This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue that was discussed at this noticeboard last year in the RfC
[1]. At issue is the following sentence from
Race and intelligence: The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.
More eyes welcome at
WP:NOR/N.
NightHeron (
talk) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone said something bad about J. Bart Classen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and an IP wants the article to say something bad about that someone although the article is not about that someone. I reverted and explained, but the IP seems to think "IDHT". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Demons...Jewish mythology...rappers...Hollywood horror films. It’s the ideal fringe stew. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The environmental impact of Biomass is depicted extremely positively on the biomass article. Reading that page, readers will literally learn that biomass is "the most important source of renewable energy." I find the page's portrayal of biomass startling given that the limited knowledge I have indicates that scientists see biomass far more skeptically (see for example this lengthy Politico piece [2] and this shorter Guardian piece [3]). I do not have substantive knowledge on the topic or the related scientific literature to contribute much to the page, however. Looking at the history of the page, it looks like a lot of content has been scrubbed and added in the last two years, primarily by one editor whose first edits on Wikipedia were to Bioenergy Europe, a lobbying group for the biomass industry. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE edit warring at Robert Lanza. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Some new WP:SPA activity and disagreement about how to represent Ioannidis' outlier views. Probably could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
So I recently came across an
edit request wanting to add some material from someone called Jibin Joy, cited as an "Independent Translational Scientific Researcher" from Kochi, India who is "not affiliated" with any institution. Skimming through those sources:
[4]
[5], it seems the main point he's trying to get across is that all diseases are caused by not having enough oxygen in your blood, and that thus all diseases can be cured by adding more oxygen in your blood. Some choice quotes: Universe is an unquestionable natural truth that identifies itself and us as 'unity'. Human consciousness cannot be considered locally storedin the nervous system. Genetic predispositions can be corrected byenhancing oxygenation since oxygen is the real time mediator of homeo-static regulation... Since the homeostatic regulation in the ecology of life is mediated by oxygen, an enhancement in oxygenation thereby results in reestablishment of homeostatic regulation. This reestablishment of homeostatic regulation can neutralize and negate disorder genesis, and will lead to restoration of health. And reestablishment of homeostatic regulation is the one and only requirement for healing.
Plus some extra
Ayurveda mixed in with all of that.
I've denied another one of those edit requests and removed some material cited to this person over at Homeostasis, but I'm not sure that this is all of it and frankly I'm not entirely sure of what's going on here with all this stuff. -- Volteer1 ( talk) 10:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the {{ Big History}} template while poking around cosmology articles. It and the article Big History seem ... well, grandiose would be one term. WP:SYNTH would be another. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
In the same way that Fritjof Capra carried out an analysis of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism, the teaching of the Big History in universities of Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina is nourished by the worldview of their ancestor to analyze the parallels between the scientific discoveries and the original knowledge of the native and indigenous peoples.That's taking the fringe ball and running with it. Maybe there's a notable topic underneath all the dross, but the current article does few favors to the reader trying to find it (and the template looks to be pure synthetic cruft). XOR'easter ( talk) 21:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be some synthesis and possibly COI editing going on with a cluster of articles involving
I found my way into this via the AfD for "Noometry", which pointed to this thread at WikiProject Medicine. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This CFZ "organization" is almost a one man backyard cryptozoology thing from a cottage in Devon. Jonathan Downes runs it from his cottage. Downes himself was using sock-puppets back around 2008 to edit this article and related ones. He even turned up on the talk-page [7]
I am not seeing any independent reliable references for these articles. The Centre for Fortean Zoology reads as self-promotion. Downes also created his friends Wikipedia article Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist). This is obviously a conflict of interest issue. The page says he is a "zoological director of the Centre for Fortean Zoology". However, Freeman is not a qualified in zoology or any related field of study. He does not appear to be notable.
The CFZ website claims to be the only scientific cryptozoological organization in the UK. On the same page it say it "is based in an old country house in rural Devonshire, parts of which are well over 200 years old. It is home to several ghosts" [8]. The article has 13 references, 8 of them were written by Downes. The rest is only passing mention. What should be done here? I believe these articles should be merged or deleted. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Space elevator#Fringe Theory. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like an ad campign for this is just starting. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
See WP:NPOVN#Are we gonna do anything about Tariq Nasheed and Hidden Colors? Fringe films and fringe producer/commentator. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like there is something wrong with Comparison of Japanese and Korean ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), it seems to contain some WP:PROFRINGE. I (from a different IP) added Template:Fringe theories to the article and started a discussion in the talk page, but the template was removed by another IP with the following edit sumary but without a message in the talk page:
even if a relationship between the two is still disputed, that does not make it a "fringe" idea (which implies total scholarly rejection)
I feel like the article try to convince the reader that there is a genetic relationship between the Japanese and Korean languages (which is against the current linguistic consensus). The beginning of the article is not as bad, there are some sentences informing the reader this is not the main theory, but they are counter-balanced by pro-fringe sentences.
Like I said the talk page:
I guess it's acceptable to make an article about every linguistic theory floating around, however the article should be clearer that this is not an accepted theory. It should give the arguments in favor of this theory from a neutral point of view instead of trying to convince the reader that this theory is true.
The content of the article is mostly bad linguistic, making a comparison table for numerals containing only supporting evidence (the numbers 3, 5, 7, 10) is so disingenuous, and it's followed by a random "Also, Sillan language called 3 as "Mil" too." This is absurd.
The introduction ends with "Any relation between the two languages remains controversial." which is good, but it's prefixed by a sentence suggesting this is a political/cultural issue, while it's mainly a scientific one. The remaining of the article is written to convince the reader that there is a genetic connection between the Japanese and Korean languages, so I decided to add the WP:FRNG template.
— me
Maybe I was wrong to put Template:Fringe theories on the whole article and should have added it only to some section? But I feel like all sections are guilty of WP:PROFRINGE there.
109.15.168.117 ( talk) 09:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the "vocabulary" section entirely; it appeared to be based only on a student thesis and was wildly WP:UNDUE weight. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent human evolution has some issues that could use more attention, especially from editors who are knowledgeable about evolution and scientific racism.
The article
stated that Humans living in humid tropical areas show the least sign of evolution...
and As such, Europeans and East Asians appear to have undergone evolution at a faster rate than Africans, who are precisely where modern humans originated.
In context, this isn't quite as extreme as it appears, but it's still indirectly implying that Africans are "less evolved" than non-Africans. It's possible to interpret this with more nuance, but the bland reading of this paragraph is a misrepresentation of evolution that closely aligns with historical scientific racism. I removed this content, but it was
restored by
Nerd271 with superficial changes as "Miscellaneous improvements".
Much of these claims come from
Nicholas Wade, who is himself a bit controversial, but this isn't really conveyed in the article. Further, the article also claims that Contrary to popular belief, not only are humans still evolving, their evolution since the dawn of agriculture is faster than ever before.
This is sourced pop-sci coverage of the work of
John D. Hawks. Per the lead of his biography article, Contrary to the common view that cultural evolution has made human biological evolution insignificant, Hawks believes that biological evolution has sped up in recent history.
In other words, one article is saying this is a contested viewpoint, while the main article for the topic is taking his position at face value and placing it in the lead without nuance or comment.
The article also cited Henry Harpending, who was a eugenicist, and Gregory Cochran who proposes that homosexuality is a disease. In other words, both have documented histories of promoting very fringe ideas regarding genetics, race, etc. Both of them also worked with Hawks, which suggests this is a walled garden.
These are all red flags, but since this is outside my area of expertise, it would be helpful to have some help from someone with more knowledge of these issues and the relevant literature. Grayfell ( talk) 01:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I find the claim that Europeans have undergone evolution at a faster rate than Africans and thus are more evolved interesting, seeing as I just recently read on a racist pseudoscience website (a post on a skeptics forum pointed me to it -- I have strange hobbies) that Africans have had a longer period to evolve than Europeans and thus are more evolved. Of course everybody knows[ Citation Need ed that the pinnacle of evolution is echolocation ability, with humans the least evolved, dolphins the most evolved, and bats somewhere in between. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Seems to be an antivax problem brewing (e.g. [10]). More eyes needed. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Since it's topic-related and current, also linking WP:NPOVN § AstraZeneca vaccine — Paleo Neonate – 23:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the person but the article came to my attention because it cites an article from the antivax World Mercury Project site (apparently related to Children's Health Defense). Research in exposure to heavy metals is legitimate and the article doesn't have any mention of vaccination. The cited problematic source indeed mentions Bjørklund but also adds a mention of ethylmercury as a preservative in some vaccines (true but considered of no concern except by the antivax), then adds the dubious claim that children with ASD are particularly more sensitive to heavy metal bioaccumulation (no idea if it's editorial or part of Bjørklund's claims). We've also seen dubious amalgam-exposition claims before and this seems to be related to Bjørklund's work (on the other hand, it mentions occupational exposure for dentists which may be more legitimate than concerns for patients with amalgams). Maybe the only issue is the use of this problematic source, but more eyes welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 04:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted a series of edits at Chinese herbology which looked dubious to me. Review of the revert, and eyes on the page, would be welcome. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a kerfuffle on the Candace Owens page about whether the article can contain (i) a "COVID conspiracy theorist" tag and (ii) whether it can mention Owens's ranting about how Bill Gates and the WHO are experimenting with vaccines on "tribal children". [13] The argument for removing the first thing appears to be that Owens's main claim to notability is not as a COVID conspiracy theorist, and the argument for removing the second thing is that Owens doesn't specifically mention COVID vaccines in her remarks about Bill Gates experimenting on tribal children, although her remarks are clearly in the context of COVID-vaccines (and it's covered in that context by reliable sources). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Some disagreement on whether Taubes' unorthodox views on obesity science should be flagged-up in the lede. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
An editor (@ Psychologist Guy:) recently drew my attention to two fringe articles on Wikipedia that I hadn't noticed before: Jonathan Downes and Centre for Fortean Zoology, both focused on cryptozoology. Both appear to primarily have been authored by Downes and/or members of the Centre for Fortean Zoology. The first of the two is up for deletion and I've redirected the latter article to cryptozoology for now (I'm sure it'll simply be reverted), but it should likely be outright deleted, as it pretty clearly fails WP:RS and Wikipedia:Notability. Whatever happens, both could certainly use more eyes from editors who work with fringe topics. :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
A brand new user wants to reshape the article on Eric Weinstein to reflect his pioneering contribution to physics, viz. Geometric Unity, and downplay his involvement in the [pseudo]intellectual dark web. Since there are basically no reliable sources on that ( "Geometric+Unity"+%2BWeinstein, it's resoundingly ignored as crank theories tend to be), this depends on primary-sourced crap like Weinstein's video exposition of his theory, blogs and the like.
I'm pretty sure we've been round this loop before, possibly even with the same user in a different guise, but I don't follow fringe physics much, so maybe regulars here will be more familiar. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a long history of editors (both IP and registered) at List of Middle Eastern superheroes claiming that all Jewish superheroes can be called "Middle Eastern superheroes" and should therefore be included in the list. E.g August 2020. They have always been reverted. On March 5, 2021 Bob drobbs ( talk · contribs) started the discussion
I repeatedly demanded they present reliable sources for their claim. They presented sources which - in my eyes - fall short of supporting their claim. Some hours ago, I posted uw-chat1 on their user's talk page with the explanation, "I am referring to your repeated promotion of the theory that all Jews should be called "Middle Eastern" which is not backed by any reliable sources." Afterwards, they changed the scope of the list, I reverted back to status quo and posted uw-ew on their talk page. They tagged the list with {{POV}}.
I know that the theory has been discussed before, e.g.
-- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not a WP:FRINGE issue. Categorization and labeling is necessarily fraught and is the one area where limited original research is tolerated on WP. The question is really one for an appropriately phrased WP:RfC. Frankly, the idea that there should be any lists at all identifying where superheroes are supposed to be from strikes me as absurdly WP:INUNIVERSE. jps ( talk) 00:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCEand that the "Middle Eastern" label is the best way to describe the Jews of today. Jewish identity (like most ethnic and religious identities) involves and supersedes many things that assimilated into a new distinct identity. Attempts to place this Middle Eastern / Asian moniker on anything Jewish is actually pretty disrespectful towards the richness and the strength of Jewish identity. WP:UNDUE comes to mind where Jewish communities that lived for millenia outside of the Middle East, while keeping a remarkable continuity in tradition but also incorporating elements through contact with their neighbours. My stomach is turned when the European character in the identity of European Jews is so easily carved out. On a more basic note, calling all Jews "Middle Eastern" based on a several-millenium-old origin is akin to:
Just noticed that IPs and one SPA edit Middle Eastern Americans based on the same fringe theory, e.g. this edit which I reverted. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 06:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This is forum shopping.
User:Bob drobbs started an RfC on March 28th at
Talk:List of Middle Eastern superheroes#RFC: Who counts as "Middle Eastern Superhero"?. He presented two positions, one that it should only include those born in and lived in the Middle East. The other was "Another idea is that anyone of any "Middle Eastern ethnicities" should also be counted, but total disagreement and no consistent standards about who qualifies." Hardly neutral, but it got worse as he concluded with the statement that "Outside, non-biased, thoughts would be much appreciated." Which raises the question in my mind as to who was going to decide what thoughts were non-biased. 3 days later he reverted text in the article with the edit summary "Agreement in the RFC. No stated disagreement to the selection criteria proposed. Get new consensus before changing again."
[15]. That was far too soon for an agreement to be reached and I don't see one. Later that day he said he was closing the RfC (he should have withdrawn it), said that an editor was acting in bad faith and except for the lack of the RfC template no one would know it was "closed"), said that an editor was acting in bad faith and that he was moving the discussion elsewhere, ie here. Shutting down a 3 day old RfC because you are unhappy with it and moving the discussion is a misuse of the RfC process and forumshopping.
Doug Weller
talk 12:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
the connection Jews have felt with Israelis religious belief, and we cannot really let religious beliefs govern how Wikipedia applies ethnic identifications and categorization. Giving disproportionate weight to this millenium-old Ancient Levant origin of the Jews is not really feasible. No Jewish diaspora subgroup can claim that they did not mix, both culturally and genetically, so you would deny these other influences by sticking to this "Miďdle Eastern/Asian" tag (there is nobody that defines European identity better than Stefan Zweig). Also, if we would go back several millennia in the past for very ethnic group (because there is no reason to treat Jews differently) then that would really not be workable, unless we consider that we are all Africans. Articles Old Yishuv and Samaritans tell me that they were not cleansed, but that's not the topic here . Place Clichy ( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
FYI: I just created a warning template, Template:Warning Middle Eastern Jews, based on the one shown on Talk:Antisemitism, in the hope that it might discourage some proponents of this "plain nonsense" (as Place Clichy aptly called it) from further discussion. Feel free to comment or criticize. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: Please do not misrepresent this conversion elsewhere as you did on the Middle Eastern People talk page. The question asked here is if ALL Jews are Middle Eastern. That's obviously not true. It's a totally different question if ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern. You cannot conflate the two, especially as you've acknowledged there are RS which say ethnic Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 06:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion on AfD for List of Middle Eastern superheroes
|
---|
Problems with superhero list criteriaIn-universe descriptions should not take precedence over real-world descriptions. A "Middle Eastern superhero" is not a superhero whose fictional background gives them some Middle Eastern ethnicity or nationality, it is a superhero who was created by a Middle Eastern author, or perhaps a superhero who appeared in a Middle Eastern publication. Looking at the various Lists of superheroes, this is a widespread problem on this site, with characters created by American authors and appearing in American publications being labelled as "Chinese superheroes" or whatever based on their fictional ethnicities or nationalities. This is the kind of thing you would expect on a fan wiki. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I believe it violates WP:INUNIVERSE. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
|
I argue Jews ARE Middle Eastern
Jews are Middle Eastern apart from converts to the Jewish religions. Jews are a Middle Eastern ethnic group, they are not ethnic Europeans so this should not be classed as a fringe theory because it is true. Their ancestors came from Ancient Judea so they remain Middle Eastern. Although every ethnically Jewish person is not included as as West Asian in the US definition, that does not mean they are not genetically West Asian. Jews are genetically different from Europeans, they are closely related to the Canaanite peoples. Arab people describe themselves as Middle Eastern with no problems, but when Jews do the same they seem to be attacked verbally. If your ancestors come from Middle Eastern ancestry it is not ridiculous to call yourself ethnically Middle Eastern because Jews ARE ethnically Middle Eastern. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews (T96)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzofia1996 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A related discussion has been started at WP:ANI#User:Bob drobbs flooding discussions. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The lede currently includes There is disagreement among experts as to if it is natural or man made
... --
Hipal (
talk) 01:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Talked to some who were more familiar with the politics surrounding this and I think we're getting close to a proper framing which is fairly incredible. One thing I think is an interesting point is that in the last decade or so a lot more sources have started calling this feature Ram Setu because of the political winds. I cannot figure out in WP:MOS world whether this is a case as in the instance of Mount McKinley being properly identified as Denali or, alternatively, Mount Everest as the article name for Sagarmāthā. jps ( talk) 11:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Some borderline pro-fringe editing here. More eyes would be welcome. Neutrality talk 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Participants of this noticeboard may be interested in the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeovestism (2nd nomination). Crossroads -talk- 06:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Ayurveda has been brought up over two dozen times on this noticeboard. I've not looked to see if the current specific dispute is strongly related to past disputes.
The article is under a 1RR restriction.
Attempt to qualify the content in the lede, The
Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of
modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as
quackery
, with:
because persons qualified to practice Ayurvedic medicine are not qualified to practice Western allopathic medicine[19]
because "a doctor who has qualification in Ayurvedic, Unani or homeopathic medicine will be liable if he prescribes allopathic treatment..."[20]
Looks like selective qualification to undercut the content in the lede.
Same editor that is involved in the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Adam's_Bridge dispute mentioned above. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
they always blow up in his faceShouldn't they blow up in someone else's face? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've brought Event symmetry to AfD following discussion at its talk page regarding a contested PROD. I'm bringing attention here because a portion of the article concerns a fringe theory of quantum gravity. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Skeptoid ( skeptoid.com), a podcast hosted by Brian Dunning. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent complaints that the Traditional Chinese Medicine article is biased at Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine#I_think_the_Chinese_version_of_this_article_is_written_more_neutrally. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
In [21] I removed a bunch of fringe theories from Shroud of Turin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). We decided a while back to document those theories on our Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin page and to only feature mainstream science on the SoT page.
I expect that the shroudies will not be happy with what I have done.
Among other things, I removed the flash-like irradiation hypothesis -- that when Jesus was resurrected there was an intense flash of high energy protons or possibly ultraviolet radiation that created an image that by an amazing coincidence has the exact same attributes as a medieval forgery. Totally mainstream science, dude, and don't let anybody tell you different. Can you name anyone who came back from the dead without atomic power being involved? I didn't think so. Source: Marvel Cinematic Universe
Please watchlist the page to see the fireworks show. I will make popcorn. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding VP8 Image Analyzer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) the good news is that nobody contested the speedy on the merits. The bad news is that DGG says I used the wrong template. (Not my fault! The Other Guy made me do it! (I always wanted to say that -- smile) ) "It's a product. products are not eligible for A7, just companies. Use AfD". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
A fair bit of effort was made to isolate the fringe material out of the main article. Because there are a ton of theories about the shroud (which has it's own, proprietary -ology word), the majority of them crackpot fringe theories, the fringe theory topic is clearly notable. The
content of the fringe article doesn't have to be, however, as long as it has
reliable sourcing, and is
proportionate. I have no problem with reliably described nutball theories being described in "Nutball theories of..." er, I mean, "
Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin", any more than I do the
Moon hoax, or
Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins. There's no need to duplicate any of the fringe theories in the main article, nor should they be. However, the Shroud article is clearly
parent article to the Fringe theories article, and a section of a couple of paragraphs or so in the main article summarizing the main fringe theories with {{
Main}} and {{
Further}} links, as called for by
WP:Summary style is entirely appropriate, but 48k is way out of proportion.
On the other hand, there is currently nothing in the article about fringe theories, and that is just as wildly out of proportion, given the amount of sourcing and significant coverage devoted to it. Recreate a section, #Fringe theories in the main article, and duly summarize the content of the fringe article, and all will be well. Mathglot ( talk) 05:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The former doesn't look notable at all. The latter survived AfD in 2014 thanks to a list of sources that superficially looks good but may suffer from reliability problems upon closer examination. "Engage! Warp Drive Could Become Reality with Quantum-Thruster Physics". No. No, it could not. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Antimatter is one of the most expensive substances on Earth: about $62.5 trillion a gram. VARIES could solve this issue.... The lasers aboard VARIES would produce protons and antiprotons directly from the vacuum of space through the Schwinger pair production.
AfD? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Richard Obousy is co-founder and President of Icarus Interstellar Inc., etc.) certainly reads like an author bio. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Now, as for Icarus Interstellar... It reads like a PR, and at least some of the sources are primary or PR as well. Any comments? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The engine accelerates ions confined in a closed loopis almost verbatim. I've reverted more on that page recently than I'm generally comfortable with (confrontational is not my favorite look); would anyone else want to investigate and hazard a judgment on whether it's even notable? XOR'easter ( talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
would likely violate the laws of the conservation of momentum. When you've lost Popular Mechanics... XOR'easter ( talk) 01:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Let's look at the sourcing for Icarus Interstellar...
So we have at most one live, usable source in this article. AfD? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
In the same topic area, cited to some of the same dubious sources and seemingly coming out of the same community:
XOR'easter ( talk) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about [47] and [48]? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
User removes Skeptical Inquirer source, adds YouTube instead. Seems pretty active at the moment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Unsure about wording. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Grey alien. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Lots of back on forth editing with people trying to make Hyperborea out to be a real thing, plus some general nuttery. Might want to keep an eye on it. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 11:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
An editor attempted to ascribe an ethnicity (Somali) to a historical figure based on a single source touching on the existence of "oral traditions" linking the figure to Somalis (this is presented as a footnote in the original source) [49]. The vast majority of reliable sources do not attach an ethnicity to this figure and only discuss him as a Muslim leader who had taken part in a war between Muslims and Christians in the region [50]. I have removed the additions from the article's lede and left a mention of this in the article's body [51], but seeking more opinions on whether the additions should be discarded completely as a fringe theory. -- Kzl55 ( talk) 20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The source i replace it with is reliable and not a mere mention but an actual biographic entry about him. Namely from [1] and this has been refrenced by other texts and the dictionary reviewed by other journals [54] & [55] suffice to say it should fit Wiki standards.
And there is no other source you can mention to contest this either or that state otherwise. So the rule of minority POV or exceptional claim do not really apply here. As for being patient and awaiting fruther contributions, you should have had notified me about beginning this discussion , it was only after i made correction edit that i saw that you had opened this Noticeboard through looking at your contrib, so notify people as the rules "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page (and/or through off-wiki email, if the subject has chosen to enable that function). There are two sides to most stories, and good faith requires the assumption that the subject of the complaint may have a valuable perspective to contribute." WP:NOTIFY. As i had advised you earlier.
Cheers.
Ragnimo ( talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Please adress my points and keep your comments on the contention itself, without having to repeat yourself.
Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background. And (C) it's from a mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies that have been reviewed as credible by African academic journals and is used a refrence text
Wether other sources make mentions of it or not has nothing to say for if this a minority POV or not.
Ragnimo ( talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background.
mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies, that violates WP:RS. We do not cite other encyclopedias, only direct sources. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 21:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Bite. First of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people. The one about Nur Ibn Mujahid being Merahen Darood is from that of anthropologist Harvel Sebastian [56], from Dictionary of African historical biography (Vol. 1)
Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?
In any case can we include it in the body instead of the leed that there exist a tradition about it because there is another source besides from that one scholar claiming that traditions existence [57] & Which i previously added before it being removed by KzI55 on the grounds that it was in a footnote.
Both Kurt Wendt and Ethiopian/Somali studies authority Enrico Cerulli was refrenced for that by Harvel Sebastian. I could look for another source by Enrico Cerulli which is most likely in Italian if that helps. Ragnimo ( talk) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
irst of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people.
Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?
Sorry for the late response back was busy all keeping vandals and socks in check.
Bite No. That is flatly wrong. It is not a direct cite. If you want to cite someone, cite the original work where the statement was made, not an encyclopedia or dictionary. It is original work, its written by Harvel Sebastian himself. And his attribution is on the page. But OK.
If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution.
I will find the original source of Enrico Cerulli in Italian, and perhaps look to see if there is another source for this and i will come back to this noticeboard or alert you on the talk page.
Cheers Ragnimo ( talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The source that I will reference in this initial post will be directly from a book written in 1935 by the highly accredited Professor Kurt Wendt, in which he explicitly mentions the ethnic background of Emir Nur as being from the Darod tribe, Marehan clan. This book has been cited in many contemporary works throughout the last 70 years and is widely held as the one of the preeminent scholarships into the "Conquest of Abayssinya" as this book contains the original manuscripts.
[1] Furthermore many other prominent historians such as I.M Lewis from the London school of economics and French Professor Robert Ferry have mentioned quite clearly that the Conquest of Abyssinia was accomplished predominantly by the Darod tribe headed by the Marehan, Harti, Gerri, and Bartire.
[2] With that being said, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to not include the mention of the Emir's ethnicity since there have been no disputes from other scholarly sources that would contradict this information. --
CSI99283 (
talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CSI99283 (
talk •
contribs) 07:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Ragnimo, the source you are looking for is E. Cerulli, "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia". This should be added and used. It's a clear reference that states that Nur ibn Mujahid was of Marrehan extraction. I will shortly in due time provide at least three sources. That way it will not be viewed as a minority opinion and therefore the article can be reedited using the clear references since there is no concensus here anyway. Take care, see you all soon. 86.18.37.245 ( talk) 14:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Of all the sources that ascribe an ethnicity to Nur Ibn Mujahid they consistently reiterate his ethnic background is of the Marehan extraction. As the editor above said "If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution." I've already included one of the preeminent notables in the field of East African studies, Professor Wendt, who ascribed the Marehan background to the Emir. And the editor above me has stated that he will provide a source from Dr E. Ceruli who is exceedingly prominent and known to be a distinguished scholar in regards to the history of the Horn of Africa region.
In the words of London School of Economics Professor I.M Lewis, who has also written extensively about Somalia in many of his various books states "Dr Cerulli is the doyen of Cushitic studies and the founder of modern ethnographic studies of the Somali, in which he was the first to adopt the rigorous standard of oriental scholarship. All those who now work in the field owe a great debt to Cerulli's pioneer endeavor and to his many brilliant contributions" [3]
I am including this as a preface to the addition of Dr. Cerulli's "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia" in which he explicitly states that Nur Ibn Mujahid is indeed of the Marehan extraction. Which would undoubtedly make this a significant contribution from a notable scholar in this specific field of study thus warranting contribution into this Wikipedia page. -- CSI99283 ( talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSI99283 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Of all the sources that ascribe an ethnicity to Nur Ibn Mujahid...
We don't have to mention the information explicitly, It's all about the wording. So for example, it should be worded as: "Some sources state that he was of Marrehan-Darod extraction." If we have a few sources, then to include it is valid. The wording can be debated later on. However there is no doubt that there is academic literature that clearly state him to be Marrehan and therefore that should be included. I will very soon collect them and add them and then Ragnimo and others should edit the article to reflect that. 86.18.37.245 ( talk) 20:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I created a new account since it makes it much easier to communicate. I just want to say that there is no consensus. That's just not the case. There is a difference of opinion and our job is to resolve that. There were 3 editors including yourself that was opposed. That doesn't make it a consensus because many of us think that a tentative and not explicit mention is justifiable. Having said that, User: CSI99283 and myself are willing to change the wording. We are not proposing to state him as Marehan explicitly. However, we can easily state that he was 'tentatively' Marehan and the problem will be resolved. The only references that mention his identity all mention he was Marehan Darod. Hopefully within the next few days I place them here.
I.e. "Documenti Arabi per la stories dell'Etiopia." It states: "Nur ibn Mujahid, of the Marrehan Darod." (Translated). CSI99283, the source is clear. I don't see any reason why this edit shouldn't be worded to reflect that he could have been Marehan Darod even just to say that he "some sources state he was Marehan", this would be a perfect edit. Can we agree? Sade Tan ( talk) 01:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree Sade Tan, this edit seems to be the most balanced and neutral per Wikipedia guidelines since it reflects the most prominent and reputable authoritative source on the subject and is not contradicted by any information thus far presented on the board. Furthermore per wiki guidelines neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence which means that the reference to "Documenti Arabi per la stories dell'Etiopia." is the most significant contribution that has been made up to this point. There is seldom any scholar that is deemed more distinguished in this particular field of study than Dr Cerulli and thus warrants this attribution in my view. -- CSI99283 ( talk) 01:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
What does off Wikipedia canvassing even mean? We kept the discussion on these boards for a reason. Are you forcing us to accept your opinion?
First of all, that is an absolutely wild allegation made in bad faith. I used to frequent the Nur ibn Mujahid article for a long time before I ever chose to register. I never accused you of cheating or doing something questionable nor did I ever force my opinion on anyone else. These are discussions going on these boards and I kept it there. If I wanted to force it, these discussions might not even be happening. Someone could have forced edit the article, but that's not happening is it? Unacceptable allegations. Sade Tan ( talk) 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is any off site canvassing Nur Ibn Mujahid was written as being Marahen was on the page for a very long time. So it's not suprising that regular vistors would be alerted when they saw this change.
Going back to what Kzl55 said before: If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution.
As someone above me explained it is mentioned in "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia"(Arab documents for the history of Ethiopia) by Enrico Cerruli, who is a Somali & Ethiopian studies authority and very notable enough. He is the primary sources for Muslim medieval history and is aknowledged by other scholars in that field. It is also mentioned in another publication on Somali Islamic history "Storia Delia Somalia L'Islam in Somalia Il Libro Degli Zengi(Islam in Somalia) [62]
" e al suo successore, I'emiro Nur, origine dalla tribu Somala dei Marrehan: He had a successor, The Emir Nur, who originated from the Somali tribe of the Marrehan"
We can mention this with attribution to him.
Ragnimo ( talk) 05:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:40, 22 April 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.
Some time ago, SENS was designated as a fringe theory. I cannot speak for the situation at the time, but in the modern day, this is incorrect.
While there is debate as to the exact efficacy of the strategies proposed (if they will be as revolutionary as the organization claims, or are 'merely' promising strategies cure disease), they are now widely accepted as valid tactics to consider when developing treatments for age-related diseases.
Exhibit 1: Hallmarks of Aging
In 2012, SENS's theories were effectively repackaged in a paper published in Cell, titled "The Hallmarks of Aging" - this paper has an extremely high number of citations (7296 and counting at the time of writing), providing it with ample authority and an indication of popular support. Its statements are unquestionably identical to SENS's own, but more in-depth, with slightly different categorization and an additional emphasis placed on genomic instability and epigenetic drift
(to summarize:
SENS: Extracellular aggregates. HoA: Loss of proteostasis. Misfolded proteins often aggregate. SENS: Extracellular matrix stiffening. HoA: Again, loss of proteostasis. ECM is made from proteins, the stiffening is thought to be caused by modifications to these proteins - which can easily be classed as loss of proteostasis. SENS: Intracellular aggregates. HoA: Wow, SENS likes (hates?) their loss of proteostasis. SENS: Death-resistant cells. HoA: Cellular senescence. SENS: Mitochondrial mutations. HoA: Mitochondrial dysfunction. SENS: Cancerous cells (note that this is separate to death-resistant (senescent) cells). HoA: All cancer is caused by epigenetic alterations or genomic instability. Both hallmarks. SENS: Cell loss, tissue atrophy (SENS strategy: introduce stem cells) HoA: Stem cell exhaustion)
Though the paper does not explicitly call out SENS, it comes to effectively identical conclusions (with a few additions), and its popularity therefore suggests that these conclusions are shared by the scientific community, raising SENS's authority. Looking at its authors, one (Maria Blasco) is now on the research advisory board of SENS, suggesting that she supports the organization - lending it further authority, given her prominence in the field.
Exhibit 2: Investor confidence & startups
SENS has completed extensive intra- and extra-mural research programmes on prospective drugs matching its preferred strategies, and some of these programmes are now approaching clinical trials, with ample funding. See: Revel Pharmaceuticals, Ichor Therapeutics & (the only currently public company built on a strategy SENS initially proposed) Unity Biotechnologies. Unity in particular is a good example, with a current market cap of $304m. Of course, even fringe theories can be well-funded, so this is more supporting information than anything.
Exhibit 3: Preclinical data
SENS has now released extensive preclinical data for a variety of approaches based upon its strategy, which have shown a range of impressive results. They have done this through both intramural and extramural research, as well as research by scientists who agree with their conclusions. Despite these approaches generally being preclinical, there is still evidence supporting them and significant data available, which I feel contributes to a potential re-designation of SENS as non-fringe. Efforts to treat disease using strategies identical to SENS are also underway by independent groups, and I will happily discuss these if prompted. Alyarin9000 ( talk) 00:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Though the paper does not explicitly call out SENSSo it's not explicitly SENS, but we should treat it as if it is! -- Hipal ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
"Hallmarks of Aging" authors don't seem to explicitly link their criteria to those of SENS—it makes it hard to tell whether SENS has influenced current medical theories of aging or if there's just a coincidence in terms, which is why I mentioned WP:SYNTH above.We need to be able to WP:VERIFY the relationship between the two, otherwise the popularity of the "Hallmarks of Aging" doesn't impart mainstream acceptance to SENS. — Wingedserif ( talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
the idea that a research programme organized around the SENS agenda will not only retard ageing, but also reverse it—creating young people from old ones—and do so within our lifetime, is so far from plausible that it commands no respect at all within the informed scientific community.
fringe organization of pseudoscientists? Claiming that WP:ABOUTSELF is not about cases such as this, which involves a questionable source as a source on itself? Trying to redefine "mainstream" so something which is clearly not mainstream becomes so? Those methods may be slightly original, at least I have not encountered them in exactly this form, but they are still well within the area of bad reasoning well-known to everybody who frequents this page, and of course well outside the area of sound reasoning. Also, I am surprised that the link to WP:IDHT has not made an appearance yet. (Do not ping me either. I live here.) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
What is "exceptional claim"This is a good question. Thomas Kuhn, as outmoded as he may be these days in Science and Technology Studies and Philosophy of science circles, may help to provide an answer to this. An "exceptional claim" would be one that seeks to overturn a paradigm while an "ordinary claim" might be so-called " normal science". jps ( talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn I think it will be helpful if you answer some questions about what is your problem with the arguments in favor of stoping considering SENS as fringe. Do you think that SENS's website isn't a reliable source for claiming that SENS is researching about things like senolytics and removing advancded glycation end products? or that it doesn't matter and not worthy to be considered in the article?. What you consider as a good evidence that SENS isn't fringe?, do you expect a letter (like the letter that is being used as a source in the "criticism" section) that simply state that SENS is accepted by the scientific community?. You think that we should prove that the idea of reversing aging is itself not "fringe"? or that is "mainstream"?. How you determine if something is "mainstream" or not?.-- ThunderheadX ( talk) 16:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of [68]? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Also related:
— Paleo Neonate – 04:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Media publicity surrounding the latest UFO video acknowledged by the Pentagon. I think a 4 day old story needs a bit more time to settle, but there are article move and rename proposals being discussed. See Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Requested_move_18_April_2021. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop throwing cold water on my Earth-ET relations! Exopolitics is the next big thing! jps ( talk) 16:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a new account SPA over on Swiss Policy Research that's trying to remove criticism of the website as a conspiracy and pseudoscience site. Silver seren C 00:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Rename this? Other ideas? Whenever someone suggests that something is based on quantum, that usually means they do not understand how it works and think that adding quantum will reduce the pain. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Do the pages Dave Grossman (author), Killology and On Killing meet the NPOV and FRINGE guidelines? As far as I can tell, the subject is a non-academic who is not doing science, yet presenting his work as if it were science (psychology, more precisely). However, the Wikipedia articles makes him appear as if he were an academic. The misrepresentation of the subject and his works is particularly problematic given that the person and his works have been attributed as a contributor to militarization of police in the US. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).
Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.
The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Transcendental Meditation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The evidence for the effectiveness of the technique seems to have improved over the last two months! Also, Cochrane reviews seem to be less relevant than other studies. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The article was renamed last year, from Jacques Benveniste, and reorganized accordingly. Now someone (probably a relative) tries to turn it into a biography again, moving the "Jacques Benveniste" part to the top but not renaming the article. Also, removing categories. Someone else revented, then I reverted again after the second attempt. But I guess this is not the end of it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
My edit has been removed in which I specified on the lead that the practice is fringe. This article needs more eyes. Shankargb ( talk) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions:
Also see:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about
[70] and subsequent edits? I'll grant you that the majority of scholars believe that the United Monarchy existed
, however they believe so based upon sparse and shoddy evidence, it is a leap of faith rather than science.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 11:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
the majority of scholarswho are interested in that question must be theology scholars, whose job description contains believing things completely without evidence. What do the historians believe? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
more nuanceyou mean describing more positions taken in the archeological scholarship and drawing somewhat more modest conclusions. The concluding statement of the relevant passage ((pp. 2126-7), however, which can be taken as Maeir's own position, is
In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials...and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests.In other words, the position he has described earlier -
Some scholars continue to believe that the United monarchy was a large and prosperous kingdom, mirroring to a large extent the image portrayed in the biblical text- is not supported by the currently available material evidence. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Attempt to relitigate the legitimacy of the lab leak supposition again at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Discussion_of_4th_origin_hypothesis. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of vandalism and removing of various criticisms of this white nationalist fringe group from IPS and red accounts. Eyes needed. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on whether the hypothesis that there is a genetic link between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RFC on sourcing in relation to race and intelligence. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Bashir Iran is currently edit warring this unsourced passage into the mammoth article.
According to Ferdowsi's Shahnameh in the Shah Mazandaran Shah's army (which is located in Mazandaran Shahnameh is different from the current Mazandaran and some consider it in northern Asia and the current Russian steppes), there were 1200 elephants. If we consider the Shahnameh as an epic based on the facts of the last 3000 years, then we may encounter a report of the survival of a group of mammoths up to 3000 years ago in North Asia.
As far as fringe theories go, this is certainly out there. I can't find any reference to this so this appears to be a "novel theory" from the user in question. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
"He is critical of Cultural Marxism"
I think this is not according to WP:FRINGE, but I do not know enough about the easter egg Marxist cultural analysis#More recent developments behind the "Cultural Marxism" link to be sure. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm telling you, you can't make this stuff up. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I finally got to the bottom of this. Look at this photo: [76] [77] Look at the size of the Bidens compared to the Carters... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It's clearly intended as humorIt may be clear to you. But the positions out there are so diverse nowadays, there are probably people who believe it. And the person who invented it could be one of those. Poe's Law in action, as jps said. Somehow similar to the question whether people who sell snake oil believe in it themselves: I can't tell, just speculate, and I don't really need to.
IP and two accounts adding fringe material trying to link this to Hindu mythology. Needs more eyes. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Members of this group might want to take look at the Material science analysis section of the Pumapunku article, which gives undue credence to the fringe idea that the sandstone and andesitic blocks are artificial stones composed of alleged "geopolymers." Paul H. ( talk) 01:24, 7 May 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. |
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue that was discussed at this noticeboard last year in the RfC
[1]. At issue is the following sentence from
Race and intelligence: The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.
More eyes welcome at
WP:NOR/N.
NightHeron (
talk) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone said something bad about J. Bart Classen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and an IP wants the article to say something bad about that someone although the article is not about that someone. I reverted and explained, but the IP seems to think "IDHT". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Demons...Jewish mythology...rappers...Hollywood horror films. It’s the ideal fringe stew. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The environmental impact of Biomass is depicted extremely positively on the biomass article. Reading that page, readers will literally learn that biomass is "the most important source of renewable energy." I find the page's portrayal of biomass startling given that the limited knowledge I have indicates that scientists see biomass far more skeptically (see for example this lengthy Politico piece [2] and this shorter Guardian piece [3]). I do not have substantive knowledge on the topic or the related scientific literature to contribute much to the page, however. Looking at the history of the page, it looks like a lot of content has been scrubbed and added in the last two years, primarily by one editor whose first edits on Wikipedia were to Bioenergy Europe, a lobbying group for the biomass industry. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:PROFRINGE edit warring at Robert Lanza. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Some new WP:SPA activity and disagreement about how to represent Ioannidis' outlier views. Probably could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
So I recently came across an
edit request wanting to add some material from someone called Jibin Joy, cited as an "Independent Translational Scientific Researcher" from Kochi, India who is "not affiliated" with any institution. Skimming through those sources:
[4]
[5], it seems the main point he's trying to get across is that all diseases are caused by not having enough oxygen in your blood, and that thus all diseases can be cured by adding more oxygen in your blood. Some choice quotes: Universe is an unquestionable natural truth that identifies itself and us as 'unity'. Human consciousness cannot be considered locally storedin the nervous system. Genetic predispositions can be corrected byenhancing oxygenation since oxygen is the real time mediator of homeo-static regulation... Since the homeostatic regulation in the ecology of life is mediated by oxygen, an enhancement in oxygenation thereby results in reestablishment of homeostatic regulation. This reestablishment of homeostatic regulation can neutralize and negate disorder genesis, and will lead to restoration of health. And reestablishment of homeostatic regulation is the one and only requirement for healing.
Plus some extra
Ayurveda mixed in with all of that.
I've denied another one of those edit requests and removed some material cited to this person over at Homeostasis, but I'm not sure that this is all of it and frankly I'm not entirely sure of what's going on here with all this stuff. -- Volteer1 ( talk) 10:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the {{ Big History}} template while poking around cosmology articles. It and the article Big History seem ... well, grandiose would be one term. WP:SYNTH would be another. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
In the same way that Fritjof Capra carried out an analysis of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism, the teaching of the Big History in universities of Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Argentina is nourished by the worldview of their ancestor to analyze the parallels between the scientific discoveries and the original knowledge of the native and indigenous peoples.That's taking the fringe ball and running with it. Maybe there's a notable topic underneath all the dross, but the current article does few favors to the reader trying to find it (and the template looks to be pure synthetic cruft). XOR'easter ( talk) 21:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be some synthesis and possibly COI editing going on with a cluster of articles involving
I found my way into this via the AfD for "Noometry", which pointed to this thread at WikiProject Medicine. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This CFZ "organization" is almost a one man backyard cryptozoology thing from a cottage in Devon. Jonathan Downes runs it from his cottage. Downes himself was using sock-puppets back around 2008 to edit this article and related ones. He even turned up on the talk-page [7]
I am not seeing any independent reliable references for these articles. The Centre for Fortean Zoology reads as self-promotion. Downes also created his friends Wikipedia article Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist). This is obviously a conflict of interest issue. The page says he is a "zoological director of the Centre for Fortean Zoology". However, Freeman is not a qualified in zoology or any related field of study. He does not appear to be notable.
The CFZ website claims to be the only scientific cryptozoological organization in the UK. On the same page it say it "is based in an old country house in rural Devonshire, parts of which are well over 200 years old. It is home to several ghosts" [8]. The article has 13 references, 8 of them were written by Downes. The rest is only passing mention. What should be done here? I believe these articles should be merged or deleted. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Space elevator#Fringe Theory. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like an ad campign for this is just starting. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
See WP:NPOVN#Are we gonna do anything about Tariq Nasheed and Hidden Colors? Fringe films and fringe producer/commentator. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like there is something wrong with Comparison of Japanese and Korean ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), it seems to contain some WP:PROFRINGE. I (from a different IP) added Template:Fringe theories to the article and started a discussion in the talk page, but the template was removed by another IP with the following edit sumary but without a message in the talk page:
even if a relationship between the two is still disputed, that does not make it a "fringe" idea (which implies total scholarly rejection)
I feel like the article try to convince the reader that there is a genetic relationship between the Japanese and Korean languages (which is against the current linguistic consensus). The beginning of the article is not as bad, there are some sentences informing the reader this is not the main theory, but they are counter-balanced by pro-fringe sentences.
Like I said the talk page:
I guess it's acceptable to make an article about every linguistic theory floating around, however the article should be clearer that this is not an accepted theory. It should give the arguments in favor of this theory from a neutral point of view instead of trying to convince the reader that this theory is true.
The content of the article is mostly bad linguistic, making a comparison table for numerals containing only supporting evidence (the numbers 3, 5, 7, 10) is so disingenuous, and it's followed by a random "Also, Sillan language called 3 as "Mil" too." This is absurd.
The introduction ends with "Any relation between the two languages remains controversial." which is good, but it's prefixed by a sentence suggesting this is a political/cultural issue, while it's mainly a scientific one. The remaining of the article is written to convince the reader that there is a genetic connection between the Japanese and Korean languages, so I decided to add the WP:FRNG template.
— me
Maybe I was wrong to put Template:Fringe theories on the whole article and should have added it only to some section? But I feel like all sections are guilty of WP:PROFRINGE there.
109.15.168.117 ( talk) 09:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the "vocabulary" section entirely; it appeared to be based only on a student thesis and was wildly WP:UNDUE weight. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent human evolution has some issues that could use more attention, especially from editors who are knowledgeable about evolution and scientific racism.
The article
stated that Humans living in humid tropical areas show the least sign of evolution...
and As such, Europeans and East Asians appear to have undergone evolution at a faster rate than Africans, who are precisely where modern humans originated.
In context, this isn't quite as extreme as it appears, but it's still indirectly implying that Africans are "less evolved" than non-Africans. It's possible to interpret this with more nuance, but the bland reading of this paragraph is a misrepresentation of evolution that closely aligns with historical scientific racism. I removed this content, but it was
restored by
Nerd271 with superficial changes as "Miscellaneous improvements".
Much of these claims come from
Nicholas Wade, who is himself a bit controversial, but this isn't really conveyed in the article. Further, the article also claims that Contrary to popular belief, not only are humans still evolving, their evolution since the dawn of agriculture is faster than ever before.
This is sourced pop-sci coverage of the work of
John D. Hawks. Per the lead of his biography article, Contrary to the common view that cultural evolution has made human biological evolution insignificant, Hawks believes that biological evolution has sped up in recent history.
In other words, one article is saying this is a contested viewpoint, while the main article for the topic is taking his position at face value and placing it in the lead without nuance or comment.
The article also cited Henry Harpending, who was a eugenicist, and Gregory Cochran who proposes that homosexuality is a disease. In other words, both have documented histories of promoting very fringe ideas regarding genetics, race, etc. Both of them also worked with Hawks, which suggests this is a walled garden.
These are all red flags, but since this is outside my area of expertise, it would be helpful to have some help from someone with more knowledge of these issues and the relevant literature. Grayfell ( talk) 01:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I find the claim that Europeans have undergone evolution at a faster rate than Africans and thus are more evolved interesting, seeing as I just recently read on a racist pseudoscience website (a post on a skeptics forum pointed me to it -- I have strange hobbies) that Africans have had a longer period to evolve than Europeans and thus are more evolved. Of course everybody knows[ Citation Need ed that the pinnacle of evolution is echolocation ability, with humans the least evolved, dolphins the most evolved, and bats somewhere in between. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Seems to be an antivax problem brewing (e.g. [10]). More eyes needed. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Since it's topic-related and current, also linking WP:NPOVN § AstraZeneca vaccine — Paleo Neonate – 23:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the person but the article came to my attention because it cites an article from the antivax World Mercury Project site (apparently related to Children's Health Defense). Research in exposure to heavy metals is legitimate and the article doesn't have any mention of vaccination. The cited problematic source indeed mentions Bjørklund but also adds a mention of ethylmercury as a preservative in some vaccines (true but considered of no concern except by the antivax), then adds the dubious claim that children with ASD are particularly more sensitive to heavy metal bioaccumulation (no idea if it's editorial or part of Bjørklund's claims). We've also seen dubious amalgam-exposition claims before and this seems to be related to Bjørklund's work (on the other hand, it mentions occupational exposure for dentists which may be more legitimate than concerns for patients with amalgams). Maybe the only issue is the use of this problematic source, but more eyes welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 04:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted a series of edits at Chinese herbology which looked dubious to me. Review of the revert, and eyes on the page, would be welcome. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a kerfuffle on the Candace Owens page about whether the article can contain (i) a "COVID conspiracy theorist" tag and (ii) whether it can mention Owens's ranting about how Bill Gates and the WHO are experimenting with vaccines on "tribal children". [13] The argument for removing the first thing appears to be that Owens's main claim to notability is not as a COVID conspiracy theorist, and the argument for removing the second thing is that Owens doesn't specifically mention COVID vaccines in her remarks about Bill Gates experimenting on tribal children, although her remarks are clearly in the context of COVID-vaccines (and it's covered in that context by reliable sources). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Some disagreement on whether Taubes' unorthodox views on obesity science should be flagged-up in the lede. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
An editor (@ Psychologist Guy:) recently drew my attention to two fringe articles on Wikipedia that I hadn't noticed before: Jonathan Downes and Centre for Fortean Zoology, both focused on cryptozoology. Both appear to primarily have been authored by Downes and/or members of the Centre for Fortean Zoology. The first of the two is up for deletion and I've redirected the latter article to cryptozoology for now (I'm sure it'll simply be reverted), but it should likely be outright deleted, as it pretty clearly fails WP:RS and Wikipedia:Notability. Whatever happens, both could certainly use more eyes from editors who work with fringe topics. :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
A brand new user wants to reshape the article on Eric Weinstein to reflect his pioneering contribution to physics, viz. Geometric Unity, and downplay his involvement in the [pseudo]intellectual dark web. Since there are basically no reliable sources on that ( "Geometric+Unity"+%2BWeinstein, it's resoundingly ignored as crank theories tend to be), this depends on primary-sourced crap like Weinstein's video exposition of his theory, blogs and the like.
I'm pretty sure we've been round this loop before, possibly even with the same user in a different guise, but I don't follow fringe physics much, so maybe regulars here will be more familiar. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a long history of editors (both IP and registered) at List of Middle Eastern superheroes claiming that all Jewish superheroes can be called "Middle Eastern superheroes" and should therefore be included in the list. E.g August 2020. They have always been reverted. On March 5, 2021 Bob drobbs ( talk · contribs) started the discussion
I repeatedly demanded they present reliable sources for their claim. They presented sources which - in my eyes - fall short of supporting their claim. Some hours ago, I posted uw-chat1 on their user's talk page with the explanation, "I am referring to your repeated promotion of the theory that all Jews should be called "Middle Eastern" which is not backed by any reliable sources." Afterwards, they changed the scope of the list, I reverted back to status quo and posted uw-ew on their talk page. They tagged the list with {{POV}}.
I know that the theory has been discussed before, e.g.
-- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not a WP:FRINGE issue. Categorization and labeling is necessarily fraught and is the one area where limited original research is tolerated on WP. The question is really one for an appropriately phrased WP:RfC. Frankly, the idea that there should be any lists at all identifying where superheroes are supposed to be from strikes me as absurdly WP:INUNIVERSE. jps ( talk) 00:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCEand that the "Middle Eastern" label is the best way to describe the Jews of today. Jewish identity (like most ethnic and religious identities) involves and supersedes many things that assimilated into a new distinct identity. Attempts to place this Middle Eastern / Asian moniker on anything Jewish is actually pretty disrespectful towards the richness and the strength of Jewish identity. WP:UNDUE comes to mind where Jewish communities that lived for millenia outside of the Middle East, while keeping a remarkable continuity in tradition but also incorporating elements through contact with their neighbours. My stomach is turned when the European character in the identity of European Jews is so easily carved out. On a more basic note, calling all Jews "Middle Eastern" based on a several-millenium-old origin is akin to:
Just noticed that IPs and one SPA edit Middle Eastern Americans based on the same fringe theory, e.g. this edit which I reverted. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 06:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This is forum shopping.
User:Bob drobbs started an RfC on March 28th at
Talk:List of Middle Eastern superheroes#RFC: Who counts as "Middle Eastern Superhero"?. He presented two positions, one that it should only include those born in and lived in the Middle East. The other was "Another idea is that anyone of any "Middle Eastern ethnicities" should also be counted, but total disagreement and no consistent standards about who qualifies." Hardly neutral, but it got worse as he concluded with the statement that "Outside, non-biased, thoughts would be much appreciated." Which raises the question in my mind as to who was going to decide what thoughts were non-biased. 3 days later he reverted text in the article with the edit summary "Agreement in the RFC. No stated disagreement to the selection criteria proposed. Get new consensus before changing again."
[15]. That was far too soon for an agreement to be reached and I don't see one. Later that day he said he was closing the RfC (he should have withdrawn it), said that an editor was acting in bad faith and except for the lack of the RfC template no one would know it was "closed"), said that an editor was acting in bad faith and that he was moving the discussion elsewhere, ie here. Shutting down a 3 day old RfC because you are unhappy with it and moving the discussion is a misuse of the RfC process and forumshopping.
Doug Weller
talk 12:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
the connection Jews have felt with Israelis religious belief, and we cannot really let religious beliefs govern how Wikipedia applies ethnic identifications and categorization. Giving disproportionate weight to this millenium-old Ancient Levant origin of the Jews is not really feasible. No Jewish diaspora subgroup can claim that they did not mix, both culturally and genetically, so you would deny these other influences by sticking to this "Miďdle Eastern/Asian" tag (there is nobody that defines European identity better than Stefan Zweig). Also, if we would go back several millennia in the past for very ethnic group (because there is no reason to treat Jews differently) then that would really not be workable, unless we consider that we are all Africans. Articles Old Yishuv and Samaritans tell me that they were not cleansed, but that's not the topic here . Place Clichy ( talk) 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
FYI: I just created a warning template, Template:Warning Middle Eastern Jews, based on the one shown on Talk:Antisemitism, in the hope that it might discourage some proponents of this "plain nonsense" (as Place Clichy aptly called it) from further discussion. Feel free to comment or criticize. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Rsk6400: Please do not misrepresent this conversion elsewhere as you did on the Middle Eastern People talk page. The question asked here is if ALL Jews are Middle Eastern. That's obviously not true. It's a totally different question if ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern. You cannot conflate the two, especially as you've acknowledged there are RS which say ethnic Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 06:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion on AfD for List of Middle Eastern superheroes
|
---|
Problems with superhero list criteriaIn-universe descriptions should not take precedence over real-world descriptions. A "Middle Eastern superhero" is not a superhero whose fictional background gives them some Middle Eastern ethnicity or nationality, it is a superhero who was created by a Middle Eastern author, or perhaps a superhero who appeared in a Middle Eastern publication. Looking at the various Lists of superheroes, this is a widespread problem on this site, with characters created by American authors and appearing in American publications being labelled as "Chinese superheroes" or whatever based on their fictional ethnicities or nationalities. This is the kind of thing you would expect on a fan wiki. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I believe it violates WP:INUNIVERSE. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 02:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
|
I argue Jews ARE Middle Eastern
Jews are Middle Eastern apart from converts to the Jewish religions. Jews are a Middle Eastern ethnic group, they are not ethnic Europeans so this should not be classed as a fringe theory because it is true. Their ancestors came from Ancient Judea so they remain Middle Eastern. Although every ethnically Jewish person is not included as as West Asian in the US definition, that does not mean they are not genetically West Asian. Jews are genetically different from Europeans, they are closely related to the Canaanite peoples. Arab people describe themselves as Middle Eastern with no problems, but when Jews do the same they seem to be attacked verbally. If your ancestors come from Middle Eastern ancestry it is not ridiculous to call yourself ethnically Middle Eastern because Jews ARE ethnically Middle Eastern. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews (T96)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzofia1996 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A related discussion has been started at WP:ANI#User:Bob drobbs flooding discussions. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The lede currently includes There is disagreement among experts as to if it is natural or man made
... --
Hipal (
talk) 01:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Talked to some who were more familiar with the politics surrounding this and I think we're getting close to a proper framing which is fairly incredible. One thing I think is an interesting point is that in the last decade or so a lot more sources have started calling this feature Ram Setu because of the political winds. I cannot figure out in WP:MOS world whether this is a case as in the instance of Mount McKinley being properly identified as Denali or, alternatively, Mount Everest as the article name for Sagarmāthā. jps ( talk) 11:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Some borderline pro-fringe editing here. More eyes would be welcome. Neutrality talk 22:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Participants of this noticeboard may be interested in the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeovestism (2nd nomination). Crossroads -talk- 06:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Ayurveda has been brought up over two dozen times on this noticeboard. I've not looked to see if the current specific dispute is strongly related to past disputes.
The article is under a 1RR restriction.
Attempt to qualify the content in the lede, The
Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of
modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as
quackery
, with:
because persons qualified to practice Ayurvedic medicine are not qualified to practice Western allopathic medicine[19]
because "a doctor who has qualification in Ayurvedic, Unani or homeopathic medicine will be liable if he prescribes allopathic treatment..."[20]
Looks like selective qualification to undercut the content in the lede.
Same editor that is involved in the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Adam's_Bridge dispute mentioned above. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
they always blow up in his faceShouldn't they blow up in someone else's face? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've brought Event symmetry to AfD following discussion at its talk page regarding a contested PROD. I'm bringing attention here because a portion of the article concerns a fringe theory of quantum gravity. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Skeptoid ( skeptoid.com), a podcast hosted by Brian Dunning. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent complaints that the Traditional Chinese Medicine article is biased at Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine#I_think_the_Chinese_version_of_this_article_is_written_more_neutrally. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
In [21] I removed a bunch of fringe theories from Shroud of Turin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). We decided a while back to document those theories on our Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin page and to only feature mainstream science on the SoT page.
I expect that the shroudies will not be happy with what I have done.
Among other things, I removed the flash-like irradiation hypothesis -- that when Jesus was resurrected there was an intense flash of high energy protons or possibly ultraviolet radiation that created an image that by an amazing coincidence has the exact same attributes as a medieval forgery. Totally mainstream science, dude, and don't let anybody tell you different. Can you name anyone who came back from the dead without atomic power being involved? I didn't think so. Source: Marvel Cinematic Universe
Please watchlist the page to see the fireworks show. I will make popcorn. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding VP8 Image Analyzer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) the good news is that nobody contested the speedy on the merits. The bad news is that DGG says I used the wrong template. (Not my fault! The Other Guy made me do it! (I always wanted to say that -- smile) ) "It's a product. products are not eligible for A7, just companies. Use AfD". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
A fair bit of effort was made to isolate the fringe material out of the main article. Because there are a ton of theories about the shroud (which has it's own, proprietary -ology word), the majority of them crackpot fringe theories, the fringe theory topic is clearly notable. The
content of the fringe article doesn't have to be, however, as long as it has
reliable sourcing, and is
proportionate. I have no problem with reliably described nutball theories being described in "Nutball theories of..." er, I mean, "
Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin", any more than I do the
Moon hoax, or
Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins. There's no need to duplicate any of the fringe theories in the main article, nor should they be. However, the Shroud article is clearly
parent article to the Fringe theories article, and a section of a couple of paragraphs or so in the main article summarizing the main fringe theories with {{
Main}} and {{
Further}} links, as called for by
WP:Summary style is entirely appropriate, but 48k is way out of proportion.
On the other hand, there is currently nothing in the article about fringe theories, and that is just as wildly out of proportion, given the amount of sourcing and significant coverage devoted to it. Recreate a section, #Fringe theories in the main article, and duly summarize the content of the fringe article, and all will be well. Mathglot ( talk) 05:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The former doesn't look notable at all. The latter survived AfD in 2014 thanks to a list of sources that superficially looks good but may suffer from reliability problems upon closer examination. "Engage! Warp Drive Could Become Reality with Quantum-Thruster Physics". No. No, it could not. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Antimatter is one of the most expensive substances on Earth: about $62.5 trillion a gram. VARIES could solve this issue.... The lasers aboard VARIES would produce protons and antiprotons directly from the vacuum of space through the Schwinger pair production.
AfD? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Richard Obousy is co-founder and President of Icarus Interstellar Inc., etc.) certainly reads like an author bio. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Now, as for Icarus Interstellar... It reads like a PR, and at least some of the sources are primary or PR as well. Any comments? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The engine accelerates ions confined in a closed loopis almost verbatim. I've reverted more on that page recently than I'm generally comfortable with (confrontational is not my favorite look); would anyone else want to investigate and hazard a judgment on whether it's even notable? XOR'easter ( talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
would likely violate the laws of the conservation of momentum. When you've lost Popular Mechanics... XOR'easter ( talk) 01:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Let's look at the sourcing for Icarus Interstellar...
So we have at most one live, usable source in this article. AfD? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
In the same topic area, cited to some of the same dubious sources and seemingly coming out of the same community:
XOR'easter ( talk) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about [47] and [48]? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
User removes Skeptical Inquirer source, adds YouTube instead. Seems pretty active at the moment. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Unsure about wording. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Grey alien. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Lots of back on forth editing with people trying to make Hyperborea out to be a real thing, plus some general nuttery. Might want to keep an eye on it. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 11:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
An editor attempted to ascribe an ethnicity (Somali) to a historical figure based on a single source touching on the existence of "oral traditions" linking the figure to Somalis (this is presented as a footnote in the original source) [49]. The vast majority of reliable sources do not attach an ethnicity to this figure and only discuss him as a Muslim leader who had taken part in a war between Muslims and Christians in the region [50]. I have removed the additions from the article's lede and left a mention of this in the article's body [51], but seeking more opinions on whether the additions should be discarded completely as a fringe theory. -- Kzl55 ( talk) 20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The source i replace it with is reliable and not a mere mention but an actual biographic entry about him. Namely from [1] and this has been refrenced by other texts and the dictionary reviewed by other journals [54] & [55] suffice to say it should fit Wiki standards.
And there is no other source you can mention to contest this either or that state otherwise. So the rule of minority POV or exceptional claim do not really apply here. As for being patient and awaiting fruther contributions, you should have had notified me about beginning this discussion , it was only after i made correction edit that i saw that you had opened this Noticeboard through looking at your contrib, so notify people as the rules "If you begin a discussion of another user on a common notice board, it is expected that you will notify the subject user by posting a message on their talk page (and/or through off-wiki email, if the subject has chosen to enable that function). There are two sides to most stories, and good faith requires the assumption that the subject of the complaint may have a valuable perspective to contribute." WP:NOTIFY. As i had advised you earlier.
Cheers.
Ragnimo ( talk) 16:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Please adress my points and keep your comments on the contention itself, without having to repeat yourself.
Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background. And (C) it's from a mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies that have been reviewed as credible by African academic journals and is used a refrence text
Wether other sources make mentions of it or not has nothing to say for if this a minority POV or not.
Ragnimo ( talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Again as i stated it's not even a minority view point if (A) it's not contested by other sources and (B) other sources don't offer a different viewpoint about his background.
mainstream encyclopedic dictionary production about African biographies, that violates WP:RS. We do not cite other encyclopedias, only direct sources. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 21:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Bite. First of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people. The one about Nur Ibn Mujahid being Merahen Darood is from that of anthropologist Harvel Sebastian [56], from Dictionary of African historical biography (Vol. 1)
Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?
In any case can we include it in the body instead of the leed that there exist a tradition about it because there is another source besides from that one scholar claiming that traditions existence [57] & Which i previously added before it being removed by KzI55 on the grounds that it was in a footnote.
Both Kurt Wendt and Ethiopian/Somali studies authority Enrico Cerulli was refrenced for that by Harvel Sebastian. I could look for another source by Enrico Cerulli which is most likely in Italian if that helps. Ragnimo ( talk) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
irst of all it is a direct source, because the view is less so encyclopedic more so a collection of other scholars contributions, that write in biographies of historical people.
Also it doesn't mean we should take it as a blatant fact but include it and state the scholar in question who holds that view?
Sorry for the late response back was busy all keeping vandals and socks in check.
Bite No. That is flatly wrong. It is not a direct cite. If you want to cite someone, cite the original work where the statement was made, not an encyclopedia or dictionary. It is original work, its written by Harvel Sebastian himself. And his attribution is on the page. But OK.
If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution.
I will find the original source of Enrico Cerulli in Italian, and perhaps look to see if there is another source for this and i will come back to this noticeboard or alert you on the talk page.
Cheers Ragnimo ( talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The source that I will reference in this initial post will be directly from a book written in 1935 by the highly accredited Professor Kurt Wendt, in which he explicitly mentions the ethnic background of Emir Nur as being from the Darod tribe, Marehan clan. This book has been cited in many contemporary works throughout the last 70 years and is widely held as the one of the preeminent scholarships into the "Conquest of Abayssinya" as this book contains the original manuscripts.
[1] Furthermore many other prominent historians such as I.M Lewis from the London school of economics and French Professor Robert Ferry have mentioned quite clearly that the Conquest of Abyssinia was accomplished predominantly by the Darod tribe headed by the Marehan, Harti, Gerri, and Bartire.
[2] With that being said, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to not include the mention of the Emir's ethnicity since there have been no disputes from other scholarly sources that would contradict this information. --
CSI99283 (
talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CSI99283 (
talk •
contribs) 07:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Ragnimo, the source you are looking for is E. Cerulli, "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia". This should be added and used. It's a clear reference that states that Nur ibn Mujahid was of Marrehan extraction. I will shortly in due time provide at least three sources. That way it will not be viewed as a minority opinion and therefore the article can be reedited using the clear references since there is no concensus here anyway. Take care, see you all soon. 86.18.37.245 ( talk) 14:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Of all the sources that ascribe an ethnicity to Nur Ibn Mujahid they consistently reiterate his ethnic background is of the Marehan extraction. As the editor above said "If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution." I've already included one of the preeminent notables in the field of East African studies, Professor Wendt, who ascribed the Marehan background to the Emir. And the editor above me has stated that he will provide a source from Dr E. Ceruli who is exceedingly prominent and known to be a distinguished scholar in regards to the history of the Horn of Africa region.
In the words of London School of Economics Professor I.M Lewis, who has also written extensively about Somalia in many of his various books states "Dr Cerulli is the doyen of Cushitic studies and the founder of modern ethnographic studies of the Somali, in which he was the first to adopt the rigorous standard of oriental scholarship. All those who now work in the field owe a great debt to Cerulli's pioneer endeavor and to his many brilliant contributions" [3]
I am including this as a preface to the addition of Dr. Cerulli's "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia" in which he explicitly states that Nur Ibn Mujahid is indeed of the Marehan extraction. Which would undoubtedly make this a significant contribution from a notable scholar in this specific field of study thus warranting contribution into this Wikipedia page. -- CSI99283 ( talk) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSI99283 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Of all the sources that ascribe an ethnicity to Nur Ibn Mujahid...
We don't have to mention the information explicitly, It's all about the wording. So for example, it should be worded as: "Some sources state that he was of Marrehan-Darod extraction." If we have a few sources, then to include it is valid. The wording can be debated later on. However there is no doubt that there is academic literature that clearly state him to be Marrehan and therefore that should be included. I will very soon collect them and add them and then Ragnimo and others should edit the article to reflect that. 86.18.37.245 ( talk) 20:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I created a new account since it makes it much easier to communicate. I just want to say that there is no consensus. That's just not the case. There is a difference of opinion and our job is to resolve that. There were 3 editors including yourself that was opposed. That doesn't make it a consensus because many of us think that a tentative and not explicit mention is justifiable. Having said that, User: CSI99283 and myself are willing to change the wording. We are not proposing to state him as Marehan explicitly. However, we can easily state that he was 'tentatively' Marehan and the problem will be resolved. The only references that mention his identity all mention he was Marehan Darod. Hopefully within the next few days I place them here.
I.e. "Documenti Arabi per la stories dell'Etiopia." It states: "Nur ibn Mujahid, of the Marrehan Darod." (Translated). CSI99283, the source is clear. I don't see any reason why this edit shouldn't be worded to reflect that he could have been Marehan Darod even just to say that he "some sources state he was Marehan", this would be a perfect edit. Can we agree? Sade Tan ( talk) 01:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree Sade Tan, this edit seems to be the most balanced and neutral per Wikipedia guidelines since it reflects the most prominent and reputable authoritative source on the subject and is not contradicted by any information thus far presented on the board. Furthermore per wiki guidelines neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence which means that the reference to "Documenti Arabi per la stories dell'Etiopia." is the most significant contribution that has been made up to this point. There is seldom any scholar that is deemed more distinguished in this particular field of study than Dr Cerulli and thus warrants this attribution in my view. -- CSI99283 ( talk) 01:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
What does off Wikipedia canvassing even mean? We kept the discussion on these boards for a reason. Are you forcing us to accept your opinion?
First of all, that is an absolutely wild allegation made in bad faith. I used to frequent the Nur ibn Mujahid article for a long time before I ever chose to register. I never accused you of cheating or doing something questionable nor did I ever force my opinion on anyone else. These are discussions going on these boards and I kept it there. If I wanted to force it, these discussions might not even be happening. Someone could have forced edit the article, but that's not happening is it? Unacceptable allegations. Sade Tan ( talk) 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is any off site canvassing Nur Ibn Mujahid was written as being Marahen was on the page for a very long time. So it's not suprising that regular vistors would be alerted when they saw this change.
Going back to what Kzl55 said before: If the one who supports the view is very notable in the field, it could be mentioned with attribution.
As someone above me explained it is mentioned in "Documenti arabi per la storia dell'Etiopia"(Arab documents for the history of Ethiopia) by Enrico Cerruli, who is a Somali & Ethiopian studies authority and very notable enough. He is the primary sources for Muslim medieval history and is aknowledged by other scholars in that field. It is also mentioned in another publication on Somali Islamic history "Storia Delia Somalia L'Islam in Somalia Il Libro Degli Zengi(Islam in Somalia) [62]
" e al suo successore, I'emiro Nur, origine dalla tribu Somala dei Marrehan: He had a successor, The Emir Nur, who originated from the Somali tribe of the Marrehan"
We can mention this with attribution to him.
Ragnimo ( talk) 05:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
This AfD may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:40, 22 April 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.
Some time ago, SENS was designated as a fringe theory. I cannot speak for the situation at the time, but in the modern day, this is incorrect.
While there is debate as to the exact efficacy of the strategies proposed (if they will be as revolutionary as the organization claims, or are 'merely' promising strategies cure disease), they are now widely accepted as valid tactics to consider when developing treatments for age-related diseases.
Exhibit 1: Hallmarks of Aging
In 2012, SENS's theories were effectively repackaged in a paper published in Cell, titled "The Hallmarks of Aging" - this paper has an extremely high number of citations (7296 and counting at the time of writing), providing it with ample authority and an indication of popular support. Its statements are unquestionably identical to SENS's own, but more in-depth, with slightly different categorization and an additional emphasis placed on genomic instability and epigenetic drift
(to summarize:
SENS: Extracellular aggregates. HoA: Loss of proteostasis. Misfolded proteins often aggregate. SENS: Extracellular matrix stiffening. HoA: Again, loss of proteostasis. ECM is made from proteins, the stiffening is thought to be caused by modifications to these proteins - which can easily be classed as loss of proteostasis. SENS: Intracellular aggregates. HoA: Wow, SENS likes (hates?) their loss of proteostasis. SENS: Death-resistant cells. HoA: Cellular senescence. SENS: Mitochondrial mutations. HoA: Mitochondrial dysfunction. SENS: Cancerous cells (note that this is separate to death-resistant (senescent) cells). HoA: All cancer is caused by epigenetic alterations or genomic instability. Both hallmarks. SENS: Cell loss, tissue atrophy (SENS strategy: introduce stem cells) HoA: Stem cell exhaustion)
Though the paper does not explicitly call out SENS, it comes to effectively identical conclusions (with a few additions), and its popularity therefore suggests that these conclusions are shared by the scientific community, raising SENS's authority. Looking at its authors, one (Maria Blasco) is now on the research advisory board of SENS, suggesting that she supports the organization - lending it further authority, given her prominence in the field.
Exhibit 2: Investor confidence & startups
SENS has completed extensive intra- and extra-mural research programmes on prospective drugs matching its preferred strategies, and some of these programmes are now approaching clinical trials, with ample funding. See: Revel Pharmaceuticals, Ichor Therapeutics & (the only currently public company built on a strategy SENS initially proposed) Unity Biotechnologies. Unity in particular is a good example, with a current market cap of $304m. Of course, even fringe theories can be well-funded, so this is more supporting information than anything.
Exhibit 3: Preclinical data
SENS has now released extensive preclinical data for a variety of approaches based upon its strategy, which have shown a range of impressive results. They have done this through both intramural and extramural research, as well as research by scientists who agree with their conclusions. Despite these approaches generally being preclinical, there is still evidence supporting them and significant data available, which I feel contributes to a potential re-designation of SENS as non-fringe. Efforts to treat disease using strategies identical to SENS are also underway by independent groups, and I will happily discuss these if prompted. Alyarin9000 ( talk) 00:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Though the paper does not explicitly call out SENSSo it's not explicitly SENS, but we should treat it as if it is! -- Hipal ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
"Hallmarks of Aging" authors don't seem to explicitly link their criteria to those of SENS—it makes it hard to tell whether SENS has influenced current medical theories of aging or if there's just a coincidence in terms, which is why I mentioned WP:SYNTH above.We need to be able to WP:VERIFY the relationship between the two, otherwise the popularity of the "Hallmarks of Aging" doesn't impart mainstream acceptance to SENS. — Wingedserif ( talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
the idea that a research programme organized around the SENS agenda will not only retard ageing, but also reverse it—creating young people from old ones—and do so within our lifetime, is so far from plausible that it commands no respect at all within the informed scientific community.
fringe organization of pseudoscientists? Claiming that WP:ABOUTSELF is not about cases such as this, which involves a questionable source as a source on itself? Trying to redefine "mainstream" so something which is clearly not mainstream becomes so? Those methods may be slightly original, at least I have not encountered them in exactly this form, but they are still well within the area of bad reasoning well-known to everybody who frequents this page, and of course well outside the area of sound reasoning. Also, I am surprised that the link to WP:IDHT has not made an appearance yet. (Do not ping me either. I live here.) -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
What is "exceptional claim"This is a good question. Thomas Kuhn, as outmoded as he may be these days in Science and Technology Studies and Philosophy of science circles, may help to provide an answer to this. An "exceptional claim" would be one that seeks to overturn a paradigm while an "ordinary claim" might be so-called " normal science". jps ( talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn I think it will be helpful if you answer some questions about what is your problem with the arguments in favor of stoping considering SENS as fringe. Do you think that SENS's website isn't a reliable source for claiming that SENS is researching about things like senolytics and removing advancded glycation end products? or that it doesn't matter and not worthy to be considered in the article?. What you consider as a good evidence that SENS isn't fringe?, do you expect a letter (like the letter that is being used as a source in the "criticism" section) that simply state that SENS is accepted by the scientific community?. You think that we should prove that the idea of reversing aging is itself not "fringe"? or that is "mainstream"?. How you determine if something is "mainstream" or not?.-- ThunderheadX ( talk) 16:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of [68]? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Also related:
— Paleo Neonate – 04:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Media publicity surrounding the latest UFO video acknowledged by the Pentagon. I think a 4 day old story needs a bit more time to settle, but there are article move and rename proposals being discussed. See Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Requested_move_18_April_2021. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop throwing cold water on my Earth-ET relations! Exopolitics is the next big thing! jps ( talk) 16:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a new account SPA over on Swiss Policy Research that's trying to remove criticism of the website as a conspiracy and pseudoscience site. Silver seren C 00:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Rename this? Other ideas? Whenever someone suggests that something is based on quantum, that usually means they do not understand how it works and think that adding quantum will reduce the pain. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Do the pages Dave Grossman (author), Killology and On Killing meet the NPOV and FRINGE guidelines? As far as I can tell, the subject is a non-academic who is not doing science, yet presenting his work as if it were science (psychology, more precisely). However, the Wikipedia articles makes him appear as if he were an academic. The misrepresentation of the subject and his works is particularly problematic given that the person and his works have been attributed as a contributor to militarization of police in the US. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).
Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.
The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Transcendental Meditation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The evidence for the effectiveness of the technique seems to have improved over the last two months! Also, Cochrane reviews seem to be less relevant than other studies. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The article was renamed last year, from Jacques Benveniste, and reorganized accordingly. Now someone (probably a relative) tries to turn it into a biography again, moving the "Jacques Benveniste" part to the top but not renaming the article. Also, removing categories. Someone else revented, then I reverted again after the second attempt. But I guess this is not the end of it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
My edit has been removed in which I specified on the lead that the practice is fringe. This article needs more eyes. Shankargb ( talk) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) prescriptions:
Also see:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about
[70] and subsequent edits? I'll grant you that the majority of scholars believe that the United Monarchy existed
, however they believe so based upon sparse and shoddy evidence, it is a leap of faith rather than science.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 11:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
the majority of scholarswho are interested in that question must be theology scholars, whose job description contains believing things completely without evidence. What do the historians believe? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
more nuanceyou mean describing more positions taken in the archeological scholarship and drawing somewhat more modest conclusions. The concluding statement of the relevant passage ((pp. 2126-7), however, which can be taken as Maeir's own position, is
In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials...and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests.In other words, the position he has described earlier -
Some scholars continue to believe that the United monarchy was a large and prosperous kingdom, mirroring to a large extent the image portrayed in the biblical text- is not supported by the currently available material evidence. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Attempt to relitigate the legitimacy of the lab leak supposition again at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Discussion_of_4th_origin_hypothesis. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of vandalism and removing of various criticisms of this white nationalist fringe group from IPS and red accounts. Eyes needed. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on whether the hypothesis that there is a genetic link between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RFC on sourcing in relation to race and intelligence. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Bashir Iran is currently edit warring this unsourced passage into the mammoth article.
According to Ferdowsi's Shahnameh in the Shah Mazandaran Shah's army (which is located in Mazandaran Shahnameh is different from the current Mazandaran and some consider it in northern Asia and the current Russian steppes), there were 1200 elephants. If we consider the Shahnameh as an epic based on the facts of the last 3000 years, then we may encounter a report of the survival of a group of mammoths up to 3000 years ago in North Asia.
As far as fringe theories go, this is certainly out there. I can't find any reference to this so this appears to be a "novel theory" from the user in question. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
"He is critical of Cultural Marxism"
I think this is not according to WP:FRINGE, but I do not know enough about the easter egg Marxist cultural analysis#More recent developments behind the "Cultural Marxism" link to be sure. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm telling you, you can't make this stuff up. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I finally got to the bottom of this. Look at this photo: [76] [77] Look at the size of the Bidens compared to the Carters... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It's clearly intended as humorIt may be clear to you. But the positions out there are so diverse nowadays, there are probably people who believe it. And the person who invented it could be one of those. Poe's Law in action, as jps said. Somehow similar to the question whether people who sell snake oil believe in it themselves: I can't tell, just speculate, and I don't really need to.
IP and two accounts adding fringe material trying to link this to Hindu mythology. Needs more eyes. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Members of this group might want to take look at the Material science analysis section of the Pumapunku article, which gives undue credence to the fringe idea that the sandstone and andesitic blocks are artificial stones composed of alleged "geopolymers." Paul H. ( talk) 01:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)