This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Bad name for an article. Wikipedia should not pretend demonic possession is real by labeling people with a fantasy word superstitious simpletons use for them. (There may be more articles like that, but I could not find any.) What is the right name? Also, the article could probably use NPOVing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
He's famous for supposedly being possessed by demons. What else do you call it? If you insist, however, Michael Taylor (murderer) is available. - Sumanuil ( talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Different narrative; familiar situation. Sources seem fairly sceptical about this being from a "lab leak" yet after some recent editing Wikipedia has been in danger of over-egging it – not least listing this as a definite leak in the list article above (should this not be just confirmed incidents?). Probably could do with additional scrutiny. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:03, 7 June 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.
Science-Based Medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There's an editor edit warring over a notability tag and removing multiple references there. More eyes would be appreciated, as they seem to be very combative about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently applying skepticism to skepticism is a bad approach... I’ve taken a note of that. My initial attempts to address the issue with MPants were good natured, fact based, and comradely [7] [8] they however did not seem willing to respond in kind. The proper response to a notability tag is either to get a consensus on the talk page or add in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to the page itself *before* removing the tag. We can’t give Science-Based Medicine a free pass just because they do good work in the fringe theories/skepticism space. WP:GNG doesn’t get renegotiated just because we personally are fans of the blog, even if thats how some choose to treat AFD these days. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with more patience than me deal with the idiot currently trying to insert the usual bollocks into the Pyramid power article - I've used up my patience ration for today, and am about to lose my temper. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There are a lot of fringe claims of impact craters that tend to be ignored in the literature. I recently came across the Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure which appears to have gained almost no attention outside the authors conference abstracts, which are effectively self-published. As such I have nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure, maybe someone can find better sourcing. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
As I was going through questionable impact crater proposals, I found the Bohemian crater article. The opening sentence of the article is hilarious
The Bohemian crater, also called Czech crater, is a working hypothesis that considers the Bohemian Massif as an approximately two billion year old potential impact crater of 260 kilometres (160 mi) diameter.[1] This is contrary to the mainstream geological theory of plate tectonics, which explains the Bohemian Massif as the result of collision of independent continental units, occurring more than 300 million years ago.
. As far as I can tell there is no coverage of this theory outside the main proponents conference abstracts, as such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian crater. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure and Azuara impact structure, were both created and extensively edited by the similarly named SPAs Decubridor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Descubridor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the turn of the last decade, who I presume are the same person, and the articles have received little editing since. There appears to have been some controversy where they were removed from the Earth Impact Database in the early 2000s, with the main proponents complaining in self-published publications about "bias" on behalf of their opponents. I think they have received enough coverage that they pass the GNG, including the criticism in the highly cited (430 citations) 2010 paper The convincing identification of terrestrial meteorite impact structures: What works, what doesn't, and why, but the articles are currently profringe, as the seem to take the impact hypothesis as true when the claims are strongly disputed. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
How'd you deal with stuff like this? When the abstract contains "Regardless whether the “pandemic” itself is real or an illusion manufactured out of fear by vested interests"; I know to look no further. The editorial team seems to contain actual names, but the email addresses are cleverly (or not at all) fake ones (they're all gmail). The publisher is included here "Open Journal Systems" but not at User:JzG/Predatory/O. Should we just update the list here? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know if predatoryjournals.com is being actively maintained? Their last announcement is from 2017. jps ( talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Added ijvtpr.com to WP:UPSD. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 has an ongoing RFC for how we should refer to the report authored by the WHO and based on a study conducted jointly with China. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything worth keeping here? All in-parallel-universe... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned how this ref is/was being used:
I've trimmed back some of the information in a few of the articles after just quickly glancing at the ref vs article content. I'll be looking into this closer, but hope others could look as well.
I've not even looked to see what other references cover the same report. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Here's the direct report: -- Hipal ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Mercola is one of the 12 prominent anti-vaccine influencers named in a Center for Countering Digital Hate report linking the group to a large portion of all anti-vaccine content on Facebook. NPR, National Post, The BBC, The Financial Times, Vox, New Statesman, The Independent, Stuff.co.nz. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a fringe theory, accepted by very few Muslims, that the Quran contains miraculous patterns based on the number 19. It seems to me that this article has little excuse for existing, quite besides the lack of good sources and fan-craft. Zero talk 04:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Editors may wish to weigh in on this AFD. I note that the nominator was a significant contributor to Integral yoga and that this AFD nom occurred shortly after I AFD'd on that article. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 09:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Remember him? Early in the pandemic there was some drama over how to treat his various statements about how the pandemic was a "false alarm" etc. Now, months later, there is an antivaxx angle (apparently the vaccines are "deadly" and will decimate the world population). Could probably usefully be watchlisted by fringe-aware editors Alexbrn ( talk) 14:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters
Comment, please!
jps ( talk) 19:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This RfC may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Recent activity by IPs seeking to add fringe interpretations to the article. The latest IP adding text trying to connect a supposedly "strange incident with some fishermen" to the topic. The cited source seems to be discussing declassified Brazilian government documents being of interest to Brazilian UFOlogists back in 2010 [9]. It's probably WP:UNDUE, however because of language and access problems, I can't make heads or tails of what the source is saying. Those having familiarity with the language are invited to review. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I posted this at RSN also, but I think it's of relevance here. Tell me off if I'm wrong. :-) meta:WikiFacts is described as "A Wiki of Facts, as part of or along with meta:Wikifunctions. WikiFacts will be a structured base for facts, and each fact will be given an id number. WikiFacts allows sharing knowledge on point, accurately and concisely. It allows verification and pointing out factual errors precisely, thus fighting misinformation. Demo website at: WikiSpore:WikiFacts_Spore." I'm told that by its proposer, User:Vis M, that it is meant " to extract information from books and simply list it under a topic. Fact-id was proposed to give focus to the facts than topic, and also to allow easy and precise citations." When I pointed out that facts can be in dispute, with the claim that the US election was stolen as an example, I was told that "qualifiers can be add to denote scientific facts, historical facts, general statements, strictness, consensus, estimates, opinions, etc. The main purpose is to breakdown articles into statements, and give focus to individual pieces of facts & statements than topic."
I think this runs against at least the spirit of WP:V and WP:RS. Not only because I think people should read the sources (although I admit I sometimes copy material from other articles without reading every source and I suspect this is very common) but because in many if not most cases context is vital and a plain fact/statement might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense". I could say more but I'd prefer to see other people's views.
I'm not sure I'm happy with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions (actually named "Abstract Wikipedia" either - that looks like a done deal however.. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense"Cherry picking will be avoided, and each 'fact' piece will contain the "buts" for it. That was the main intend, to stress on the particular facts/subtopics in its entirety along with the cautions, instead of a full topic article. Anyway, it was just a proposal for people to join in.
spirit of WP:V and WP:RS, this is what it aimed particularly, by adding citation for each of the subtopic and also allowing on-point discussion to correct the sense. The proposal is just to cut down things in to sub-topics for smartphone era. And it is just a proposal, to welcome inputs and modifications from others. The main purpose of the proposal was to fight fake information and fringe theories by allowing on-point corrections and disprovings, and it ironically got posted here!
with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions" I don't know why you are worried about it. WMF collect money to give service to the people, and they are doing exactly what they should do. Wikifunctions would definitely have a significant impact on the humanity. I am only delighted whenever OpenAccess communities start new projects and only wish they spend more money on useful new projects like this. - Vis M ( talk) 14:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the 2020 United States Presidential General Election was significantly affected by any fraud,is a fact. I can see some sort of utility to collections of statements like that, especially given the number of mundane and obscure facts out there, the totality of which is nearly constantly being researched by someone.
Compound X produced an average reduction in observable symptoms among laboratory mice of 50% when administered at a rate of 1mg per kg of body mass per day? What happens when the study this was derived from falls victim to the replication crisis? Does the fact get updated? Or do we approach the writing of these facts by including every relevant detail, turning it into
In a study involving 480 laboratory mice acquired from Acme Lab Supplies on January 20th, 2011 and bred through 12 generations, conducted by Researchers A, B, C and D between June 14th 2020 and March 12th 2021, with a control group of 120 mice and cohorts of 120 mice each receiving Compound X, Compound X1 and Compound X2, after being infected with Virus Y on June 3th 2020 and allowing the virus to incubate until the start of the study, at which point 90% (431) mice were displaying observable symptoms consistent with the disease and the remainder were expected to begin showing symptoms within a week, the observed effects on the Compound X cohort were a reduction in fever of 1.3 degrees (out of an average fever of 2.6 degrees) and an approximate halving of the delta of reduced food consumption, along with an approximate halving of the delta of decreased energy as measured by time spent on running wheels and distance traveled from preferred bed when pacing...
There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deitya fact? Philosophers generally consider it so, but what's to stop a deity from taking a physical form and proving its own existence to us? Who's to say we won't solve physics entirely at some point in the future and thus prove beyond any epistemologically reasonable doubt there there is no intelligent being directing any aspect of the universe?
MjolnirPants' wife has a fondness for flavored sparkling water,isn't going to cut it, but what about the decorations I was awarded in the Army? What about the amount of pressure it takes to penetrate a human eardrum with an object whose contact area is 0.24 cm2? What about the average age of first mating of an African dung beetle?
Still the fake COVID-19 treatment du jour, now also embraced by antivax types as the alternative THEY don't want you to know about. [11] Recent interest/campaigning in social media ( e.g.) seems to be resulting in an uptick of attention to content here, and all the following would benefit from the eyes of fringe-savvy editors:
Alexbrn ( talk) 09:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, add to this list:
These gentlemen are two of the most prominent advocates of the drug as a COVID treatment. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
A call to arms has gone out on twitter [12] and sure enough the Pierre Kory article got a good going over by new accounts (I have since tidied). This twitter brigading is becoming a real issue. If there's an admin watching this page might be worth semi'ing. BTW, does anybody know what tool was used to make that screenshot? Looks useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Samuel Enderby has been removing criticisms on the Bernarr Macfadden article and adding Macfadden's own fasting book as a source in the lead [13], in this diff he also removed 3 reliable sources. This is obviously a false balance and appears to be white-washing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
See [14], [15] and [16]. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments are needed at Talk:Gender#Yes, Roughgarden's views are fringe. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
6:30 on the 22nd, free. Registration is now open and will close at 17:00 on Tuesday 22 June 2021. [17]. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The horror! A new user found out that Wikipedia is biased against this concept!
Both article and Talk page have been pretty lively the last few months. The term has been mentioned on FTN three years ago: [18] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the question of our time is "What is real?".
DISC assessment is a proprietary form of psychometric testing developed in the 1950s. I fear that the article has become advertorial in tone. All of the critical information has been moved into a "Criticism" section. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 08:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing a browser tab: Rogers, Adam (2021-05-28). "The Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Is a Tale of Weaponized Uncertainty". Wired. Retrieved 2021-05-28.. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Viser, Matt; Abutaleb, Yasmeen (2021-06-05).
"Trump and his allies try to rewrite, distort history of pandemic while casting Fauci as public enemy No. 1".
Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-06-06. Still, there has been no new evidence on the lab leak theory and the existing evidence is entirely circumstantial, meaning no one can actually answer the question of whether there was a lab leak or whether the virus occurred naturally. But many Republicans have rushed to claim anyway that they were right all along.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Ling, Justin (2021-06-15). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2021-06-15. Noteworthy for evaluating the "Bioscience Resource Project" and finding the same problems we noticed at WP:RSN bloody months ago. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar love curse, which concerns a supposed superstition. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Behavior modification facility seems problematic, as it lends considerable credence to the work of behavior modification facilities, even though they are, as far as I can tell, widely criticized as being abusive and not using evidence-based methods. See for example this BBC News story [21] on the facilities. I would appreciate if someone with medical or related expertise could take a look at the article. I also wonder to what extent WP:MEDRS applies. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Highlights include:
One to savour this. But, on a more serious note, should this really have a WP: space link? Alexbrn ( talk) 05:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Well that was quick! Agreed, if this is what passes for a well-sourced argument around here, we've got bigger problems...-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
For those who have two cents left to spend. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
here. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I am expecting some pushback regarding this edit: [22]
Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Croatian source for for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone posted concerns about fringe POV in January. More eye may be needed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This video [23] is circulating on Twitter via the usual crazies. (And some are crazy, eg"If factcheckers say it's a hoax, it's true" and claiming I'm a paid deep state agent). The website itself is a respectable source I think. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this one belongs on some watchlists. Should "a psychoanalytic study of stigmatic Therese Neumann" be quoted? Is leprosy a relevant explanation for St. Francis' stigmata? Did Padre Pio really report that his stigmata were gone after his death? I think the last one is a mistranslation, but I don't know the answer to the first two. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Quantum Psychology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article describes a book about a fringe-sounding topic without any sourced critical commentary of the book. It has been tagged for notability since December 2019. Some of the other articles related to Robert Anton Wilson, such as Eight-circuit model of consciousness, also lack this information. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Amhara people NPOV which possibly contains fringe, venue for discusssion [ [24]], your input is welcome. Thanks Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Advocacy#Is it OK use Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, as long as you do so in an essay in userspace? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is a bit of a mess. A vegan on the talk-page wants to include a rebuttal to the criticisms of the documentary, I don't oppose that but I think it is false balance to put it in the lead. See the talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Why do references 5, 6, 7 and 8 get to stay in the introduction and imply that the film is pseudoscience, misinformation, has been debunked and etc, while a criticism of one of the articles does not? with a general line of, "however, there have also been rebuts to some of those criticisms [insert reference]". Seems reasonable to me.
Plus this "ජපස" person should be blocked from editting the article. Simply look at it, it will be evident as to why... (bias does not get harder, the fact that this person is allowed to make edits on Wiki is beyond me). RBut ( talk) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
6: https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a29067926/the-game-changers-movie-fact-check/
7: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/
8: https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/
9: https://www.mysportscience.com/post/2019/11/06/is-game-changers-game-changing-or-is-it-sensationalism RBut ( talk) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Unless the author is an acknowledged expert, it's completely unusable. Even if the author is, it's still not ideal.All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind. Which isn't to say they must be given the same weight, but that the difference between them in quality/reliability is not the author's credentials (assuming all relevant, actual experience) or the source being a blog post. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
They're all selfpub, but the latter ones are higher quality.
All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind.That "some kind" part is the rub. Would you trust a gynecologist to treat prostate cancer? Better question; would any competent gynecologist even try to treat someone's prostate cancer?
Yes, but my point was that the criticism you will use against reference 10 applies to all the references listed above. So when you say 10 falls under blog, so do references 7, 8 and 9. Another criteria were if the person is not an acknowledged expert it would also be an issue, well look at reference 6, it is by somebody with no credentials (while reference 10 does have the credentials). RBut ( talk) 18:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way I understand that this is a new topic for many people and it is easy to brush off, but the Game Changers is not the buzzwords that are claimed it is (in the introduction of the wiki page). I completely agree that there are a few areas to critique, some of them being that a few of the referenced studies are primary sources with small sample sizes. However the general message is on point. If you look at Canada's latest dietary guidelines where industry was excluded and the review was purely motivated by science versus financial incentives (well, Canada does have free healthcare so it is motivated by reducing healthcare costs), the majority of the plate (around 95%) is made up of whole food plants, because that is what the science shows: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-food-guide-unveil-1.4987261 or alternatively, go here and download PDF (on the right, it says "Download the alternative format") for the full referenced article: https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/guidelines/
"The guide was prepared using high-quality scientific reports on food and health, excluding industry-commissioned reports given the potential for conflicts of interest, according to Health Canada."
"Health Canada recommends eating "plenty of vegetables and fruits, whole grain foods and protein foods. Choose protein foods that come from plants more often." For instance, fruits and vegetables make up half the plate on the report's front cover and nuts, beans and seeds are more prominent."
So take this into consideration. This is a tertiary source (considered to be the highest quality by Wikipedia guidelines). However these are recommendations towards the average person, and not an athlete. RBut ( talk) 19:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
[25] I think when you are so used to dispute, it may be easy to mistake a neutral improvement for a smear. I explained myself on the talkpage, but this is a classic enough example, I thought I'd plop it here. Anyone else thing my wording changes are "negative"? jps ( talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Because receipt of funding, while it can indicate problems and should be disclosed when there are conflicts of interest, is not nearly as disconfirming as someone who actively promotes a competing POV. For my work, I get funding from the government. That does not necessarily mean that I am compromised when discussing the government. On the other hand, if in my work I advocated strongly in favor of the government as a political position, that would be an important thing for a reader to know when considering my review of the "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" documentary. jps ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
~~~~
) each and every time you write a new comment.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Longtime WP editors been engaging with you in good faith, RBut. This is in spite of you declaring early on your intentions as ones that mirror WP:ADVOCACY fairly closely. I've seen similar sorts of conflict play out many times before, and given that I'm going to offer you some advice: you need to learn to work collaboratively with the people who are active here and not respond with knee-jerk combativeness and rudeness. If you don't alter course, you'll probably find yourself subject to things like WP:BANs and WP:BLOCKs. jps ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Here are my current two concerns: should references 4, 5, 6 and 7 be allowed but reference 8 as a response to ref 5 not? To catch everybody up, ref 4 and 6 lack credentials (4 a journalist, 6 an engineer) and 6 is a blog, ref 5 is an advocacy blog but has credentials and references, ref 7 is a blog and has credentials but contains no references (primary source), ref 8 advocacy blog has credentials and references, is a response to ref 5.
And the second concern, is "The film viewing is an approved activity for continuing education credit by the Defense Health Agency[11] and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.[12][13]" has been moved down to the "reception" section. Does that make sense? Why can this not stay in the intro as it was (given as ref 4, 5, 6 and 7 reside there, it seems to be the most approriate place for it). 1. It was marketed as being accredited/endorsed by those organizations, 2. It's in the intro of the documentary, 3. These organizations have accredited courses examining the science behind the documentary that secure credits for CE/CME (continuing medical education) which includes: "Physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, pharmacists, registered dietitians, certified diabetes educators, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, and more!". Clearly it is accredited/endorsed otherwise those organizations would have sued the documentary into oblivion. So I proporse changing it back to "It received generally positive reviews by viewers and endorsements by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the Defense Health Agency". And please "ජපස" let everybody else analyze for at least a couple responses. RBut ( talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought we were getting to a point where we might have had some better working environment, but no dice: [27]. jps ( talk) 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
[28]. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The Kensington Runestone: Geological Evidence of a Hoax,Harold Edwards. 2020, The Minnesota Archaeologist. [29]
Abstract: "Analyses of the geology, geological provenance, fabrication, and lack of weathering show it consistent with an 1898 date and not a 1362 date. The agstone that was used as the raw material is not native to the Kensington area. Toolimpressions and other features of its fabrication are consistent with nineteenth century practice, not four-teenth century practice. All of the letters are virtually unweathered. A calcite-rich coating covers the lowerleft corner of the front. This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone. This coating is less weathered than the calcite in 61-year old marble tombstones found in Minnesota, so it could not have been exposed for 536 years. It is well established from karst geology that calcite weathers at least one and a half times faster below ground than at the surface, so if the artifact were buried for any lengthof time, its calcite-rich coating, including its inscription, would have been obliterated. This artifact was created near the time of its discovery, and is a late nineteenth century hoax" Loads more detail. But I'm too busy/tired, sorry.
Doug Weller talk 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
DRASTIC has an RFC for NPOV depiction of this twitter group researching COVID-19 origins. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Snake oil has an RFC for whether this article should be split into two articles: "literal oil from a snake" and "the pseudoscience term." A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this, originally the "Institute of Orthomolecular Medicine", a bona fide "research institute"? I found it via the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons's Art Robinson. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
See User talk:Francesco espo#Conflict of Interest. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do.Which is, quite honestly, exactly what we'd hope for from a user. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (2nd nomination). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was recently created but I think there is a WP:SYNTHNOT problem here. Is there really such thing as "black veganism"? It is not supported by reliable references. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Like many food trends that seem new, black veganism has historical roots. Eating vegan has long been a practice, especially for followers of religious and spiritual movements like Rastafarianism and the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, a religious group with black nationalist underpinnings that rose up in the 1960s and still runs a chain of vegan restaurants in cities like Atlanta; Tallahassee, Fla., and Tel Aviv. Avoiding meat is also a core principle of the Nation of Islam, whose founders believed that pork was at the heart of the slave diet, and preached vegetarianism as the most healthful diet for African-Americans. Many people who give up eating animal products do it for their health, or for animal welfare. The same is true for the new veganism among African-Americans, but there is an added layer of another kind of politics. “It’s not just about I want to eat well so I can live long and be skinny,” said Jenné Claiborne, a personal chef and cooking teacher who recently moved to Los Angeles from New York. Her first cookbook, “Sweet Potato Soul,” is due out in February. “For a lot of black people, it’s also the social justice and food access. The food we have been eating for decades and decades and has been killing us.” Ms. Claiborne, 30, is part of a new generation of vegan cooks who are transforming traditional soul food dishes, digging deeper into the West African roots of Southern cooking and infusing new recipes with the tastes of the Caribbean. As a result, ideas about the dull vegan stews and stir-fries that were standard-bearers among the early generations of black vegan cooks are changing — albeit slowly.
"The vegan community has been white for so long, and sometimes it feels like they want to keep it white," he says. While the diet has been stereotyped as something exclusively for soy-latte swilling, upper-middle class white hipsters, there is a long history of black veganism in the US and abroad, he is quick to point out. "You love to see yourself represented. That's one of the main reasons why the black community has really galvanised around the vegan idea," he says. While many vegan organisations lobby to improve animal welfare, and Black VegFest is no exception, Mr Adewale also makes sure its platform addresses wider issues in the black community like the fight to end police brutality.
6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article
There is discussion at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant) about how to discuss various of the subject's claims (e.g., that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing); I'm sure more eyes would be welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 12:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Just for the sake of having eyes on this article, Lynn Hughes is the federal judge who ruled that a private employer in Texas could mandate COVID-19 vaccination of its employees. This appears to be the inspiration for edits like this one. As it stands, the article seems highly out of balance. There is a disproportionate focus on controversial rulings that were overturned, given that a judge of this tenure is bound to have heard thousands of cases and had some proportion appealed and either affirmed or overturned. I would expect the ruling on COVID-19 will bring out more colorful responses. BD2412 T 17:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Watts Up With That? ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can James Delingpole's blog turn into a reliable source by being "longstanding" in the real world? Or just in the fantasies of people who regularly try to move articles about denialists towards hagiographies? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Love_Jihad#"Reverse" love jihad
In the talk page discussions, the editors don't consider Indian media sources as good sources, while they have written this "Reverse Love Jihad section", with few Indian media sources. They say that Indian media sources are supported by academic source. I found that the lone academic source, was written by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik from Aligarh Muslim University.
I read the scholarly article, and in that article by Aligarh Muslim University faculty; the reverse love jihad section (inside the scholarly article, not Wikipedia article) is sourced from an Indian media coverage. And in the reverse love jihad section of Wikipedia article, the same Indian media coverage is used to expand the section. Means the same media source is used two times in the Reverse Love Jihad section. First directly, then indirectly as a scholarly article.
Is this section, an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE in the article?
2402:3A80:111B:2A30:3569:2E50:AA35:C5DC ( talk) 05:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Note- In this noticeboard, I am not discussing anything about Love Jihad. I am discussing about the section. The Reverse Love Jihad Section, is written with Indian media sources (including the AMU academic source, which quotes an Indian media coverage), but they always say on article talk page that Indian media sources are poor sources. 42.110.221.125 ( talk) 10:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
References
A couple of users usually associated with the Christian Science church turn up on this article every few months and try and re-write the article to remove any criticisms of Eddy. Usually this involves trying to remove the fact that Eddy was a practicing spiritualist for a period of time or wore glasses or took morphine. What they usually do is remove Martin Gardner as a source and add Christian Science biographies of Eddy which are basically entirely apologetic. An account [32] called "metaphysical historian" has been re-writing some of the article with an unreliable self-published source "A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate" which relies heavily on Eddy and her family which is clearly not neutral. If you check this users talk-page they were told not to add this source to Wikipedia articles because it is self-published and unreliable back in February 2017 but now they are back doing it again adding it to multiple articles. This user is very likely the author of that self-published fringe book. This user is clearly a spammer and just wants mention of their book added on Wikipedia for example adding it to the Warren Felt Evans and others. Any help with clean up would be appreciated. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 09:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Psychologist Guy is in fact the spammer who refuses to address the latest research from published sources but instead hides behind a fictitious notion that a fully published book can be dimissed as "original research" because it conflicts with his out of date information. None of his recent edits have anything to do with substance but rather in Orwellian fashion he believes that research that goes against his preconceived notions does not need to be addressed in a scholarly fashion but instead cancelled so that no one knows about it. In 2017 SlimVirgin, without bothering to read the 1500+ page scholarly book which was offered free of charge at that time online—and a work used readily by real non-Christian Science scholars—dismissed it as self-published. Without addressing the logic of that determiniation, suffice it to say the book was duly published in three volumes and is readily available for anyone to read. Perhaps Psychologist Guy should actually do that before throwing mud at other people and slanderting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphysical historian ( talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The question of the integrity of Wikipedia, as part of this discussion, should include these Wiki sites (not just Mary Baker Eddy) and what has been done, by removing content, to attempt to cancel Metaphysical Historian:
Warren Felt Evans:
Removed: The scholarly book, The Spiritual Journals of Warren Felt Evans from Methodism to Mind Cure, edited by Catherine Albanese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (2016).
Albanese is a pre-eminent scholar of American religious history, especially the mental healing history of the 19th century, and her book cites A Story Untold many times as an important source work. To remove the Albanese book from the Evans Wikipedia page is an intellectual travesty.
Removed: a complete listing of ALL of the books by Evans (including a manuscript by Evans for an unpublished book at the National Library of Medicine), leaving just some of his books. There is no rational reason to vandalize the Evans page by removing these bibliographical references. Also removed was the correction of an error in a later Evans book, so that now the list has an error that a scholar should have picked up on.
Removed: important basic data on the family of Evans, including the date of his marriage and how many children he had.
Removed: the location of where the Evans spiritual journal manuscript resides. That is obviously a critical point for any scholar wishing to research Evans, and, included with the above depredations, amounts to a unfortunate bowdlerization of the site——for no legitimate reason.
Emma Curtis Hopkins:
A prior editor incorrectly cited Charles Braden as the source for a statement that Phineas P. Quimby travelled New England teaching mental healing. Braden said, rather, that Quimby traveled around New England as a healer and made no reference to teaching. That distinction is historically significant. (A simple review of Braden’s book would have shown that.) In addition, an incorrect date was ascribed to the creation of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College. Those corrections have now been undone and the site has returned to its former incorrect state.
Julius Dresser:
Removed: important basic biographical data on the family of Dresser.
Removed: the correction of a false statement that the Dressers took Eddy to court in the 1890s (which was a completely unsourced allegation). That perhaps is a confusion about a lawsuit brought by Josephine Woodbury against Eddy. No such Dresser lawsuit ever happened. That completely incorrect and unsourced allegation has been returned to its incorrect state.
The question of whether A Story Untold needs to be banned as an “unreliable” source is not based on anything in the book itself but rather a standard established by SlimVirgin (SarahSV) and others. In 2017 she defined what the book (then in e-book format only) would need be to qualify for use as a legitimate source. She wrote:
“The author of A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate would have to be an established expert, someone who is a published author (published by third parties) in the field of Christian Science, New Thought or related areas. I hope this helps. SarahSV.”
It can be shown that the author is widely recognized as an established expert in the field of Christian Science and New Thought, and SarahSV said nothing about requiring that a specific third party publisher fit into some undefined list of “acceptable” publishers. But the book does not even need to be published. SarahSV noted that “Self-published expert sources” can be usable:
“Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.”
The Wikipedia rules are not designed to ban books or practice censorship but they don’t want to allow truly unreliable works that are not scholarly and promote alleged facts that cannot be verified. It would seem to make sense before banning A Story Untold that it be judged on its merits and not just swept aside. Thus far the only analysis of the contents of the book comes from one who admitted he had only “flicked through” the book. Surely Wikipedia can do better. (And if it is wrong for me to refer to another editor as a “spammer” it is also just as wrong for other editors to use the same term against me.)
Metaphysical historian ( talk) 17:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
When I referred to using the term “spammer” I was not talking about the action of undoing a prior editor’s entry. I was talking instead about the public use of the term itself, as when a certain account referred to me:
“This user is clearly a spammer and just wants mention of their book added on Wikipedia for example adding it to the Warren Felt Evans and others.”
My use of that term was in direct response to that same editor’s use of the term about me.
I believe there are five sites where I have made changes to improve the quality of the page but with the second goal of leaving intact as much of the original text as possible. Being new to the Wikipedia-editing world, I was clumsy in the exact manner in which changes were made and how I communicated with other editors.
With regard to the comment that three of my edits remain, I would note that I see four references to the author of the book in question (all under the P P Quimby site). I admit to being mystified that my edits (including listing A Story Untold as a source) to the Quimby site have been left largely intact (with just a couple of minor tweaks by other editors), while references to A Story Untold at the following sites (Mary Baker Eddy, Julius Dresser, Warren Felt Evans, and Emma Curtis Hopkins) have all been expunged entirely. The edits to those four sites have also generally been erased. Metaphysical historian ( talk) 22:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I just removed several sources in which loons accuse other loons of being in league with the Devil. This article and some related ones are probably good additions to watchlists. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 02:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems to contain a real lot of undue fringe theorizing, but it looks like a lot of work to extract it from legitimate content. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 02:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The original article has been rewritten and renamed. The title is fringe/pov and although I haven't looked at content my guess is that it reflects the tone of the title. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
ODNI Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena has been released today [36]. It's a bit underwhelming, to say the least (no aliens). The abstract describes it as a report that "relays the progress the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force has made in understanding UAP", so it's possible that this could be a section of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force article. However, the WP:RS coverage of this report will likely be sufficiently robust enough to justify a new article, and it's always possible for fringe to creep into it. As a classic sci-fi film once said, watch the skies! - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm collecting potential RS for the inevitable Analysis and Response section of the article. Post any helpful links here. So far: Experts Assess the Unexplained in Government’s Recent UFO Report nextgov.com, U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but new report finds no evidence of alien life. WaPo, Are UFOs Visitors from Space? Government Report Won’t Rule It Out. BU Today (not a student paper). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The RfC here might be of interest to the 'fringe' crowd. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 11:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Just reverted some edits at Bill Nelson which all but stated that he was convinced there were ETs because of reading this report. This is getting to be more and more problematic. jps ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I’ve added [40] well-sourced “Categories” and “Response and analysis” sections to the article, which is generally NPOV, but leans a little heavily towards emphasizing “we don’t know what they are” alarmism, especially in the lead. Lots of activity here lately, so a few more eyes would be helpful. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Another Wuhan Lab Leak page with WP:NPOV problems: Drastic Team. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
A couple of new users associated with the low-carb community have recently joined Wikipedia commenting on this talk-page. They believe there is a "controversy" about saturated fat consumption, cardiovascular disease and other diseases. The mainstream scientific consensus is that a diet high in saturated fat is a risk for CVD but these users dispute this and are linking to healthline and studies funded by Nina Teicholz or written by Aseem Malhotra. This is obviously a false balance. Link to the talk-page [41] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Robert Malone is an individual who has appeared on social media to (as this Reuters fact check puts it) say that the spike protein as used in several COVID vaccines is "very dangerous" and "cytotoxic". He styles himself and is referred to in such forums as the "inventor of mRNA vaccines". [44]
Over at RNA vaccine#History there has been repeated editing trying to get this "inventor" characterisation into Wikipedia, despite apparently there being no suitble WP:RS for it. While there is no doubt Malone was a scientist publishing early work in this field (see here) for example, his role does not even seem to have been so much that he is even named in historical overviews of the topic, in contrast to - say - Katalin Karikó. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
(Malone) presents himself as the 'Inventor of mRNA vaccines and RNA as a drug'. I presume his claim is based on being a middle author on 3 fairly well-cited publications from the nineties on DNA/RNA expression vectors (104, 28, and 27 citations this year on Google Scholar).Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
So now this has developed so that a couple of editors are objecting to a photograph of Katalin Karikó. She is named in multiple RS as a/the key player in the development of RNA vaccines, but her photo is being objected to apparently because of other key scientists (read: Malone) "that have been deleted". I find it uncomfortable that Wikipedia is downplaying a woman with an acknowledged, RS-backed, historical role because of a man who is effectively agitating, with no RS backing, to usurp her. I am pinging WP:WIRED because of concerns about systemic bias Alexbrn ( talk) 18:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
We don't need a picture of a person in that article. Putting a picture of one person in a general article is a big decision, I think doing that now would be too soon. Wait until the pandemic is over and people can look at the topic with a calmer view. Note that e.g. General relativity and History of general relativity don't have a picture of Einstein, even though he is undisputedly the inventor of it. -- mfb ( talk) 12:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Newly created, looks like the fringe fork from Stalking#False claims of stalking, "gang stalking" and delusions of persecution and Persecutory delusion. -- mfb ( talk) 13:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
|type=article
allows to change it a bit, —
Paleo
Neonate – 10:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Water fluoridation#removal of israel text - discussion from 2019/2020, but the text where the government of Israel justified its discontinuation of fluoridation is still in the article. What do people think? Pinging User:Jtbobwaysf and User:VdSV9 who discussed this back then. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is written terribly. As far as I can tell, this individual disappeared without a trace in June 2005, likely drowned. Since then, there have been claims in tabloid newspapers that this individual has been sighted in Mexico, but these appear totally unsubstantiated. This article lends a large undue amount of weight to these allegations and it needs signficiant cleanup. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
A new user is repeatedly adding POV to the lead that some dietitians support Mark Hyman's "pegan" diet. This is clearly false. The added reference was a holistic medicine/alternative medicine website. I have not seen any registered dietitians from reliable sources support Hyman's pegan diet, the added source was Parsley Health which promotes something called " holistic medicine". Parsley Health is sponsored by Goop so this is outright quackery. It is obviously a false balance to pretend some dietitians support it whilst some do not. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason this article should exist?
It's decidedly fringe content, and it seems too recent and obscure to be noteworthy fringe content. An article on the author was deleted in 2018. The stated rationale for the book being notable is not grounded in facts, appearing to be ignorant of what the NASA ADS is. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I almost put the redirect up for deletion, but then decided that redirects are cheap and it might be useful to have a link back. Good work. jps ( talk) 17:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
New section "Torture-based deliberate creation" looks rather dubious and was removed. As I wrote this, it has been reverted back into the article.
The prevailing post-traumatic model of dissociation and dissociative disorders has historically been contested and are remnants of out-dated hypotheses that became popular in the 1980s (such as the fantasy-model and therapy-induced model)
The therapy-induced model is outdated? Is that true? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Apparently an editor has decided that MEDRS-compliant sources (e.g., med school textbooks) about human biology are unacceptable in Sex because doctors aren't necessarily biology experts, and only sources from the field of biology may be cited in the article. See Talk:Sex#Biological sex in humans and my talk page for proof that I'm not making this up. I'm going to bed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay but anyway I don’t think some of the sources she presented are reliable regarding the topic. Like I don’t understand why sociological sources should be included. CycoMa ( talk) 07:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay everyone I asked at WikiProject Medicine and they said that medical sources are fine for an article like
sex. I’m very sorry about all this please forgive me for all this.
CycoMa (
talk) 17:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I am involved in a disagreement as to whether psychoanalysis should be described as pseudoscience in the lede of the article. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Long section on piezo effect seems undue. Does anybody have an opinion or even a source? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Some determined section-blanking activity here lately. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:52, 12 July 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. |
Bad name for an article. Wikipedia should not pretend demonic possession is real by labeling people with a fantasy word superstitious simpletons use for them. (There may be more articles like that, but I could not find any.) What is the right name? Also, the article could probably use NPOVing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
He's famous for supposedly being possessed by demons. What else do you call it? If you insist, however, Michael Taylor (murderer) is available. - Sumanuil ( talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Different narrative; familiar situation. Sources seem fairly sceptical about this being from a "lab leak" yet after some recent editing Wikipedia has been in danger of over-egging it – not least listing this as a definite leak in the list article above (should this not be just confirmed incidents?). Probably could do with additional scrutiny. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:03, 7 June 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.
Science-Based Medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There's an editor edit warring over a notability tag and removing multiple references there. More eyes would be appreciated, as they seem to be very combative about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently applying skepticism to skepticism is a bad approach... I’ve taken a note of that. My initial attempts to address the issue with MPants were good natured, fact based, and comradely [7] [8] they however did not seem willing to respond in kind. The proper response to a notability tag is either to get a consensus on the talk page or add in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to the page itself *before* removing the tag. We can’t give Science-Based Medicine a free pass just because they do good work in the fringe theories/skepticism space. WP:GNG doesn’t get renegotiated just because we personally are fans of the blog, even if thats how some choose to treat AFD these days. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with more patience than me deal with the idiot currently trying to insert the usual bollocks into the Pyramid power article - I've used up my patience ration for today, and am about to lose my temper. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There are a lot of fringe claims of impact craters that tend to be ignored in the literature. I recently came across the Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure which appears to have gained almost no attention outside the authors conference abstracts, which are effectively self-published. As such I have nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure, maybe someone can find better sourcing. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
As I was going through questionable impact crater proposals, I found the Bohemian crater article. The opening sentence of the article is hilarious
The Bohemian crater, also called Czech crater, is a working hypothesis that considers the Bohemian Massif as an approximately two billion year old potential impact crater of 260 kilometres (160 mi) diameter.[1] This is contrary to the mainstream geological theory of plate tectonics, which explains the Bohemian Massif as the result of collision of independent continental units, occurring more than 300 million years ago.
. As far as I can tell there is no coverage of this theory outside the main proponents conference abstracts, as such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian crater. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The Rubielos de la Cérida impact structure and Azuara impact structure, were both created and extensively edited by the similarly named SPAs Decubridor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Descubridor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the turn of the last decade, who I presume are the same person, and the articles have received little editing since. There appears to have been some controversy where they were removed from the Earth Impact Database in the early 2000s, with the main proponents complaining in self-published publications about "bias" on behalf of their opponents. I think they have received enough coverage that they pass the GNG, including the criticism in the highly cited (430 citations) 2010 paper The convincing identification of terrestrial meteorite impact structures: What works, what doesn't, and why, but the articles are currently profringe, as the seem to take the impact hypothesis as true when the claims are strongly disputed. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
How'd you deal with stuff like this? When the abstract contains "Regardless whether the “pandemic” itself is real or an illusion manufactured out of fear by vested interests"; I know to look no further. The editorial team seems to contain actual names, but the email addresses are cleverly (or not at all) fake ones (they're all gmail). The publisher is included here "Open Journal Systems" but not at User:JzG/Predatory/O. Should we just update the list here? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know if predatoryjournals.com is being actively maintained? Their last announcement is from 2017. jps ( talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Added ijvtpr.com to WP:UPSD. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 has an ongoing RFC for how we should refer to the report authored by the WHO and based on a study conducted jointly with China. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything worth keeping here? All in-parallel-universe... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned how this ref is/was being used:
I've trimmed back some of the information in a few of the articles after just quickly glancing at the ref vs article content. I'll be looking into this closer, but hope others could look as well.
I've not even looked to see what other references cover the same report. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Here's the direct report: -- Hipal ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Mercola is one of the 12 prominent anti-vaccine influencers named in a Center for Countering Digital Hate report linking the group to a large portion of all anti-vaccine content on Facebook. NPR, National Post, The BBC, The Financial Times, Vox, New Statesman, The Independent, Stuff.co.nz. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a fringe theory, accepted by very few Muslims, that the Quran contains miraculous patterns based on the number 19. It seems to me that this article has little excuse for existing, quite besides the lack of good sources and fan-craft. Zero talk 04:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Editors may wish to weigh in on this AFD. I note that the nominator was a significant contributor to Integral yoga and that this AFD nom occurred shortly after I AFD'd on that article. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 09:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Remember him? Early in the pandemic there was some drama over how to treat his various statements about how the pandemic was a "false alarm" etc. Now, months later, there is an antivaxx angle (apparently the vaccines are "deadly" and will decimate the world population). Could probably usefully be watchlisted by fringe-aware editors Alexbrn ( talk) 14:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters
Comment, please!
jps ( talk) 19:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This RfC may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Recent activity by IPs seeking to add fringe interpretations to the article. The latest IP adding text trying to connect a supposedly "strange incident with some fishermen" to the topic. The cited source seems to be discussing declassified Brazilian government documents being of interest to Brazilian UFOlogists back in 2010 [9]. It's probably WP:UNDUE, however because of language and access problems, I can't make heads or tails of what the source is saying. Those having familiarity with the language are invited to review. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I posted this at RSN also, but I think it's of relevance here. Tell me off if I'm wrong. :-) meta:WikiFacts is described as "A Wiki of Facts, as part of or along with meta:Wikifunctions. WikiFacts will be a structured base for facts, and each fact will be given an id number. WikiFacts allows sharing knowledge on point, accurately and concisely. It allows verification and pointing out factual errors precisely, thus fighting misinformation. Demo website at: WikiSpore:WikiFacts_Spore." I'm told that by its proposer, User:Vis M, that it is meant " to extract information from books and simply list it under a topic. Fact-id was proposed to give focus to the facts than topic, and also to allow easy and precise citations." When I pointed out that facts can be in dispute, with the claim that the US election was stolen as an example, I was told that "qualifiers can be add to denote scientific facts, historical facts, general statements, strictness, consensus, estimates, opinions, etc. The main purpose is to breakdown articles into statements, and give focus to individual pieces of facts & statements than topic."
I think this runs against at least the spirit of WP:V and WP:RS. Not only because I think people should read the sources (although I admit I sometimes copy material from other articles without reading every source and I suspect this is very common) but because in many if not most cases context is vital and a plain fact/statement might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense". I could say more but I'd prefer to see other people's views.
I'm not sure I'm happy with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions (actually named "Abstract Wikipedia" either - that looks like a done deal however.. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
might simply be cherry-picked, eg avoiding the next sentence which says "But of course this is nonsense"Cherry picking will be avoided, and each 'fact' piece will contain the "buts" for it. That was the main intend, to stress on the particular facts/subtopics in its entirety along with the cautions, instead of a full topic article. Anyway, it was just a proposal for people to join in.
spirit of WP:V and WP:RS, this is what it aimed particularly, by adding citation for each of the subtopic and also allowing on-point discussion to correct the sense. The proposal is just to cut down things in to sub-topics for smartphone era. And it is just a proposal, to welcome inputs and modifications from others. The main purpose of the proposal was to fight fake information and fringe theories by allowing on-point corrections and disprovings, and it ironically got posted here!
with the WMF spending money on meta:Wikifunctions" I don't know why you are worried about it. WMF collect money to give service to the people, and they are doing exactly what they should do. Wikifunctions would definitely have a significant impact on the humanity. I am only delighted whenever OpenAccess communities start new projects and only wish they spend more money on useful new projects like this. - Vis M ( talk) 14:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the 2020 United States Presidential General Election was significantly affected by any fraud,is a fact. I can see some sort of utility to collections of statements like that, especially given the number of mundane and obscure facts out there, the totality of which is nearly constantly being researched by someone.
Compound X produced an average reduction in observable symptoms among laboratory mice of 50% when administered at a rate of 1mg per kg of body mass per day? What happens when the study this was derived from falls victim to the replication crisis? Does the fact get updated? Or do we approach the writing of these facts by including every relevant detail, turning it into
In a study involving 480 laboratory mice acquired from Acme Lab Supplies on January 20th, 2011 and bred through 12 generations, conducted by Researchers A, B, C and D between June 14th 2020 and March 12th 2021, with a control group of 120 mice and cohorts of 120 mice each receiving Compound X, Compound X1 and Compound X2, after being infected with Virus Y on June 3th 2020 and allowing the virus to incubate until the start of the study, at which point 90% (431) mice were displaying observable symptoms consistent with the disease and the remainder were expected to begin showing symptoms within a week, the observed effects on the Compound X cohort were a reduction in fever of 1.3 degrees (out of an average fever of 2.6 degrees) and an approximate halving of the delta of reduced food consumption, along with an approximate halving of the delta of decreased energy as measured by time spent on running wheels and distance traveled from preferred bed when pacing...
There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a deitya fact? Philosophers generally consider it so, but what's to stop a deity from taking a physical form and proving its own existence to us? Who's to say we won't solve physics entirely at some point in the future and thus prove beyond any epistemologically reasonable doubt there there is no intelligent being directing any aspect of the universe?
MjolnirPants' wife has a fondness for flavored sparkling water,isn't going to cut it, but what about the decorations I was awarded in the Army? What about the amount of pressure it takes to penetrate a human eardrum with an object whose contact area is 0.24 cm2? What about the average age of first mating of an African dung beetle?
Still the fake COVID-19 treatment du jour, now also embraced by antivax types as the alternative THEY don't want you to know about. [11] Recent interest/campaigning in social media ( e.g.) seems to be resulting in an uptick of attention to content here, and all the following would benefit from the eyes of fringe-savvy editors:
Alexbrn ( talk) 09:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, add to this list:
These gentlemen are two of the most prominent advocates of the drug as a COVID treatment. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
A call to arms has gone out on twitter [12] and sure enough the Pierre Kory article got a good going over by new accounts (I have since tidied). This twitter brigading is becoming a real issue. If there's an admin watching this page might be worth semi'ing. BTW, does anybody know what tool was used to make that screenshot? Looks useful. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Samuel Enderby has been removing criticisms on the Bernarr Macfadden article and adding Macfadden's own fasting book as a source in the lead [13], in this diff he also removed 3 reliable sources. This is obviously a false balance and appears to be white-washing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
See [14], [15] and [16]. Doug Weller talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments are needed at Talk:Gender#Yes, Roughgarden's views are fringe. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
6:30 on the 22nd, free. Registration is now open and will close at 17:00 on Tuesday 22 June 2021. [17]. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The horror! A new user found out that Wikipedia is biased against this concept!
Both article and Talk page have been pretty lively the last few months. The term has been mentioned on FTN three years ago: [18] -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the question of our time is "What is real?".
DISC assessment is a proprietary form of psychometric testing developed in the 1950s. I fear that the article has become advertorial in tone. All of the critical information has been moved into a "Criticism" section. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 08:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing a browser tab: Rogers, Adam (2021-05-28). "The Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory Is a Tale of Weaponized Uncertainty". Wired. Retrieved 2021-05-28.. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Viser, Matt; Abutaleb, Yasmeen (2021-06-05).
"Trump and his allies try to rewrite, distort history of pandemic while casting Fauci as public enemy No. 1".
Washington Post. Retrieved 2021-06-06. Still, there has been no new evidence on the lab leak theory and the existing evidence is entirely circumstantial, meaning no one can actually answer the question of whether there was a lab leak or whether the virus occurred naturally. But many Republicans have rushed to claim anyway that they were right all along.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Ling, Justin (2021-06-15). "The Lab Leak Theory Doesn't Hold Up". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2021-06-15. Noteworthy for evaluating the "Bioscience Resource Project" and finding the same problems we noticed at WP:RSN bloody months ago. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar love curse, which concerns a supposed superstition. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Behavior modification facility seems problematic, as it lends considerable credence to the work of behavior modification facilities, even though they are, as far as I can tell, widely criticized as being abusive and not using evidence-based methods. See for example this BBC News story [21] on the facilities. I would appreciate if someone with medical or related expertise could take a look at the article. I also wonder to what extent WP:MEDRS applies. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Highlights include:
One to savour this. But, on a more serious note, should this really have a WP: space link? Alexbrn ( talk) 05:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Well that was quick! Agreed, if this is what passes for a well-sourced argument around here, we've got bigger problems...-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
For those who have two cents left to spend. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
here. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I am expecting some pushback regarding this edit: [22]
Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Croatian source for for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone posted concerns about fringe POV in January. More eye may be needed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This video [23] is circulating on Twitter via the usual crazies. (And some are crazy, eg"If factcheckers say it's a hoax, it's true" and claiming I'm a paid deep state agent). The website itself is a respectable source I think. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this one belongs on some watchlists. Should "a psychoanalytic study of stigmatic Therese Neumann" be quoted? Is leprosy a relevant explanation for St. Francis' stigmata? Did Padre Pio really report that his stigmata were gone after his death? I think the last one is a mistranslation, but I don't know the answer to the first two. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Quantum Psychology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article describes a book about a fringe-sounding topic without any sourced critical commentary of the book. It has been tagged for notability since December 2019. Some of the other articles related to Robert Anton Wilson, such as Eight-circuit model of consciousness, also lack this information. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Amhara people NPOV which possibly contains fringe, venue for discusssion [ [24]], your input is welcome. Thanks Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Advocacy#Is it OK use Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, as long as you do so in an essay in userspace? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is a bit of a mess. A vegan on the talk-page wants to include a rebuttal to the criticisms of the documentary, I don't oppose that but I think it is false balance to put it in the lead. See the talk-page discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Why do references 5, 6, 7 and 8 get to stay in the introduction and imply that the film is pseudoscience, misinformation, has been debunked and etc, while a criticism of one of the articles does not? with a general line of, "however, there have also been rebuts to some of those criticisms [insert reference]". Seems reasonable to me.
Plus this "ජපස" person should be blocked from editting the article. Simply look at it, it will be evident as to why... (bias does not get harder, the fact that this person is allowed to make edits on Wiki is beyond me). RBut ( talk) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
6: https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a29067926/the-game-changers-movie-fact-check/
7: https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/
8: https://tacticmethod.com/the-game-changers-scientific-review-and-references/
9: https://www.mysportscience.com/post/2019/11/06/is-game-changers-game-changing-or-is-it-sensationalism RBut ( talk) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Unless the author is an acknowledged expert, it's completely unusable. Even if the author is, it's still not ideal.All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind. Which isn't to say they must be given the same weight, but that the difference between them in quality/reliability is not the author's credentials (assuming all relevant, actual experience) or the source being a blog post. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
They're all selfpub, but the latter ones are higher quality.
All four of the blogs are apparently written by doctors of some kind.That "some kind" part is the rub. Would you trust a gynecologist to treat prostate cancer? Better question; would any competent gynecologist even try to treat someone's prostate cancer?
Yes, but my point was that the criticism you will use against reference 10 applies to all the references listed above. So when you say 10 falls under blog, so do references 7, 8 and 9. Another criteria were if the person is not an acknowledged expert it would also be an issue, well look at reference 6, it is by somebody with no credentials (while reference 10 does have the credentials). RBut ( talk) 18:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way I understand that this is a new topic for many people and it is easy to brush off, but the Game Changers is not the buzzwords that are claimed it is (in the introduction of the wiki page). I completely agree that there are a few areas to critique, some of them being that a few of the referenced studies are primary sources with small sample sizes. However the general message is on point. If you look at Canada's latest dietary guidelines where industry was excluded and the review was purely motivated by science versus financial incentives (well, Canada does have free healthcare so it is motivated by reducing healthcare costs), the majority of the plate (around 95%) is made up of whole food plants, because that is what the science shows: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-food-guide-unveil-1.4987261 or alternatively, go here and download PDF (on the right, it says "Download the alternative format") for the full referenced article: https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/guidelines/
"The guide was prepared using high-quality scientific reports on food and health, excluding industry-commissioned reports given the potential for conflicts of interest, according to Health Canada."
"Health Canada recommends eating "plenty of vegetables and fruits, whole grain foods and protein foods. Choose protein foods that come from plants more often." For instance, fruits and vegetables make up half the plate on the report's front cover and nuts, beans and seeds are more prominent."
So take this into consideration. This is a tertiary source (considered to be the highest quality by Wikipedia guidelines). However these are recommendations towards the average person, and not an athlete. RBut ( talk) 19:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
[25] I think when you are so used to dispute, it may be easy to mistake a neutral improvement for a smear. I explained myself on the talkpage, but this is a classic enough example, I thought I'd plop it here. Anyone else thing my wording changes are "negative"? jps ( talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Because receipt of funding, while it can indicate problems and should be disclosed when there are conflicts of interest, is not nearly as disconfirming as someone who actively promotes a competing POV. For my work, I get funding from the government. That does not necessarily mean that I am compromised when discussing the government. On the other hand, if in my work I advocated strongly in favor of the government as a political position, that would be an important thing for a reader to know when considering my review of the "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" documentary. jps ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
~~~~
) each and every time you write a new comment.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Longtime WP editors been engaging with you in good faith, RBut. This is in spite of you declaring early on your intentions as ones that mirror WP:ADVOCACY fairly closely. I've seen similar sorts of conflict play out many times before, and given that I'm going to offer you some advice: you need to learn to work collaboratively with the people who are active here and not respond with knee-jerk combativeness and rudeness. If you don't alter course, you'll probably find yourself subject to things like WP:BANs and WP:BLOCKs. jps ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Here are my current two concerns: should references 4, 5, 6 and 7 be allowed but reference 8 as a response to ref 5 not? To catch everybody up, ref 4 and 6 lack credentials (4 a journalist, 6 an engineer) and 6 is a blog, ref 5 is an advocacy blog but has credentials and references, ref 7 is a blog and has credentials but contains no references (primary source), ref 8 advocacy blog has credentials and references, is a response to ref 5.
And the second concern, is "The film viewing is an approved activity for continuing education credit by the Defense Health Agency[11] and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.[12][13]" has been moved down to the "reception" section. Does that make sense? Why can this not stay in the intro as it was (given as ref 4, 5, 6 and 7 reside there, it seems to be the most approriate place for it). 1. It was marketed as being accredited/endorsed by those organizations, 2. It's in the intro of the documentary, 3. These organizations have accredited courses examining the science behind the documentary that secure credits for CE/CME (continuing medical education) which includes: "Physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, pharmacists, registered dietitians, certified diabetes educators, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, and more!". Clearly it is accredited/endorsed otherwise those organizations would have sued the documentary into oblivion. So I proporse changing it back to "It received generally positive reviews by viewers and endorsements by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine and the Defense Health Agency". And please "ජපස" let everybody else analyze for at least a couple responses. RBut ( talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought we were getting to a point where we might have had some better working environment, but no dice: [27]. jps ( talk) 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
[28]. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The Kensington Runestone: Geological Evidence of a Hoax,Harold Edwards. 2020, The Minnesota Archaeologist. [29]
Abstract: "Analyses of the geology, geological provenance, fabrication, and lack of weathering show it consistent with an 1898 date and not a 1362 date. The agstone that was used as the raw material is not native to the Kensington area. Toolimpressions and other features of its fabrication are consistent with nineteenth century practice, not four-teenth century practice. All of the letters are virtually unweathered. A calcite-rich coating covers the lowerleft corner of the front. This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone. This coating is less weathered than the calcite in 61-year old marble tombstones found in Minnesota, so it could not have been exposed for 536 years. It is well established from karst geology that calcite weathers at least one and a half times faster below ground than at the surface, so if the artifact were buried for any lengthof time, its calcite-rich coating, including its inscription, would have been obliterated. This artifact was created near the time of its discovery, and is a late nineteenth century hoax" Loads more detail. But I'm too busy/tired, sorry.
Doug Weller talk 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
DRASTIC has an RFC for NPOV depiction of this twitter group researching COVID-19 origins. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Snake oil has an RFC for whether this article should be split into two articles: "literal oil from a snake" and "the pseudoscience term." A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this, originally the "Institute of Orthomolecular Medicine", a bona fide "research institute"? I found it via the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons's Art Robinson. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 05:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
See User talk:Francesco espo#Conflict of Interest. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I will read these policy pages and keep off the COVID-19 lab origins topic until I understand what to do.Which is, quite honestly, exactly what we'd hope for from a user. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (2nd nomination). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This article was recently created but I think there is a WP:SYNTHNOT problem here. Is there really such thing as "black veganism"? It is not supported by reliable references. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Like many food trends that seem new, black veganism has historical roots. Eating vegan has long been a practice, especially for followers of religious and spiritual movements like Rastafarianism and the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, a religious group with black nationalist underpinnings that rose up in the 1960s and still runs a chain of vegan restaurants in cities like Atlanta; Tallahassee, Fla., and Tel Aviv. Avoiding meat is also a core principle of the Nation of Islam, whose founders believed that pork was at the heart of the slave diet, and preached vegetarianism as the most healthful diet for African-Americans. Many people who give up eating animal products do it for their health, or for animal welfare. The same is true for the new veganism among African-Americans, but there is an added layer of another kind of politics. “It’s not just about I want to eat well so I can live long and be skinny,” said Jenné Claiborne, a personal chef and cooking teacher who recently moved to Los Angeles from New York. Her first cookbook, “Sweet Potato Soul,” is due out in February. “For a lot of black people, it’s also the social justice and food access. The food we have been eating for decades and decades and has been killing us.” Ms. Claiborne, 30, is part of a new generation of vegan cooks who are transforming traditional soul food dishes, digging deeper into the West African roots of Southern cooking and infusing new recipes with the tastes of the Caribbean. As a result, ideas about the dull vegan stews and stir-fries that were standard-bearers among the early generations of black vegan cooks are changing — albeit slowly.
"The vegan community has been white for so long, and sometimes it feels like they want to keep it white," he says. While the diet has been stereotyped as something exclusively for soy-latte swilling, upper-middle class white hipsters, there is a long history of black veganism in the US and abroad, he is quick to point out. "You love to see yourself represented. That's one of the main reasons why the black community has really galvanised around the vegan idea," he says. While many vegan organisations lobby to improve animal welfare, and Black VegFest is no exception, Mr Adewale also makes sure its platform addresses wider issues in the black community like the fight to end police brutality.
6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article
There is discussion at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant) about how to discuss various of the subject's claims (e.g., that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing); I'm sure more eyes would be welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 12:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Just for the sake of having eyes on this article, Lynn Hughes is the federal judge who ruled that a private employer in Texas could mandate COVID-19 vaccination of its employees. This appears to be the inspiration for edits like this one. As it stands, the article seems highly out of balance. There is a disproportionate focus on controversial rulings that were overturned, given that a judge of this tenure is bound to have heard thousands of cases and had some proportion appealed and either affirmed or overturned. I would expect the ruling on COVID-19 will bring out more colorful responses. BD2412 T 17:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Watts Up With That? ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can James Delingpole's blog turn into a reliable source by being "longstanding" in the real world? Or just in the fantasies of people who regularly try to move articles about denialists towards hagiographies? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Love_Jihad#"Reverse" love jihad
In the talk page discussions, the editors don't consider Indian media sources as good sources, while they have written this "Reverse Love Jihad section", with few Indian media sources. They say that Indian media sources are supported by academic source. I found that the lone academic source, was written by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik from Aligarh Muslim University.
I read the scholarly article, and in that article by Aligarh Muslim University faculty; the reverse love jihad section (inside the scholarly article, not Wikipedia article) is sourced from an Indian media coverage. And in the reverse love jihad section of Wikipedia article, the same Indian media coverage is used to expand the section. Means the same media source is used two times in the Reverse Love Jihad section. First directly, then indirectly as a scholarly article.
Is this section, an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE in the article?
2402:3A80:111B:2A30:3569:2E50:AA35:C5DC ( talk) 05:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Note- In this noticeboard, I am not discussing anything about Love Jihad. I am discussing about the section. The Reverse Love Jihad Section, is written with Indian media sources (including the AMU academic source, which quotes an Indian media coverage), but they always say on article talk page that Indian media sources are poor sources. 42.110.221.125 ( talk) 10:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
References
A couple of users usually associated with the Christian Science church turn up on this article every few months and try and re-write the article to remove any criticisms of Eddy. Usually this involves trying to remove the fact that Eddy was a practicing spiritualist for a period of time or wore glasses or took morphine. What they usually do is remove Martin Gardner as a source and add Christian Science biographies of Eddy which are basically entirely apologetic. An account [32] called "metaphysical historian" has been re-writing some of the article with an unreliable self-published source "A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate" which relies heavily on Eddy and her family which is clearly not neutral. If you check this users talk-page they were told not to add this source to Wikipedia articles because it is self-published and unreliable back in February 2017 but now they are back doing it again adding it to multiple articles. This user is very likely the author of that self-published fringe book. This user is clearly a spammer and just wants mention of their book added on Wikipedia for example adding it to the Warren Felt Evans and others. Any help with clean up would be appreciated. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 09:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Psychologist Guy is in fact the spammer who refuses to address the latest research from published sources but instead hides behind a fictitious notion that a fully published book can be dimissed as "original research" because it conflicts with his out of date information. None of his recent edits have anything to do with substance but rather in Orwellian fashion he believes that research that goes against his preconceived notions does not need to be addressed in a scholarly fashion but instead cancelled so that no one knows about it. In 2017 SlimVirgin, without bothering to read the 1500+ page scholarly book which was offered free of charge at that time online—and a work used readily by real non-Christian Science scholars—dismissed it as self-published. Without addressing the logic of that determiniation, suffice it to say the book was duly published in three volumes and is readily available for anyone to read. Perhaps Psychologist Guy should actually do that before throwing mud at other people and slanderting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaphysical historian ( talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The question of the integrity of Wikipedia, as part of this discussion, should include these Wiki sites (not just Mary Baker Eddy) and what has been done, by removing content, to attempt to cancel Metaphysical Historian:
Warren Felt Evans:
Removed: The scholarly book, The Spiritual Journals of Warren Felt Evans from Methodism to Mind Cure, edited by Catherine Albanese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (2016).
Albanese is a pre-eminent scholar of American religious history, especially the mental healing history of the 19th century, and her book cites A Story Untold many times as an important source work. To remove the Albanese book from the Evans Wikipedia page is an intellectual travesty.
Removed: a complete listing of ALL of the books by Evans (including a manuscript by Evans for an unpublished book at the National Library of Medicine), leaving just some of his books. There is no rational reason to vandalize the Evans page by removing these bibliographical references. Also removed was the correction of an error in a later Evans book, so that now the list has an error that a scholar should have picked up on.
Removed: important basic data on the family of Evans, including the date of his marriage and how many children he had.
Removed: the location of where the Evans spiritual journal manuscript resides. That is obviously a critical point for any scholar wishing to research Evans, and, included with the above depredations, amounts to a unfortunate bowdlerization of the site——for no legitimate reason.
Emma Curtis Hopkins:
A prior editor incorrectly cited Charles Braden as the source for a statement that Phineas P. Quimby travelled New England teaching mental healing. Braden said, rather, that Quimby traveled around New England as a healer and made no reference to teaching. That distinction is historically significant. (A simple review of Braden’s book would have shown that.) In addition, an incorrect date was ascribed to the creation of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College. Those corrections have now been undone and the site has returned to its former incorrect state.
Julius Dresser:
Removed: important basic biographical data on the family of Dresser.
Removed: the correction of a false statement that the Dressers took Eddy to court in the 1890s (which was a completely unsourced allegation). That perhaps is a confusion about a lawsuit brought by Josephine Woodbury against Eddy. No such Dresser lawsuit ever happened. That completely incorrect and unsourced allegation has been returned to its incorrect state.
The question of whether A Story Untold needs to be banned as an “unreliable” source is not based on anything in the book itself but rather a standard established by SlimVirgin (SarahSV) and others. In 2017 she defined what the book (then in e-book format only) would need be to qualify for use as a legitimate source. She wrote:
“The author of A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate would have to be an established expert, someone who is a published author (published by third parties) in the field of Christian Science, New Thought or related areas. I hope this helps. SarahSV.”
It can be shown that the author is widely recognized as an established expert in the field of Christian Science and New Thought, and SarahSV said nothing about requiring that a specific third party publisher fit into some undefined list of “acceptable” publishers. But the book does not even need to be published. SarahSV noted that “Self-published expert sources” can be usable:
“Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.”
The Wikipedia rules are not designed to ban books or practice censorship but they don’t want to allow truly unreliable works that are not scholarly and promote alleged facts that cannot be verified. It would seem to make sense before banning A Story Untold that it be judged on its merits and not just swept aside. Thus far the only analysis of the contents of the book comes from one who admitted he had only “flicked through” the book. Surely Wikipedia can do better. (And if it is wrong for me to refer to another editor as a “spammer” it is also just as wrong for other editors to use the same term against me.)
Metaphysical historian ( talk) 17:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
When I referred to using the term “spammer” I was not talking about the action of undoing a prior editor’s entry. I was talking instead about the public use of the term itself, as when a certain account referred to me:
“This user is clearly a spammer and just wants mention of their book added on Wikipedia for example adding it to the Warren Felt Evans and others.”
My use of that term was in direct response to that same editor’s use of the term about me.
I believe there are five sites where I have made changes to improve the quality of the page but with the second goal of leaving intact as much of the original text as possible. Being new to the Wikipedia-editing world, I was clumsy in the exact manner in which changes were made and how I communicated with other editors.
With regard to the comment that three of my edits remain, I would note that I see four references to the author of the book in question (all under the P P Quimby site). I admit to being mystified that my edits (including listing A Story Untold as a source) to the Quimby site have been left largely intact (with just a couple of minor tweaks by other editors), while references to A Story Untold at the following sites (Mary Baker Eddy, Julius Dresser, Warren Felt Evans, and Emma Curtis Hopkins) have all been expunged entirely. The edits to those four sites have also generally been erased. Metaphysical historian ( talk) 22:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I just removed several sources in which loons accuse other loons of being in league with the Devil. This article and some related ones are probably good additions to watchlists. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 02:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems to contain a real lot of undue fringe theorizing, but it looks like a lot of work to extract it from legitimate content. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 02:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The original article has been rewritten and renamed. The title is fringe/pov and although I haven't looked at content my guess is that it reflects the tone of the title. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
ODNI Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena has been released today [36]. It's a bit underwhelming, to say the least (no aliens). The abstract describes it as a report that "relays the progress the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force has made in understanding UAP", so it's possible that this could be a section of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force article. However, the WP:RS coverage of this report will likely be sufficiently robust enough to justify a new article, and it's always possible for fringe to creep into it. As a classic sci-fi film once said, watch the skies! - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm collecting potential RS for the inevitable Analysis and Response section of the article. Post any helpful links here. So far: Experts Assess the Unexplained in Government’s Recent UFO Report nextgov.com, U.S. unable to explain more than 140 unidentified flying objects, but new report finds no evidence of alien life. WaPo, Are UFOs Visitors from Space? Government Report Won’t Rule It Out. BU Today (not a student paper). - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The RfC here might be of interest to the 'fringe' crowd. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 11:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Just reverted some edits at Bill Nelson which all but stated that he was convinced there were ETs because of reading this report. This is getting to be more and more problematic. jps ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I’ve added [40] well-sourced “Categories” and “Response and analysis” sections to the article, which is generally NPOV, but leans a little heavily towards emphasizing “we don’t know what they are” alarmism, especially in the lead. Lots of activity here lately, so a few more eyes would be helpful. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 17:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Another Wuhan Lab Leak page with WP:NPOV problems: Drastic Team. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
A couple of new users associated with the low-carb community have recently joined Wikipedia commenting on this talk-page. They believe there is a "controversy" about saturated fat consumption, cardiovascular disease and other diseases. The mainstream scientific consensus is that a diet high in saturated fat is a risk for CVD but these users dispute this and are linking to healthline and studies funded by Nina Teicholz or written by Aseem Malhotra. This is obviously a false balance. Link to the talk-page [41] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Robert Malone is an individual who has appeared on social media to (as this Reuters fact check puts it) say that the spike protein as used in several COVID vaccines is "very dangerous" and "cytotoxic". He styles himself and is referred to in such forums as the "inventor of mRNA vaccines". [44]
Over at RNA vaccine#History there has been repeated editing trying to get this "inventor" characterisation into Wikipedia, despite apparently there being no suitble WP:RS for it. While there is no doubt Malone was a scientist publishing early work in this field (see here) for example, his role does not even seem to have been so much that he is even named in historical overviews of the topic, in contrast to - say - Katalin Karikó. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
(Malone) presents himself as the 'Inventor of mRNA vaccines and RNA as a drug'. I presume his claim is based on being a middle author on 3 fairly well-cited publications from the nineties on DNA/RNA expression vectors (104, 28, and 27 citations this year on Google Scholar).Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
So now this has developed so that a couple of editors are objecting to a photograph of Katalin Karikó. She is named in multiple RS as a/the key player in the development of RNA vaccines, but her photo is being objected to apparently because of other key scientists (read: Malone) "that have been deleted". I find it uncomfortable that Wikipedia is downplaying a woman with an acknowledged, RS-backed, historical role because of a man who is effectively agitating, with no RS backing, to usurp her. I am pinging WP:WIRED because of concerns about systemic bias Alexbrn ( talk) 18:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
We don't need a picture of a person in that article. Putting a picture of one person in a general article is a big decision, I think doing that now would be too soon. Wait until the pandemic is over and people can look at the topic with a calmer view. Note that e.g. General relativity and History of general relativity don't have a picture of Einstein, even though he is undisputedly the inventor of it. -- mfb ( talk) 12:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Newly created, looks like the fringe fork from Stalking#False claims of stalking, "gang stalking" and delusions of persecution and Persecutory delusion. -- mfb ( talk) 13:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
|type=article
allows to change it a bit, —
Paleo
Neonate – 10:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Water fluoridation#removal of israel text - discussion from 2019/2020, but the text where the government of Israel justified its discontinuation of fluoridation is still in the article. What do people think? Pinging User:Jtbobwaysf and User:VdSV9 who discussed this back then. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is written terribly. As far as I can tell, this individual disappeared without a trace in June 2005, likely drowned. Since then, there have been claims in tabloid newspapers that this individual has been sighted in Mexico, but these appear totally unsubstantiated. This article lends a large undue amount of weight to these allegations and it needs signficiant cleanup. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
A new user is repeatedly adding POV to the lead that some dietitians support Mark Hyman's "pegan" diet. This is clearly false. The added reference was a holistic medicine/alternative medicine website. I have not seen any registered dietitians from reliable sources support Hyman's pegan diet, the added source was Parsley Health which promotes something called " holistic medicine". Parsley Health is sponsored by Goop so this is outright quackery. It is obviously a false balance to pretend some dietitians support it whilst some do not. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason this article should exist?
It's decidedly fringe content, and it seems too recent and obscure to be noteworthy fringe content. An article on the author was deleted in 2018. The stated rationale for the book being notable is not grounded in facts, appearing to be ignorant of what the NASA ADS is. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I almost put the redirect up for deletion, but then decided that redirects are cheap and it might be useful to have a link back. Good work. jps ( talk) 17:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
New section "Torture-based deliberate creation" looks rather dubious and was removed. As I wrote this, it has been reverted back into the article.
The prevailing post-traumatic model of dissociation and dissociative disorders has historically been contested and are remnants of out-dated hypotheses that became popular in the 1980s (such as the fantasy-model and therapy-induced model)
The therapy-induced model is outdated? Is that true? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Apparently an editor has decided that MEDRS-compliant sources (e.g., med school textbooks) about human biology are unacceptable in Sex because doctors aren't necessarily biology experts, and only sources from the field of biology may be cited in the article. See Talk:Sex#Biological sex in humans and my talk page for proof that I'm not making this up. I'm going to bed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay but anyway I don’t think some of the sources she presented are reliable regarding the topic. Like I don’t understand why sociological sources should be included. CycoMa ( talk) 07:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay everyone I asked at WikiProject Medicine and they said that medical sources are fine for an article like
sex. I’m very sorry about all this please forgive me for all this.
CycoMa (
talk) 17:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I am involved in a disagreement as to whether psychoanalysis should be described as pseudoscience in the lede of the article. Jake Wartenberg ( talk) 04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Long section on piezo effect seems undue. Does anybody have an opinion or even a source? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Some determined section-blanking activity here lately. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)