 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently tagged uncited, then deleted, claims that I considered undue and were apparently only sourced to the movie itself. Since it's contested I expressed my concerns at its talk page. More input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
From your edits and wording, I don't think you are a "conspiracist", but I am also not keen on some of your editorial skills. It requires considerable care to get articles on topics like these exactly correct and I caught a number of fairly egregious mistakes that makes me wonder whether you have sufficiently understood the sources you are using. jps ( talk) 14:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Another person who has own ideas about COVID-19. Somebody said on the Talk page that the article seems fringe-friendly. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual child abuse.
It looks to me like there is a QAnon infestation going on. YMMV.
jps ( talk) 19:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to Jason Colavito. [51] Doug Weller talk 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
After having read this by a professional archaeologist, I took a look at the article. Am I right in thinking it needs an overhaul? Doug Weller talk 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be an obvious POV fork of Unidentified flying object to me. Thoughts? What is the best way forward for this? AFD? Redirect? - MrOllie ( talk) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This article about Devra Davis grossly misrepresents the subject as if she were somebody who mainly operates within mainstream epidemiology. She's actually best known for her fringe work as an anti-5G activist with The Environmental Health Trust, an organization that she founded. The article has a "controversies" section, which is always a sign that a promoter is seeking to white-wash a person's reputation, but this section oddly omits the most glaring controversy which is that she has been strongly criticized by mainstream publishers like Science Based Medicine for talking nonsense about Radio Frequency systems. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 10:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was previously called whole food. It has now been changed to Whole-food plant-based diet which is inaccurate. The article also states that a plant based diet reverses cardiovascular diseases. As of 2021 research is being done on this topic but there is currently no robust clinical evidence that supports this view. The consensus is that a plant-based diet can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease not reverse it.
The same content was added to the plant-based diet article which I removed [52]. See talk page. So we now have two plant based diet articles which is problematic. I suggest the whole-food plant-based diet article should be removed or reverted. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Wakefield fanboi and multivitamin salesman. Some stuff seems to be unsourced, according to a recent Talk page contribution. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Obsolete theory or pseudoscience? At the moment, Terrain theory is a redirect to Germ theory denialism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Article seems to be an ad space for colleges that sell that thing, sometimes containing a list of the n best providers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems like there is a lot of homeopathic hospital stuff we need to start weeding. I'll begin a list:
jps ( talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
These articles are about people and organizations relating to homeopathy. The information seems factual and somewhat well sourced. What is the problem? The fringe theory is homeopathy itself, attention should be on its article. If there is a problem here it is rather notability. Rollo ( talk) 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
There is yet again agitation at Talk:Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Spinning_off_accidental_leak_theory and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology to give credence to the fringe "Lab Leak" origin of SARS COV 2, feel free to assist if interested. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's a neatly threaded "oh fuck no" of my response to the @nymag's cover story of irresponsibility, asking "but what if" nCov2019 really was a lab escape. Protip, @nymag: leave What If to Marvel.And a virologist:
Baker is in no way qualified to write a deep dive about this topic unless it is regarded as the work of fiction this is. After all, this is the searing insight of a man who once published a entire collection of Literary with a capital L fantasies about people fucking trees.XOR'easter ( talk) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Most are probably already aware but in case, there's a related RSN thread: WP:RSN § Are New York Magazine and Infection Control Today reliable sources for the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab? — Paleo Neonate – 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Do any of you know the difference between serial passage and virus construction? Feynstein ( talk) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As happens from time to time, SPAs have been showing up to socionics and causing trouble. Crossroads -talk- 06:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Update: the article has been semiprotected for 6 months for rampant sockpuppetry. Thank goodness! People may still show up on the talk page, but this helps. Crossroads -talk- 05:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And its sequel, The Mahabharata Quest: The Alexander Secret. Too long, too pov, especially the leads. I think I brought it here a couple of years ago and several editors improved it, but the leads concern me. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a different virus, but a "new" user is insisting on a controversy section which feeds into the COVID lab leak conspiracy theories, using familiar dodgy sources (e.g. Yuri Deigin's). More eyes needed. Probably this article should be protected like others which have been under attack. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"QAnon cultivates interesting bedfellows. It's one of the things I've found most horribly fascinating about it. It's a conspiracy theory that represents the perfect apex of every exploitative cult tactic that con artists and snake-oil salespeople have used over the years—an inevitable evolutionary endpoint of the art on preying on peoples' desires. " -- QAnon has some weird overlaps with MMA, WWE, and Wellness Influencer Culture
I found the linked MIT Technology Review article [53] to be especially insightful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a page about homeopathic treatment for "a fishbone in their throat, or a splinter under the nail, or sliver in some other place" [54]
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
This one I did work on today quite a bit as it major changes had been made. It could still use some work but needs eyes. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This article could use some eyes from those with more time than I currently have - the creator's been blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and I'm rather skeptical of any article about a medical treatment that cites sources such as "Energy of man’s body cures enlarged prostate" from the Times of India blog. Spicy ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Back in July there was a major discussion surrounding articles created by Peipsi-Pihkva about supposed "Pan-ethnic groups" such as Northwestern European people, which appear to have massive WP:SYNTH issues, see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Northwestern_European_people for a refresher. The discussion ultimately ended up with no action. Should these articles be taken to AfD? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems that someone has been too fanciful in ascribing descriptions of aliens to H.G.Wells, and somebody has compared them with the originals and found them lacking. Anybody interested? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", science fiction author H. G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes.[1]
References
There are open recent threads at the article's talk page about properly covering the topic and various proposed sources to assess. Since it's a perennial issue I thought a notification would be a good idea, — Paleo Neonate – 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Review of recent changes welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all! So, an editor who was POV pushing rather extreme interpretations of population dynamics was recently blocked. The worst offending content on most pages they edited, tends to get cleaned up during the course of normal editing. However, @ Nsae Comp: and I were having a really hard time cleaning up/reviewing the content on Human overpopulation and we could use some help. The topic is well discussed in the scholarly literature, but the way the page has been maintained for the last few years -- it has become a confusing mix of legitimate opinions about the topic, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It would be helpful -- if anyone is interested-- to get some additional attention on the page, Sadads ( talk) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Africologist has raised issues at Talk:Afrocentrism and has made major changes in Welsing's article that I think should be discussed first. At Talk:Frances Cress Welsing they argue that she is not an Afrocentrist. I'm on a semi-break right now until I get my study back in order so no time for this discussion. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
How would reading my contributions make it sound like "Afrocentricity is just a word for Afrocentrism at universities"? I fail to see how writing "they are not the same" reads as "they are the same in this context". They are simply not the same. Afrocentricity is a very specific idea in the field of Africana Studies (and it's various nomenclature: Black Studies, Pan-African Studies, African American Studies, Africology, etc.) Afrocentrism is a word that is used as a sort of catch-all term used by non-academics as well as academics who are not in Black studies fields and understand the difference. Therefore, among some academics who don't specialize (and non-academic alike) they will lump Afrocentricity in with Afrocentrism. For further clarity, I need to know what do you mean by difference in content. Do you mean the difference in the texts written on Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism? Africologist ( talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Asante may be used as a source to distinguish. However, to your earlier comment about understanding the properties of the two. I think that is the issue. One must understand the inherent difference between the two. I believe you still view them as similar things. Afrocentrism could/has encompass views on history, but there's no methodological framework in which it exists. It's just a collection of scholarly and (largely) unscholarly ideas mangled together by circumstance of confusion. However, Afrocentricity is not at all a set of ideas about history. So Afrocentricity wouldn't "see African influence in China and Mesoamerica". Afrocentricity is simply a theoretical paradigm "based on the idea that African people should re-assert a sense of agency" (Asante, Afrocentric Idea). It is also a paradigm that seeks the establishment of cultural plurality and not cultural hierarchy; so it does not adhere to supremacism. It is simply meant for the academic to write and describe the world while keeping centered the perspective of African people (in acknowledgement of the reality that there are a plurality of cultural perspectives and all are not the same). Blaut ("Eight Eurocentric Historians"), De Sousa Santos ("Epistemologies of the South"), and other European scholars, as well as some Asian scholars (Said, "Orientalism") have written about the way the European world has asserted their view of world-phenomena as universal and other cultural perspectives as "fringe" or marginal. Afrocentricity is simply the same critique that wishes to establish the African perspective in a non-hierarchical way. That is much different from some of the ideas espoused by people who have been placed under the label of Afrocentrism. Afrocentrists (those who are trained in the academy under the paradigm of Afrocentricity) are flexible scholars who utilize a range of scientific information from interests in other academic fields in order to create scholarship that both center African perspectives and provides unbiased scientific evidence. Would you like a list of articles/books? Africologist ( talk) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I am becoming more and more convinced that a new page called Afrocentricity should be made which can probably effectively deal with some of these WP:FRINGE disambiguation issues. User:Africologist is rightly identifying that there are two strands here: the fringe strand which is currently (perhaps overly) developed at Afrocentrism and the academic strand (centered around three scholars at Temple University) which does not yet have a home at Wikipedia. I am a little worried that all the scholars are at one institution as walled gardens can exist in some departments, as we all know. But for right now I'm not seeing many sources that critique this particular group as a cohesive unit that is making the argument that they are part-and-parcel to the fringe ideologies under the afrocentrism umbrella. If anyone knows of such, feel free to identify it.
I note that an article on afrocentricity was deleted 15 years ago as a neologism: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrocentricity. That may have been the correct WP:TOOSOON argument at the time, but the sources may be steadily indicating that it may be time to create a separate article. Should we start a draft? jps ( talk) 11:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this is about [67]. Was my revert correct? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Anti-psychiatry POV-pushing loud and clear at [68]. WP:PRIMARY studies are WP:MEDRS violations. See also WP:MEDDATE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Fringe author, a lot of self-sourcing of his ideas (which needs removal) and use of unreliable sources, eg parapsychologist Jeffrey Mishlove's YouTube channel. I found two reviews of his book Promethus and Atlas, one in Greg Johnson (white nationalist) Counter-Currents [69] by James O'Meara [70] and the other by Jason Colavito [71] in the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture published by Equinox Publishing (Sheffield). We can definitely use Jason's article. I'm not sure about the article in Jacobin I found. [72] Doug Weller talk 19:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
There has been an extensive discussion about the Plate theory (volcanism) article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Plate_theory_(volcanism). "Plate Theory" appears to a minority view in academic geology that mantle plumes aren't real phenomenon and that all volcanism, even those away from plate boundaries can be entirely explained by plate tectonics. The main promoter of this theory appears to be Professor Gillian Foulger of Durham University, a respected academic. For something as complex as mantle geophysics its difficult to get a sense of how seriously this idea is taken by the wider academic community (her book on the topic "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy" from 2011 has been cited over 200 times). As it stands the article seems like to me (and many other contributors at WikiProject Geology) to be a WP:POVFORK that should be selectively merged into another article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is also Gfoulger ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which based on the name I think can be safely assumed to be Foulger. This account has only a handful of edits but was used to oppose the merge of Plate theory (volcanism) into Intraplate volcanism at Talk:Intraplate volcanism. If there is sufficiently strong evidence that SphericalSong is also Foulger, maybe a sockpuppet investigation is in order. Lennart97 ( talk) 01:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Plate theory (volcanism) for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plate theory (volcanism). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Recent updating of this and other pages to reflect current geological thinking, i.e., that there are two competing theories to explain the region ("Plate" and "Plume"), has been purged, with explanation given earlier on this page. This explanation is based on the perceived numbers of people supporting the two hypotheses and the identities of those involved, which are irrelevant arguments. "SphericalSong" is accused of being a sockpuppet of Gillian Foulger, which is not correct. If I post something, I sign my name.
The purging of the revisions violates the statement at the top of this "fringe theory" page, i.e. "The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained." In any case the "Plate" hypothesis has moved beyond a fringe theory, and to present otherwise is to lag behind current geological thinking. The editings of the pages purged specifically revised them to present the two hypotheses in a neutral and balanced way–the original pages presented only one theory. It is now generally accepted that the Plume hypothesis cannot explain many so-called "hotspots", on strong geological grounds. –G Foulger.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfoulger ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. All those insertions basically stating 'One view is X, but due to problems with that Y explains it as...' are not acceptable on those grounds. Proposing new ideas is part of the scientific process, but they can't be argued for using Wikipedia. It is not for righting great wrongs. Conflict of interest ( WP:COI) is also something that editors have to watch out for. Crossroads -talk- 06:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
in Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular fieldwhich "Plate Theory" comes under. As the chief advocate of "plate theory" you are not a neutral arbiter when it comes to the support of the theory amongst the wider academic community. From what I have read, mantle plumes are widely accepted and opposition to them comes from a vocal minority. The edits by SphericalSong attempted to present non-mantle plume theories as more prominent than they were. I do agree that many hotspot articles need expansion, but SphericalSong's edit were a poor foundation to base them on. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 07:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There is some more editing along these points here. What concerns me is that from what I can see in the literature, the Society hotspot is not nearly as commonly contested as some other hotspots. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
There is speculation over the existence of ghosts. Sources cited are ghostbusters and ghosthunters. Needs work. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Paranormal investigator being discussed at WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Who should be mentioned as influencing this occult idea of Jung's? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
There is an on-going dispute with a user "Saxon Celt" who has been removing sourced content from Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and Mark Collett. The user says he is removing "defamation" which is not true. What he has removed is sourced content. The same user also tried to whitewash these articles for certain criticisms in the past. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Parental_Alienation For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
[74] Neutral article or not? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)