This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Huge article detailing exactly which theologian interpreted which Bible prophecy using the technique called "day-year principle", which is a magic idea reminiscent of creationists, homeopaths, Bible-code cranks, Nostradamus exegetes, and astrologers, as well as sympathetic magic and as-above-so-below thinking. Also makes me think of Deutobold Symbolizetti Allegoriowitsch Mystifizinsky.
Most of it seems WP:UNDUE angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin-counter fancruft. I don't even know where to begin. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
NeuroQuantology has come up on this noticeboard before, so this AfD may be of interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
A highlight:
It's the cdesign proponentsist of COVID!
Oops. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
There's an IP address who's edit-warring to insert content to promote the fringe view that Cuba is a democracy with free elections. The IP is using sources that are either bad or characterized (and I think there may also be some IP hopping going on). More eyeballs would be helpful. Neutrality talk 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I saw this, adding noises Bigfoot supposedly makes to List of unexplained sounds, and then noticed there is a whole section at Bigfoot about it Bigfoot#Alleged_behavior. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Has been under a whitewashing attack for a few months. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Apparently a leading light of the Intellectual Dark Web, this gentleman has recently had his Youtube channel suspended after taking ivermectin and proclaiming himself COVID-proof, raising concerns about vaccine safety, &c. The cries of "censorship" has meant his output is now getting wide attention and sharing. Recently there has been increased attention on his article, and particularly on whether anything critical can be said. As always, the eyes of WP:FRINGE-aware editors could be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This AfD concerns a poorly sourced section of the article that promotes the fringe theory that certain Disney Animated Canon villains are queer. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:58, 17 July 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.
Antivaxxer "Northrup is particularly concerned with reproductive system dysfunction and menstrual cycle irregularities as a result of COVID-19 vaccines, that have been documented by medical anthropologists, pharmacists and others
". Is that so? --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 09:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Changeanew ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user is promoting language theories about Vietnamese from a folk healing website to linguistics and history articles. [4] [5] [6]. They are also adding ethnic supremacy theories. [7]. This is not supported by any academic material. Please prevent them from continuing. 64.18.10.194 ( talk) 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Fentanyl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I removed a section from this article which accused China of "Non Conventional Warfare" using the drug, while the sources were actually about a drug cartel operating out of a factory in China to smuggle into Canada. I've also requested RD2 for an unsourced conspiracy theory added and quickly removed in late June. Please keep a close eye on this article for conspiracy theories, especially the racist/xenophobic ones. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
And another cross-namespace shortcut: WP:YESLABLEAK. If I didn't know better I'd think a WP:POINT was being made. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Just because the wording of some text in support of the hypothesis seems biased, doesn’t justify deleting it." No, but rewriting such biased text to be NPOV isn't too popular among this crowd, either. In the end, weighing these competing forces, I'm not really sure where to come down on this one.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
because it shows plainly just how bad the argument isOnly to those who know to judge such things. Most people cannot tell good reasoning from bad. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Is back:
Alexbrn ( talk) 13:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Height 611 UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article has only two sources. One source is a link to our Discovery Channel article. The other is to a UFOlogists book. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 ( talk) 12:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Becoming prominent, and so attracting attention from IPs and "new" accounts. Could use wise eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a redirect for Disinformation Dozen, but I could see some potential for some spin-out if someone might be interested. Seems like there has been a lot more attention to this lately what with the Mercola profile in NYTimes this weekend, e.g. jps ( talk) 03:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
A user is adding an opinion piece from the New York Times from 2013 to the lead which fails WP:MEDRS. The reference does not mention the lipid hypothesis [9] so this is also original research.
The "Dissenting views" section cites some serious fringe advocates (known as cholesterol denialists) but I am not so sure that we should be citing these people in this much detail. A line has recently been added that cites Robert DuBroff. DuBroff [10] authored a controversial paper with Aseem Malhotra which has been described as an "extraordinary deception". [11]. It is clearly a false balance to be citing these minority of cholesterol denialists to be claiming in the lead that there is a dispute to lower blood cholesterol levels. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
In light of Slate reporting that " One of the Leaders of the Arizona Audit Says Cyber Ninjas Might Be Cooking the Books", this article will likely need extra sets of eyes on it. The talk page has been a colloquy of IPs insisting that unreliable sources should be added to combat "bias"; it looks suspiciously like this is getting ready to burst into the article itself. BD2412 T 20:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
At the article Medical genetics of Jews there's a user adding content about Nazis and ranting about the nature of sources used. They tried to get the article deleted through a case request at WP:DRN, which I closed as an improper filing. More eyes on that article would be helpful. I'm not entirely sure what their angle is, though the possibility that they're upset over some legitimate problems with the article seems real, if remote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Made this a bit more NPOV, but I think they could move more towards WP:NPOV and away from WP:PROFRINGE. Ideas? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Of rather, should Wikipedia say they don't exist? That is the question being discussed at Talk:Shiatsu#"neither qi nor meridians exist". Alexbrn ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, they don't. For good or ill, we don't live in the world of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Trying to create doubt in the face of a massive amount of scientific evidence by zooming in upon a few turns of phrase in a couple sources and splitting their rhetorical hairs is not the way to be NPOV. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
To argue that meridians or qi exist in the same way that nerves or blood exist is to adopt a profoundly pseudoscientific approach to reality. But the same way with all variety of religious beliefs, superstitions, and folklore there are those who use the stories about various empirically questionable points as metaphors to help them talk through ideas about the human experience. We don't go on and on about how there is no empirical evidence for miracles in every miracle story. But we sure as hell are not going to pretend in an article on faith healing that the jury of empiricists is still out on claimed mechanisms. jps ( talk) 02:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This took me about an hour to figure out, but the actual question here is this. The article on shiatsu currently states, in a separate paragraph and (in my opinion) quite bluntly:
Neither qi nor meridians exist.
Some users would like to change this, either into:
or:
While existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven since vitalism is not scientifically testable, the concept of a meridian system does create a testable hypothesis. There is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.( [13])
or:
Anatomists consider qi and meridians to be imaginary; their existence can neither be proved nor disproved.( [14], corrected spelling)
I personally think that all of these options are pretty awful. They seem to be the unfortunate result of an undue preoccupation with either pushing pseudoscience or pushing back against it, rather than with writing an encyclopedia. I didn't read the sources, but I'm quite confident that someone who did will be able to add proper references to something like the following:
The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, a type of vital force that is supposed to flow through certain pathways in the human body, known as meridians. Modern research has failed to find any evidence for the existence of these meridians, and their use as a scientific concept has been generally abandoned outside of traditional Chinese medicine.
This could be put before the current paragraph starting with There is no evidence that shiatsu is of any benefit in treating cancer or any other disease [...]
. ☿
Apaugasma (
talk
☉) 02:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
modern research has failed...which, I think, misses the point that the reason there isn't evidence that these things exist is because there has been tremendous care in documenting what does exist. It's rather much the same with any number of concepts for which there is a lack of empirical evidence. I hate to always bring up Santa Claus, but I will again because I do think the comparison is apt. It's not that modern research has failed to find evidence that Santa Claus exists. Rather it's that the research about all the things with which Santa Claus supposedly interacts does not allow for the existence of such a beast. The difference here, of course, is that there are some stubborn researchers who manage to publish one-off papers to look in vain for qi/meridians, but the larger point is that this sort of research isn't the main stumbling block for, say, modern medicine when it comes to claims about qi/meridians. It's not as though when you mention this to a medical doctor they go running to the journals to look for all the research on the subject. Finally you use the turn of phrase,
their use as a scientific conceptwhich is problematic in that with very few exceptions, qi/meridians are not treated as a scientific concept at all, and when they have been, the treatments have been maligned to such an extent that it is debatable whether we should call it properly "scientific" instead of "pseudoscientific".... but to make matters worse the sentence goes on to imply that within the realm of TCM there is a way to use meridians/qi as "scientific concepts". Perhaps that is not the intention of what you are writing, but I think it is an undeniable implication nonetheless.
vital forceto vitalism. It is true that the latter is a specifically 19th-century doctrine, which of course does not negate the fact that qi is a kind of vital force similar in nature to the vital heat and the pneuma of ancient and medieval western medicine (these comparisons are routinely made by historians of science). I'm fairly sure that sources characterize qi as a vital force, so that should pose no problem.
valid scientific conceptnot in the sense the word "scientific" has now. It is highly dubious to translate whatever word the ancient Chinese had for the category containing such ideas back then, as "science".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."is a quote Martin Gardner used in such cases.
valid scientific conceptin the contemporary sense of "scientific", nor was it implying such a thing in any way (quite the opposite, if read without the undue sensitivity which I argue is taking things out of context, and is obstructing us from being encyclopedic). As for the rest of what you're saying, I clearly have come to the wrong place. It's all just a battleground to you, isn't it? If you're more interested in disparaging your imaginary foes than in building an encyclopedia, I will gladly leave you to it. I will just insist that what you intimate about me using tricks and defending crazy ideas does only exist in your imagination. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
their use as a scientific concept has been generally abandoned outside of traditional Chinese medicine.This clearly suggests that it is still treated as a scientific concept inside "traditional Chinese medicine". (Since TCM has no business of defining science, Wikipedia should either not care about that or note that their definition of science is peculiar.) Now, the people who treat it as a scientific concept are suddenly historians of science instead of TCM proponents. All right, why not. But since they use the word in a different meaning, we cannot just write "science" because that would cause misunderstandings. We should use a clearer term instead, to prevent readers from going away thinking, "Wikipedia says qi is a scientific concept". And that is one of the purposes of this page: protect articles from being edited in a way that suggests things are science when they are not. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
following that conventionThis is a place to draw attention mostly. Workshopping specific content is best left to the talkpage, but, as I said, as long as we are here... let's have at it.
Your first objection is easily met, I think, by not linkingMaybe? Then perhaps a different word might be better. energy (esotericism) might work, but it is fraught, right? I mean we're trying to apply a modern sensibility to a different language and culture. Still, point taken. We want a category for the definition and it is a hard one to find.
meridians were a valid scientific concept that was subject to empirical researchthe sources do not indicate that. To the extent that people used meridians as an explanation for TCM, they were no more "valid" than was any other esoteric tale.
an outdated and abandoned concept rather than an inherently unscientific onethe sources do not indicate that either. In fact, the concept was not so much "abandoned" as it was either co-opted or contextualized. It's not as if one day people said, "Oh, this is no good any more" because the history of modern medicine does not proceed in that fashion for better or worse. There was a parallel development of TCM to some extent, it was revived by Mao, and now we have a conflict between the claims of TCM practitioners and basic anatomy and physiology. There wasn't any point of "abandonment" per se.
It is precisely because it was a scientific concept and because it is still used as such by traditionalists that modern research has been conducted on the existence of meridians.The sources do not indicate that either. In fact, the reason that there is any modern research at all is because the research itself has been stubbornly introduced and reintroduced by TCM practitioners (and occasionally mainstream researchers feel the need to reiterate the marginalization of the line of inquiry due to clamoring or complaints). No one thinks that there was serious empirical work done to verify the meridian maps produced any more than someone would say that there was serious empirical work done to verify the four humors worked in the fashion they were thought to work. Sometimes there are enormous flights of fancy that get codified away from empirical knowledge. This happens the world over. It is only in retrospect that this is recognized and when it was recognized for meridians it happened in contexts where there didn't need to be the grand stories of disillusionment or rejection that accompanied, say, mesmerism. This is a fascinating story, of course, but it doesn't allow us to pretend that there was some sort of serious science that undergirded meridians any more than any other pseudoscientific concept that is currently being promoted.
It is the failure of traditional Chinese medicine to acknowledge the results of that research (and modern research more generally) which renders it pseudoscience, a fact which we are also conveying in this way.Disagree. TCM is a pseudoscience because of the arguments that it makes which are ostensibly scientific (meridians exist) which are not true, but these points were not identified explicitly through any modern research. There were no results that pointed to the non-existence of meridians because of the way the history of medicine worked out.
It's rather the failure of editors to come up with something instructive like that and their preference to endlessly discuss about God, epistemology and Santa Claus that is utterly amazing. I know it's a lot to ask, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you should reconsider your approach to these things.I think you need to assume some good faith here. I am not opposed to the idea that there may be better wording out there, but it's just not the wording you offered right here. Please feel free to try to workshop better stuff on the talkpage if you'd like. I'm sure critiques will be forthcoming unless and until you get a truly good proposal that doesn't suffer from the problems I outlined (whether you think them worthy of discussion or not).
Neither qi nor meridians exist.", which really does read a bit like "
God does not exist.", and is, in the context in which it is said, just as meaningless and uninstructive. If you are not convinced by my proposal, or not entirely convinced, why don't you try to propose a piece of text? You're right that I should try better to assume good faith, but it's hard to deny that apart from my suggestion and your reactions to it, very little effort has been made to deal with this in a constructive way. I'm actually quite certain that you as well as some other editors here could come up with something better than what I wrote, if only to have a better piece of text would actually be what we all want. Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 05:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
strong focus on empirical researchThis is where the concepts that explain and the routinized observations of what happens when need to be disambiguated. Delving into the way in which people who believed in meridians may have observed what happens when is an interesting subject, but it does not have bearing on the subject of meridians as it is discussed in the context of shiatsu, for example. If we would like to draw an analogy here, when a modern proponent of alchemy leans into an explanation of matter in terms of the Aristotelian elements, it is misleading for us to say that the proponent is leaning on a long tradition of empiricism. The point is that there is a context when we are trying to explain what does or does not exist and the category that meridians/qi fall into is the category of claims that today we understand are not empirically founded. This is not to pass judgment on historical work, just to explain why they are not on our list of basic organ systems, e.g.
it becomes pseudoscience not when or because it is untrue, but when and because it comes into contact with better science and fails to acknowledge that.Arguable. The fact of the matter is that pseudoscience is not a well-defined term on purpose and, as you are no doubt aware, is generally a maligned category when talking about history/sociology/philosophy of knowledge. For the first two subjects, the reason for why this is stems from an choice of emphasis. If I want to describe sincerely held beliefs historically or sociologically, spending time on trying to decide the justification/truth-value of such beliefs is generally outside the context of the discussion. In terms of philosophy, because there is essentially an ongoing argument, we are stuck just describing the landscape of controversy. But the point here is that the article in question is about TCM as practiced. The context then is the modern medical and scientific understanding of the ideas. For better of worse, the dismissal of meridians/qi that happens in these contexts is indelicate. WP is in no position to change that situation. As much as it may seem to some that the statement "Meridians/qi do not exist" should not be WP:ASSERTed in WP voice, the fact is that the sources we have indicate that this is as much a fact as any number of other assertions of fact we include uncritically in our articles.
for our purposes, it should suffice that the result of it has been that the existence of meridians has in fact been investigated, and that these investigations have found no evidence for their existence.The problem is that while you appreciate the subtlety and art of how this has occurred, experience shows that many readers and interlocutors have a hard time coming to this conclusion when it is presented this way given the sources. This is exactly why Santa Claus is my go-to comparison. We do not have a source which describes the careful empirical investigation of Santa Claus. We do have sources which say Santa Claus does not exist in spite of that. This is much the same as meridians/qi. What we are trying to do here is not engage in the kind of analysis that would be required to argue that research was done without any research being done as it were.
Have not modern (east-Asian and other) scientists abandoned that concept?The connotations of "abandon" is that there was some active process of declaring, "hey, let's set this aside" when it was, contrariwise, a situation where meridians/qi were never considered in the context of modern medicine in the first place. We're dealing with implications of action here, but it is important considering the way people often think about how science or descriptions of empirical reality are generated. We don't want readers thinking that there was some sort of campaign to demarcate the reality of meridians/qi when there simply was not. Medical scientists didn't "abandon" meridians/qi. They just never used them in the context of modern medicine.
it should be easy to write something better than "Of course, in the context of philosophy, an expansive deity such as "God" is a topic which means so many different things to so many different people that it begs the question. In contrast, the way meridians/qi get treated in an article on shiatsu, for example, is much less ambiguous. To the extent that this is something that matters to the discussion of shiatsu, we need to be clear that these claims are based on things which do not exist much the same way we would say that the claims of a modern-day proponent of miasma theory would be making claims on the basis of things which do not exist.Neither qi nor meridians exist.", which really does read a bit like "God does not exist.", and is, in the context in which it is said, just as meaningless and uninstructive.
I'm actually quite certain that you as well as some other editors here could come up with something better than what I wroteThis is typically done in the context of the talkpage, but I'll give it a shot:
The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, a concept sometimes defined as an " energy flow", that is supposed to channel through certain pathways in the human body known as meridians and cause a variety of effects. In spite of many practitioners explaining shiatsu using these ideas, neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena.
Jps, you write: The context then is the modern medical and scientific understanding of the ideas. For better or worse, the dismissal of meridians/qi that happens in these contexts is indelicate.
Yes, if you ask medical experts and natural scientists about these ideas, the dismissal will be more often than not indelicate. If, however, you ask historians and sociologists of science, anthropologists, etc., that will be much less the case. Where I fundamentally disagree with you is that medical experts and natural scientists are the ones we should be asking. Medical experts and natural scientists rightly declare TCM to be outside of their field of investigation. It's not proper medicine or science, and so they don't study it or engage with it. But in most cases that also means that they are utterly ignorant about it. Those who study TCM from a properly scientific point of view are historians, sociologists and anthropologists. It is in these fields that TCM is expressly made into an object of study, and that in-depth knowledge about is collected. Sometimes these historians and sociologists also have medical degrees, sometimes they don't, but they always take contemporary medical science as a norm when it comes to evaluating efficacy and the like. They're the ones whose POV should be prominent in our articles on this subject, not medical experts who know that TCM is fringe and that it doesn't work, but either not much or nothing beyond that. I believe that much of our other disagreements flow from this fundamental one. As a historian of science, I can tell you that empirical foundation does not play the role you seem to think it plays in the historical development of scientific theories, and that your apparent view of modern science and medicine as having come into being ex nihilo (I'm very sorry for the caricature, but that's how it comes over to me) is utterly ahistorical. But those are quibbles that are not worth going into here. Though I do not agree with every detail of it, I very much endorse your proposal, and I'm just really glad you gave it a shot. I also agree with XOR'easter's suggestion of using "described as" rather than "defined as". Finally, I think it may benefit from some more copy-editing. I suggest the following merely as a stylistic update (if I change your meaning, please say so):
The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, which is sometimes described as an "energy flow". This energy flow is supposed to be channeled through certain pathways in the human body, known as meridians, thus causing a variety of effects. Despite the fact that many practitioners use these ideas in explaining shiatsu, neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena.
Of course, we also still need someone familiar with the sources to add references. PaleoNeonate, from the article's talk page I got the impression that you have been looking at some sources for this article; is this right? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 23:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic banter
|
---|
|
I thought maybe we should actually discuss the topic at hand. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 06:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Pretty long, probably has dubious content. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The IP does not want to accept it. What to do? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Word of warning that there is a new youtube ad from a site called ricasehaven going round claiming to show one trick that can cure all causes of vision loss with a "technique found by a nobel prize winner in stem cell research" from Harvard (along with other scientists working in the NHS University of Utah etc.) (that big pharma/opticians don't want you to know as usual with fringe quacks). So optic-related articles may or may not see some disruption. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
He's now into ancient and modern aliens. [15] Mentioned or used as a source at Honey Island Swamp monster, Rockwall, Texas, America Unearthed, In Search of Aliens, Honey Island Swamp monster, AVM Runestone. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Several IPs around North Carolina aren't liking my recent re-write. Geogene ( talk) 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 23:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Morning all. Just to make people aware there is now an R W Malone article that will need some eyes on it (following on from prior discussions. BLP balancing issue, particularly with regards to very limited sourcing and likely fringe theories. Koncorde ( talk) 09:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Generic object of dark energy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neologism for a fringe physics concept which I've brought to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic object of dark energy. Aside from that, there are concerns that it's too similar to Dark-energy star and Gravastar. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A striking amount of credulity in this article including claims of yogic powers, miracles, and supercentenarian status. jps ( talk) 09:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of sources in Economics in One Lesson at WP:RSN#Are these reliable sources for a statement an IP has been adding at Economics in One Lesson on the basis it is heavily sourced from the Mises Institute that we've discussed here. There's also a big NPOV problem IMHO. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in weighing in at Talk:Psychoanalysis#Request for Comment. The question raised is, "Should Psychoanalysis be included in Category:Pseudoscience?" Crossroads -talk- 23:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Isn't this fringe? The lead says "The title of book refers to the current situation of the United States and much of the Western world wherein the vision of the intelligentsia so predominates over all other visions that it constitutes the prevailing vision and it is one that differs from the views of most other people." Also mainly self-referenced with the last ref not backing the text. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Sowell's method is to jeer at his ideological adversaries. But sarcasm and sniping are no substitute for serious analysis. One would never know from his book that there is an enormous body of scholarship, based on solid research, dealing with all of the issues that Sowell flits over with such disdain. At every turn he misrepresents and trivializes the positions that he wishes to debunk, instead of setting forth these positions in depth and detail and engaging in honest debate. The result is a frivolous book that may titillate Sowell's constituents on the right but will have no significant impact on intellectual discourse.Steinberg, Stephen (1995). "No compassion for the wretched". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 10: 109–110. doi: 10.2307/2962781. JSTOR 2962781. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
brands the anointed as promoters of a worldview concocted out of fantasy impervious to any real-world considerations, I immediately thought of climate change deniers, such as Sowell. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussed briefly and recently by User:Paul H. and User:LaundryPizza03. [16] Seems clearly UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently created a consensus template on COVID-19 treatments, because I (and many others) have become frustrated at the endlessly repetitive discussions on relevant talk pages. See, for example: Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine. My hope is that writing all of this down in a template could be helpful as a place to direct new and inexperienced users who have repeatedly come to these talk pages to push a POV. Much like it has worked for Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus), Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (credit to ProcrastinatingReader on those prior templates).
However, I would appreciate your feedback. Overall, of course, but also on the following specific issues:
Thank you for any help you can provide.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Take care as to not push a point of view but to focus on the processes that determine what is a quality source. MarshallKe ( talk) 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This 2019 study indicates that 31% of Catholics in the United States still believe in Transubstantiation, the idea that the sacramental bread and wine physically transform into the body and blood of Jesus when they are consecrated during Holy Communion. Since this is an objectively measurable claim, two PhD scientists performed this experiment and found that the wheat DNA had not transformed into human DNA after consecration. Can this study be integrated into any of these articles in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy? MarshallKe ( talk) 22:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, transubstantiation dogma does not claim that genetic material is altered. I believe the dogma claims that the accidents of the host remain the same while the substance changes which is, conveniently, not something that can be empirically tested. jps ( talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any reliable source (or ecumenical statement) claiming that the Catholic Church believes that Communion wine ceases to be an aqueous solution of alcohol, phenolic compounds and congeners, and becomes an albumin suspension of lymphocytes, erythrocytes, thrombocytes, hormones and ions. This is likely because it doesn't appear to; debunking is difficult when there's no bunk. jp× g 03:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Using the scientific method to empirically disprove miracles is rather a pointless endevour. As faith and belief are subject to reason and argument. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 03:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)As far as I can tell, Brian J. Ford is best known for his claims that all large dinosaurs were "too big to walk" and therefore were obligately aquatic, ideas that haven't been taken seriously for over half a century. The relevant section needs signficant cleanup. It's also not clear if Brian J. Ford is actually notable for anything else, and the article itself is a total mess. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened here that may be of interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
When doing an insource search insource:"principia-scientific.org" I noticed this article that appears to have received little attention since its creation. A Skeptical Science article. Input welcome, on if notable enough, and to find more independent sources to improve the article, — Paleo Neonate – 23:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Their is no dispute in the reliable sources that the party leads a single-party authoritarian state, but a small cadre of users have been edit-warring to remove text (cited to peer-review academic publications) as to that fact, and to add in some unsourced material to boot. A number of deceptive edit summaries as well. More eyeballs greatly welcomed. Neutrality talk 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:COIN#Steve Kirsch about this article. Some of the likely COI-tainted editing has been WP:FRINGE related (e.g. [21]) so more eyes from fringe-savvy editors may help. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This is being claimed in sources such as the Jerusalem Post. [22]
It's copied from a 2014 article. Some articles need watching.
See [23] and World News Daily Report. Why the media is falling for this I have no idea. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Started out as a redirect to Human sacrifice, then IPs turned it into an own article, and now it is toggling. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This probably isn't appropriate for this noticeboard. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Edward Dutton about a month ago put an advert on his social media accounts telling people to edit his Wikipedia page because it cites biased left-wing sources that he wants removed. There seems to be some repeated white-washing attempts to remove certain sources. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
the official end of Wikipedia as a reliable sourcebecause we have the temerity to call " Caucasian"
an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race.He's also approvingly shared the attention-seeking whinges of Larry Sanger. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I tried to remove this insanity, but because the crank got the "hypothesis" published in a journal of disrepute, I got reverted. talk:coleoidea has the details.
2601:643:C002:2830:10B6:F2D8:E2EF:D6B5 ( talk) 01:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
As I was looking at Wikipedia's coverage of Panspermia more generally (both of the above mentioned papers are by noted panspermia proponents), I don't think our article on the topic emphasises enough the fringe nature of the claims and their supporters. I've managed to find a book explicitly calling it a "fringe theory" and added to the lead, though ideally the whole article needs a rework. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The best summary of mainstream viewpoint on panspermia would be something a bit like this. Is panspermia theoretically possible? Yes, there is a remote possibility that early solar system comets brought basic building blocks of life on earth (e.g. amino acids and the like). It's extremely fringe, given we've got all the ingredients already here on earth, with plenty of mechanisms to turn them into the building blocks of life, without the need to bring in space things. Panspermia just shifts the problem of the origin of life to a different planet, which somehow explodes without instantly destroying life/building blocks, which would then travel for millions of years in the inhospitable environment of space, and in a freak coincidence lands on Earth).
Anything more than basic building blocks arriving on earth, like full living organism, like bacteria, mushrooms, cephalopods, etc. is full on time cube nutter territory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Apparently I'm accused of advocating panspermia. Confused with Fred Hoyle? How did that start?Doing the same for Hawking, I found the Daily Mail (lol), something called creation.com and something called panspermia.org.
We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.XOR'easter ( talk) 21:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Editors may wish to weigh in on whether Devra Davis, is a "Conspiracy Theorist"? We are struggling to find an appropriate category. Do we have a category for people who promote fringe theories? Please join in the discussion on the talk page.
This scientist was once an epidemiologist employed by the US Government. She is now known for entirely unrelated achievements. She is the founder of a think tank that promotes the idea that Wifi, 5G and other radio systems are a major cause of diseases as diverse as infertility and cancer. There's no doubt that these are her views, the question is whether these views amount to a conspiracy theory or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
At least that's what Wikipedia claimed until a minute ago. The article Martinus Thomsen has been rewritten and expanded by a single user in the last two months, and several claims of Martinus are treated as facts. I fixed that statement in the lead but I wonder if the old article version was better. -- mfb ( talk) 14:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Came across this piece on Robert W. Malone and Michael Yeadon, which seems knowledge-ful. I've not come across logically.ai before and and first glance it looks reputable, and possible useful for fringe topics. Anybody know more about them? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Adrian David Cheok ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Adrian David Cheok seems to be the latest article affected by COVID-19 lab leak pre-print-itis. It's an article which has had problems with a persistent sock for a long while so I fear it may continue. Especially since it was co-written with Li-Meng Yan. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
JABS, the group that hired Andrew Wakefield to do his fraud thing, back then. New article, can probably use more eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
There is now a discussion about the above at WP:RSN#Science-Based Medicine. Your participation is welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A new user is forum-shopping ideas from predatory journals regarding ufology and ancient astronauts. They were only contacted with a welcome while I was writing this notice. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The stories [of mysterious disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle] fed on each other, the hyperbole building, until, eventually, there were reports that there had been a last transmission from Taylor: "I know where I am now. ... Don't come after me! ... They look like they're from outer space!", then proceeds to aviation archaeologist John Myhre explaining the actual contents of the transmission, in which Taylor claimed to be near an isolated island (which Myhre identified as Walker's Cay).
What is going on here? Grassroots, but founded by an AAPS member? Sounds unlikely. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Article from last year, seems to need a bit of defringing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding the use of sources produced by 'skeptics' and fringe proponents over at RSN right now. You can find it here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a new article that looks like it needs attention. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
More eyes needed upon History of the Jews in Egypt: several IPs, some now blocked, delete this statement: [27].
If you wonder, it is from the handbook of a course taught at Harvard by a full professor, a conservative Jew, published by Beardsley Ruml under a copyleft license. It is published at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not the person to decide the facts of the statement; offhand I do not know and do not care. However, what source is it that they are saying is unreliable? Because it is copy left? Copyright can’t be a concern? Asking for History of the Jews in Spain, where I did not review for reliable sources. Elinruby ( talk) 01:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi - would editors experienced in assessing sources for medical topics please take a quick look at Talk:Chinese herbology and Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine? A relatively new user, who describes themselves as an an undergraduate neuroscientist and Qi Gong practitioner on their user page, is eager to add information about the efficacy of traditional Chinese herbal remedies to treat COVID19, and remove statements about pseudoscience. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Phantom vehicle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm sure that some reliably-sourced folklore about this topic exists, but the article doesn't appear to contain any. Instead, it's filled with "examples" of vehicle malfunctions that have been WP:SENSATIONALized, and non-notable superstitious rumors. (Pinging the overworked Bloodofox...)- LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I reverted three times and will stop doing that now. Getting tired of people who do not listen. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
widely separated archaeological excavations in the countries of Israel and Jordan contain late Iron Age (Iron IIb) architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake. I do not know how to handle that. Is it legit and relevant? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems unbalanced to me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Our superstition article is currently seeing a lot of activity from a few users. Unfortunately, this isn't for the better: I'm noticing a lot of poor quality sources being introduced into the article and a heavy POV slant that makes it read like a diatribe from the early 20th century rather than something one would expect from folklorists on a folklore studies topic (and where superstition is often referred to as folk belief). I've tagged it for a rewrite from scratch. It's needed it for a while. This page could use a lot of eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational- LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, "superstition" is a term that inhabits a particularly Western and Christian concept about what faith-based ideas are "serious" and which are not. As such, it's a term that is generally problematicized as a lot of the literature that uses this idea will often refer to religious beliefs that are not Christian as "superstitions" while assuming that ideas such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ are not. In the context of certain skeptical movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of "superstition" seems to have been imported from that religious persuasion. It would be nice to encourage some scholar to write a full accounting of the use of this term much as Gordin did with The Pseudoscience Wars. jps ( talk) 12:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@ ජපස: See topic which needs expansion Draft:Irrational beliefs is pretty neutral but I reached that term while researching for Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies. as you rightly say, even primary researching on topic Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies shows not only agnostic but pre 20th century theist christian scholarship itself was a lot introspecting and open minded but now things seems to have changed and they might be feeling unease and discomfort. History indicates in Roman times itself Christianity was very well criticized for superstitions.
But with new atheism topic of superstition is just not battle in between beliefs but there are genuine concerns from side of human rights and sciences etc. Secondly one won't be surprised if any tribal going on defensive and claiming folk culture defense but if one scratches a bit one finds apologists of majior religions are piggy backing concerns of tribal folk cultures. That is how I feel. Probably that is the reason of so much alarmist defenestration.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 14:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I came across the article for National League for Liberty in Vaccination because the Commons MOTD today was a French antivax protest for which we (until an hour ago) called it a demonstration for "freedom of vaccination" (sigh...separate issue). Anyway, I took a look at our article about this organization and it was pretty sparse. I read the sources included and made an [admittedly rather ... blunt?] edit for more context following WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find much else. Perhaps there are French speakers here who may be able to find more material if we're going to have an article on this organization. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I just removed this from Lumbee. It's at [29] Doug Weller talk 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently added: "evidence supporting" the use in menopause and irritable bowel syndrome. I am not sure how WP:MEDRS that is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have been working on Slavic mythology for almost two years now. I generally write articles from scratch because the articles on the English wiki contain fakelore or are too short. For the time being I focus on deities, as it is difficult to find reliable and scientific information about them in the English-speaking internet, and many people are interested in it. So I recently wrote a new article on the pseudo-goddess Lada from scratch. The article describes the sources, briefly describes the history of the development of the concept of this goddess, is neutral in that it presents famous/influential people who supported her historicity, but focuses on a critique of that historicity, since practically all modern scholars reject her historicity. To support this thesis, I cited the opinions of 6 professors/doctors of history/ slavic studies/ religious studies and 2 linguists. Besides, if necessary, I can spam more academic researchers who reject her historicity: Stanisław Urbańczyk, Jerzy Strzelczyk, Henryk Łowmiański, Leo Klejn, Evgeny Anichkov, probably also Radoslav Katičić and others. So I copied the article from my sandbox to actual article, and in the discussion I pointed out serious factual errors and unreliable sources. Despite this, the author of the old article ( Sangdeboeuf) reverted my article, and then split it up and restored it in pieces. I disagree with this because the article not only spreads obvious factoids, it presents them as the mainstream view in academia, which is absolutely not true. Now lets look at this:
As the only active Slavic mythology expert on English wikipedia at this point, I say that parts of the old article contain serious problems with WP:RELIABILITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. As if that wasn't enough, the author was confident enough to submit the article for a "good article," and since no one on the English Wikipedia knew the subject of Slavic mythology, the article was awarded without any problems. Although he was probably doing it in good faith. So I motion to completely replace the current article with mine, which is still in my sandbox. Sławobóg ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
practically all modern scholars? (I'm assuming the citations are accurate, since I don't have access to English translations for most of them.) Nor is it actually shown how this conflicts with the existing sources, which generally acknowledge this rejection by certain writers yet conclude there is sufficient evidence for a cult of worship. These sources, including Ivanits (1989), Struk (1993), and Coulter & Turner (2013) , are published by generally reliable academic publishers. The idea that they are
non-criticalis an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps Sławobóg could provide some relevant quotations from their preferred sources to substantiate their claims? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
general awarenessof the subject. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Is 14 scholars a lot or a little? Without independent sources to
evaluate the disagreement, we just don't know. You're simply asking us to take it on faith that you haven't left out any relevant sources or overlooked any. I'm happy to mainly cite specialists in Slavic mythology, so I do find the quote from Znayenko more convincing than your bald assertions, thank you. However, based on this short quote, we can't imply that "Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado"
; see
WP:SYNTH. Nor can we imply anything based on the one writer who completely ignores Lada; that would be the epitome of
original research. I gave two examples of POV wording on the article talk page: "The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons"
and "East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either"
. Another one is "We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada"
. These are all statements of opinion that
need attribution. --
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
some relevant quotations from [Sławobóg's] preferred sources. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
"Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado"this statement is supported by quote from Znayenko and scholars I mentioned, most of whom published their works after Znayenko's book and are critical. I also know that as expert. That I know more about the subject than you I have proven in this discussion by listing leading researchers that you have not even heard of and using specialists' opinions in my articles - you use some random, free American sources and books that don't focus on anything. I also debunked Dixon-Kennedy. Besides, I have experience in this topic on Wikipedia - I have written over 20 articles in this field, while you have 1. Also, if one were to accept your constant repetition of "but how do we know that's the majority" it would be impossible to write anything on Wikipedia. I have also been supported here by other Wikipedians, including admin...
"The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons"" and ""East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either"- no POV here - this is already referenced. Plus, it's not the researchers' "opinion" on these sources - footnotes and bibliographies were already used in middle ages.
"East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either"- again, no POV, referenced since the begining.
"We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada"- I don't even why do you think it is POV here. Whole paragraph is explained and sourced since begining. Possibly bad wording?
The only mention of "pseudoscience" is the pseudoscience template. Older versions, such as
[31], still contained the sourced sentence In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience.
I guess it was removed because such things are not decided by voting. In any case, either the word should be in the article, or the template should be removed. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
removed for some reasonwhen I stated the reason in my edit summary is disingenuous, as is trying to trot me out in support of their argument. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
...how much weight to assign skeptics publishing in the popular press appears moot in this caseseemed to be the question presented, and the best response. Apologize if you think i misrepresented your edit in some way. fiveby( zero) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience.It is important to get the wording right. If the source is reliable and it indicates that the scientific community has, where it has commented, indicated a certain idea is pseudoscience, then that is an appropriate framing. If that's not what the source indicates, then different wording can be had. In the context of this article, I am pretty sure that every scientific study that has examined polygraphs and the claims as to what their effectiveness may be has determined that there is essentially no evidence for polygraphs working in such a fashion. This is a hallmark of pseudoscience and the sources we have seem to indicate fairly plainly that this is a fair summary of the opinions of scientific consensus. Precise wording can be hashed out at the talkpage, but suffice to say that it can both be true that the scientific community has determined an idea to be pseudoscientific and that the bulk of the community ignores an idea as a matter of course. jps ( talk) 15:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Da Vinci Globe. The article has 15 sources, 10 of which are by Stefan Missinne publishing in the predatory journal Advances in Historical Studies - see [ [34]] and Cambridge Scholars Publishing (note their article has promotional material sourced to them). I haven't found much commentary on him. There's this [35] which has no author, and this blog which is just a brief recent comment on him. [36]. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Pentagon UFO videos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Additional eyes would be welcome at the Talk page, where a RfC is addressing the description of ufology as a pseudoscience. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Now at Pentagon UFO videos a POV tag has been added and a third opinion request regarding alleged NPOV issues has been made, both while the RfC and a VPP discussion directly concerning the RfC continue. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to those watching this noticeboard. See discussion here.
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The fringe theory of Raja pratapaditya being just a zamidar is put forward in the course of an edit war by an user who have cited a source which is not of a history book but rather a citation of a historian's critique of another historian's work about whom the concerned article is dedicated to. The picture templete was deliberately removed there are several other historians who have worked on this particular person and the academiciqans have afairly mainstream view but that is not taken into account by the last editor of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx don ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
We use this journal a lot as a source. [37]
Interestingly, I can't find any impact factor for it at SCImago Journal Rank. Its ISSN is 2162-6871. [38] Have I missed something? I've searched by title and here's the SJR search using the ISSN number. [39]
It claims to be peer reviewed but Stel Pavlou has had a paper accepted by it. [40] [41] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Derrick Lonsdale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just came across this article today; it seems like this man is a nutritionist who thinks various vitamins, excesses of hormones, and other stuff that seems psuedoscientific (from my perspective as a layman) is the true cause of diseases. Looks like it's being written in a somewhat promotional way; I added a criticism of one of his studies, but I imagine more are out there. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about [43]? tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
And... most evidence for the name Yahshua has been removed from the article
? Are you kidding me? What evidence can there be for a
WP:FRINGE name of Jesus, concocted by a bunch of cultists in the 20th century? Wikipedia is
WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, so it admits no such evidence.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 15:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
You Jews make me sick. [...] Yet how many Jews have been responsible for creating this trash site of a page.(At Talk:Yahweh.) tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Si.427 is a Babylonian tablet depicting a land survey, one of many dating back to thousands of years earlier, with a hyped-up media campaign claiming it to be the first use of the Pythagorean theorem and the first-ever use of applied geometry. Both claims are demonstrably false, but editors Infinity Knight and Selfstudier have been systematically removing any countering opinions from experts in Babylonian mathematics (both peer-reviewed publications providing long-known evidence of more explicit knowledge from the same time, and self-published material criticizing the hype and falling under the "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" clause of WP:SPS). Thease edits leave only the hyped-up churnalism claims, violating WP:NPOV. Less-credulous opinions welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Mathematician uncovers the origins of applied geometry and land surveying after the rediscovery of a 3,700-year-old clay tablet. Which is, as she says, absurd. (Side note: given the vagaries of dating ancient documents, it's possible that the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, Berlin Papyrus 6619, and the Lahun Mathematical Papyri are even older, and all of them include examples of applied geometry.) XOR'easter ( talk) 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This was a redirect for a long time. It's now a page with sources that look very primary and text that is not easy to follow. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I tried and failed to deal with Gordon Pask eons ago. If anyone can make heads or tails of this stuff, I'd be most grateful. I am not even sure whether the subject material is broader than information science or not. There was some quote from Pask tsk-tsk-ing atomic theory, for example, which seemed to me to be rather astounding. But the jargon is so impenetrable and the ideas so opaque that I cannot tell whether it is my own ignorance that is preventing me from making sense of the sources and text or whether it is gobblety-gook. jps ( talk) 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Widom–Larsen theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widom–Larsen theory
Please comment. jps ( talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Far to much use of her own works. Church Universal and Triumphant looks better but has two links to "WhoSampled" which is just an app - weird, and at least one blog. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a great film, if you look at the reception part of that article... Is it? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
71.82.105.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and VeryRareObserver ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who I presume are the same person) are slow edit warring to remove the word disproved from phrase "disproved theoretical continent" in the Lemuria article. It obviously doesn't exist, look at any bathymetric map of the ocean floor. That said, would some other phrasing such as "discredited" be better? As this was a legitimate scientific hypothesis at one point. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit late, but Lemuria is clearly watchlist-worthy (as if life isn't hard enough...) – Austronesier ( talk) 13:24, 16 September 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. |
Huge article detailing exactly which theologian interpreted which Bible prophecy using the technique called "day-year principle", which is a magic idea reminiscent of creationists, homeopaths, Bible-code cranks, Nostradamus exegetes, and astrologers, as well as sympathetic magic and as-above-so-below thinking. Also makes me think of Deutobold Symbolizetti Allegoriowitsch Mystifizinsky.
Most of it seems WP:UNDUE angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin-counter fancruft. I don't even know where to begin. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
NeuroQuantology has come up on this noticeboard before, so this AfD may be of interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
A highlight:
It's the cdesign proponentsist of COVID!
Oops. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
There's an IP address who's edit-warring to insert content to promote the fringe view that Cuba is a democracy with free elections. The IP is using sources that are either bad or characterized (and I think there may also be some IP hopping going on). More eyeballs would be helpful. Neutrality talk 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I saw this, adding noises Bigfoot supposedly makes to List of unexplained sounds, and then noticed there is a whole section at Bigfoot about it Bigfoot#Alleged_behavior. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Has been under a whitewashing attack for a few months. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Apparently a leading light of the Intellectual Dark Web, this gentleman has recently had his Youtube channel suspended after taking ivermectin and proclaiming himself COVID-proof, raising concerns about vaccine safety, &c. The cries of "censorship" has meant his output is now getting wide attention and sharing. Recently there has been increased attention on his article, and particularly on whether anything critical can be said. As always, the eyes of WP:FRINGE-aware editors could be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This AfD concerns a poorly sourced section of the article that promotes the fringe theory that certain Disney Animated Canon villains are queer. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:58, 17 July 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.
Antivaxxer "Northrup is particularly concerned with reproductive system dysfunction and menstrual cycle irregularities as a result of COVID-19 vaccines, that have been documented by medical anthropologists, pharmacists and others
". Is that so? --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 09:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Changeanew ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user is promoting language theories about Vietnamese from a folk healing website to linguistics and history articles. [4] [5] [6]. They are also adding ethnic supremacy theories. [7]. This is not supported by any academic material. Please prevent them from continuing. 64.18.10.194 ( talk) 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Fentanyl ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I removed a section from this article which accused China of "Non Conventional Warfare" using the drug, while the sources were actually about a drug cartel operating out of a factory in China to smuggle into Canada. I've also requested RD2 for an unsourced conspiracy theory added and quickly removed in late June. Please keep a close eye on this article for conspiracy theories, especially the racist/xenophobic ones. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
And another cross-namespace shortcut: WP:YESLABLEAK. If I didn't know better I'd think a WP:POINT was being made. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Just because the wording of some text in support of the hypothesis seems biased, doesn’t justify deleting it." No, but rewriting such biased text to be NPOV isn't too popular among this crowd, either. In the end, weighing these competing forces, I'm not really sure where to come down on this one.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 12:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
because it shows plainly just how bad the argument isOnly to those who know to judge such things. Most people cannot tell good reasoning from bad. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Is back:
Alexbrn ( talk) 13:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Height 611 UFO incident ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article has only two sources. One source is a link to our Discovery Channel article. The other is to a UFOlogists book. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:China COVID-19 cover-up. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes on this article would be welcome. FDW777 ( talk) 12:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Becoming prominent, and so attracting attention from IPs and "new" accounts. Could use wise eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a redirect for Disinformation Dozen, but I could see some potential for some spin-out if someone might be interested. Seems like there has been a lot more attention to this lately what with the Mercola profile in NYTimes this weekend, e.g. jps ( talk) 03:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
A user is adding an opinion piece from the New York Times from 2013 to the lead which fails WP:MEDRS. The reference does not mention the lipid hypothesis [9] so this is also original research.
The "Dissenting views" section cites some serious fringe advocates (known as cholesterol denialists) but I am not so sure that we should be citing these people in this much detail. A line has recently been added that cites Robert DuBroff. DuBroff [10] authored a controversial paper with Aseem Malhotra which has been described as an "extraordinary deception". [11]. It is clearly a false balance to be citing these minority of cholesterol denialists to be claiming in the lead that there is a dispute to lower blood cholesterol levels. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
In light of Slate reporting that " One of the Leaders of the Arizona Audit Says Cyber Ninjas Might Be Cooking the Books", this article will likely need extra sets of eyes on it. The talk page has been a colloquy of IPs insisting that unreliable sources should be added to combat "bias"; it looks suspiciously like this is getting ready to burst into the article itself. BD2412 T 20:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
At the article Medical genetics of Jews there's a user adding content about Nazis and ranting about the nature of sources used. They tried to get the article deleted through a case request at WP:DRN, which I closed as an improper filing. More eyes on that article would be helpful. I'm not entirely sure what their angle is, though the possibility that they're upset over some legitimate problems with the article seems real, if remote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Made this a bit more NPOV, but I think they could move more towards WP:NPOV and away from WP:PROFRINGE. Ideas? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Of rather, should Wikipedia say they don't exist? That is the question being discussed at Talk:Shiatsu#"neither qi nor meridians exist". Alexbrn ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, they don't. For good or ill, we don't live in the world of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Trying to create doubt in the face of a massive amount of scientific evidence by zooming in upon a few turns of phrase in a couple sources and splitting their rhetorical hairs is not the way to be NPOV. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
To argue that meridians or qi exist in the same way that nerves or blood exist is to adopt a profoundly pseudoscientific approach to reality. But the same way with all variety of religious beliefs, superstitions, and folklore there are those who use the stories about various empirically questionable points as metaphors to help them talk through ideas about the human experience. We don't go on and on about how there is no empirical evidence for miracles in every miracle story. But we sure as hell are not going to pretend in an article on faith healing that the jury of empiricists is still out on claimed mechanisms. jps ( talk) 02:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This took me about an hour to figure out, but the actual question here is this. The article on shiatsu currently states, in a separate paragraph and (in my opinion) quite bluntly:
Neither qi nor meridians exist.
Some users would like to change this, either into:
or:
While existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven since vitalism is not scientifically testable, the concept of a meridian system does create a testable hypothesis. There is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.( [13])
or:
Anatomists consider qi and meridians to be imaginary; their existence can neither be proved nor disproved.( [14], corrected spelling)
I personally think that all of these options are pretty awful. They seem to be the unfortunate result of an undue preoccupation with either pushing pseudoscience or pushing back against it, rather than with writing an encyclopedia. I didn't read the sources, but I'm quite confident that someone who did will be able to add proper references to something like the following:
The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, a type of vital force that is supposed to flow through certain pathways in the human body, known as meridians. Modern research has failed to find any evidence for the existence of these meridians, and their use as a scientific concept has been generally abandoned outside of traditional Chinese medicine.
This could be put before the current paragraph starting with There is no evidence that shiatsu is of any benefit in treating cancer or any other disease [...]
. ☿
Apaugasma (
talk
☉) 02:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
modern research has failed...which, I think, misses the point that the reason there isn't evidence that these things exist is because there has been tremendous care in documenting what does exist. It's rather much the same with any number of concepts for which there is a lack of empirical evidence. I hate to always bring up Santa Claus, but I will again because I do think the comparison is apt. It's not that modern research has failed to find evidence that Santa Claus exists. Rather it's that the research about all the things with which Santa Claus supposedly interacts does not allow for the existence of such a beast. The difference here, of course, is that there are some stubborn researchers who manage to publish one-off papers to look in vain for qi/meridians, but the larger point is that this sort of research isn't the main stumbling block for, say, modern medicine when it comes to claims about qi/meridians. It's not as though when you mention this to a medical doctor they go running to the journals to look for all the research on the subject. Finally you use the turn of phrase,
their use as a scientific conceptwhich is problematic in that with very few exceptions, qi/meridians are not treated as a scientific concept at all, and when they have been, the treatments have been maligned to such an extent that it is debatable whether we should call it properly "scientific" instead of "pseudoscientific".... but to make matters worse the sentence goes on to imply that within the realm of TCM there is a way to use meridians/qi as "scientific concepts". Perhaps that is not the intention of what you are writing, but I think it is an undeniable implication nonetheless.
vital forceto vitalism. It is true that the latter is a specifically 19th-century doctrine, which of course does not negate the fact that qi is a kind of vital force similar in nature to the vital heat and the pneuma of ancient and medieval western medicine (these comparisons are routinely made by historians of science). I'm fairly sure that sources characterize qi as a vital force, so that should pose no problem.
valid scientific conceptnot in the sense the word "scientific" has now. It is highly dubious to translate whatever word the ancient Chinese had for the category containing such ideas back then, as "science".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."is a quote Martin Gardner used in such cases.
valid scientific conceptin the contemporary sense of "scientific", nor was it implying such a thing in any way (quite the opposite, if read without the undue sensitivity which I argue is taking things out of context, and is obstructing us from being encyclopedic). As for the rest of what you're saying, I clearly have come to the wrong place. It's all just a battleground to you, isn't it? If you're more interested in disparaging your imaginary foes than in building an encyclopedia, I will gladly leave you to it. I will just insist that what you intimate about me using tricks and defending crazy ideas does only exist in your imagination. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
their use as a scientific concept has been generally abandoned outside of traditional Chinese medicine.This clearly suggests that it is still treated as a scientific concept inside "traditional Chinese medicine". (Since TCM has no business of defining science, Wikipedia should either not care about that or note that their definition of science is peculiar.) Now, the people who treat it as a scientific concept are suddenly historians of science instead of TCM proponents. All right, why not. But since they use the word in a different meaning, we cannot just write "science" because that would cause misunderstandings. We should use a clearer term instead, to prevent readers from going away thinking, "Wikipedia says qi is a scientific concept". And that is one of the purposes of this page: protect articles from being edited in a way that suggests things are science when they are not. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
following that conventionThis is a place to draw attention mostly. Workshopping specific content is best left to the talkpage, but, as I said, as long as we are here... let's have at it.
Your first objection is easily met, I think, by not linkingMaybe? Then perhaps a different word might be better. energy (esotericism) might work, but it is fraught, right? I mean we're trying to apply a modern sensibility to a different language and culture. Still, point taken. We want a category for the definition and it is a hard one to find.
meridians were a valid scientific concept that was subject to empirical researchthe sources do not indicate that. To the extent that people used meridians as an explanation for TCM, they were no more "valid" than was any other esoteric tale.
an outdated and abandoned concept rather than an inherently unscientific onethe sources do not indicate that either. In fact, the concept was not so much "abandoned" as it was either co-opted or contextualized. It's not as if one day people said, "Oh, this is no good any more" because the history of modern medicine does not proceed in that fashion for better or worse. There was a parallel development of TCM to some extent, it was revived by Mao, and now we have a conflict between the claims of TCM practitioners and basic anatomy and physiology. There wasn't any point of "abandonment" per se.
It is precisely because it was a scientific concept and because it is still used as such by traditionalists that modern research has been conducted on the existence of meridians.The sources do not indicate that either. In fact, the reason that there is any modern research at all is because the research itself has been stubbornly introduced and reintroduced by TCM practitioners (and occasionally mainstream researchers feel the need to reiterate the marginalization of the line of inquiry due to clamoring or complaints). No one thinks that there was serious empirical work done to verify the meridian maps produced any more than someone would say that there was serious empirical work done to verify the four humors worked in the fashion they were thought to work. Sometimes there are enormous flights of fancy that get codified away from empirical knowledge. This happens the world over. It is only in retrospect that this is recognized and when it was recognized for meridians it happened in contexts where there didn't need to be the grand stories of disillusionment or rejection that accompanied, say, mesmerism. This is a fascinating story, of course, but it doesn't allow us to pretend that there was some sort of serious science that undergirded meridians any more than any other pseudoscientific concept that is currently being promoted.
It is the failure of traditional Chinese medicine to acknowledge the results of that research (and modern research more generally) which renders it pseudoscience, a fact which we are also conveying in this way.Disagree. TCM is a pseudoscience because of the arguments that it makes which are ostensibly scientific (meridians exist) which are not true, but these points were not identified explicitly through any modern research. There were no results that pointed to the non-existence of meridians because of the way the history of medicine worked out.
It's rather the failure of editors to come up with something instructive like that and their preference to endlessly discuss about God, epistemology and Santa Claus that is utterly amazing. I know it's a lot to ask, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you should reconsider your approach to these things.I think you need to assume some good faith here. I am not opposed to the idea that there may be better wording out there, but it's just not the wording you offered right here. Please feel free to try to workshop better stuff on the talkpage if you'd like. I'm sure critiques will be forthcoming unless and until you get a truly good proposal that doesn't suffer from the problems I outlined (whether you think them worthy of discussion or not).
Neither qi nor meridians exist.", which really does read a bit like "
God does not exist.", and is, in the context in which it is said, just as meaningless and uninstructive. If you are not convinced by my proposal, or not entirely convinced, why don't you try to propose a piece of text? You're right that I should try better to assume good faith, but it's hard to deny that apart from my suggestion and your reactions to it, very little effort has been made to deal with this in a constructive way. I'm actually quite certain that you as well as some other editors here could come up with something better than what I wrote, if only to have a better piece of text would actually be what we all want. Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 05:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
strong focus on empirical researchThis is where the concepts that explain and the routinized observations of what happens when need to be disambiguated. Delving into the way in which people who believed in meridians may have observed what happens when is an interesting subject, but it does not have bearing on the subject of meridians as it is discussed in the context of shiatsu, for example. If we would like to draw an analogy here, when a modern proponent of alchemy leans into an explanation of matter in terms of the Aristotelian elements, it is misleading for us to say that the proponent is leaning on a long tradition of empiricism. The point is that there is a context when we are trying to explain what does or does not exist and the category that meridians/qi fall into is the category of claims that today we understand are not empirically founded. This is not to pass judgment on historical work, just to explain why they are not on our list of basic organ systems, e.g.
it becomes pseudoscience not when or because it is untrue, but when and because it comes into contact with better science and fails to acknowledge that.Arguable. The fact of the matter is that pseudoscience is not a well-defined term on purpose and, as you are no doubt aware, is generally a maligned category when talking about history/sociology/philosophy of knowledge. For the first two subjects, the reason for why this is stems from an choice of emphasis. If I want to describe sincerely held beliefs historically or sociologically, spending time on trying to decide the justification/truth-value of such beliefs is generally outside the context of the discussion. In terms of philosophy, because there is essentially an ongoing argument, we are stuck just describing the landscape of controversy. But the point here is that the article in question is about TCM as practiced. The context then is the modern medical and scientific understanding of the ideas. For better of worse, the dismissal of meridians/qi that happens in these contexts is indelicate. WP is in no position to change that situation. As much as it may seem to some that the statement "Meridians/qi do not exist" should not be WP:ASSERTed in WP voice, the fact is that the sources we have indicate that this is as much a fact as any number of other assertions of fact we include uncritically in our articles.
for our purposes, it should suffice that the result of it has been that the existence of meridians has in fact been investigated, and that these investigations have found no evidence for their existence.The problem is that while you appreciate the subtlety and art of how this has occurred, experience shows that many readers and interlocutors have a hard time coming to this conclusion when it is presented this way given the sources. This is exactly why Santa Claus is my go-to comparison. We do not have a source which describes the careful empirical investigation of Santa Claus. We do have sources which say Santa Claus does not exist in spite of that. This is much the same as meridians/qi. What we are trying to do here is not engage in the kind of analysis that would be required to argue that research was done without any research being done as it were.
Have not modern (east-Asian and other) scientists abandoned that concept?The connotations of "abandon" is that there was some active process of declaring, "hey, let's set this aside" when it was, contrariwise, a situation where meridians/qi were never considered in the context of modern medicine in the first place. We're dealing with implications of action here, but it is important considering the way people often think about how science or descriptions of empirical reality are generated. We don't want readers thinking that there was some sort of campaign to demarcate the reality of meridians/qi when there simply was not. Medical scientists didn't "abandon" meridians/qi. They just never used them in the context of modern medicine.
it should be easy to write something better than "Of course, in the context of philosophy, an expansive deity such as "God" is a topic which means so many different things to so many different people that it begs the question. In contrast, the way meridians/qi get treated in an article on shiatsu, for example, is much less ambiguous. To the extent that this is something that matters to the discussion of shiatsu, we need to be clear that these claims are based on things which do not exist much the same way we would say that the claims of a modern-day proponent of miasma theory would be making claims on the basis of things which do not exist.Neither qi nor meridians exist.", which really does read a bit like "God does not exist.", and is, in the context in which it is said, just as meaningless and uninstructive.
I'm actually quite certain that you as well as some other editors here could come up with something better than what I wroteThis is typically done in the context of the talkpage, but I'll give it a shot:
The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, a concept sometimes defined as an " energy flow", that is supposed to channel through certain pathways in the human body known as meridians and cause a variety of effects. In spite of many practitioners explaining shiatsu using these ideas, neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena.
Jps, you write: The context then is the modern medical and scientific understanding of the ideas. For better or worse, the dismissal of meridians/qi that happens in these contexts is indelicate.
Yes, if you ask medical experts and natural scientists about these ideas, the dismissal will be more often than not indelicate. If, however, you ask historians and sociologists of science, anthropologists, etc., that will be much less the case. Where I fundamentally disagree with you is that medical experts and natural scientists are the ones we should be asking. Medical experts and natural scientists rightly declare TCM to be outside of their field of investigation. It's not proper medicine or science, and so they don't study it or engage with it. But in most cases that also means that they are utterly ignorant about it. Those who study TCM from a properly scientific point of view are historians, sociologists and anthropologists. It is in these fields that TCM is expressly made into an object of study, and that in-depth knowledge about is collected. Sometimes these historians and sociologists also have medical degrees, sometimes they don't, but they always take contemporary medical science as a norm when it comes to evaluating efficacy and the like. They're the ones whose POV should be prominent in our articles on this subject, not medical experts who know that TCM is fringe and that it doesn't work, but either not much or nothing beyond that. I believe that much of our other disagreements flow from this fundamental one. As a historian of science, I can tell you that empirical foundation does not play the role you seem to think it plays in the historical development of scientific theories, and that your apparent view of modern science and medicine as having come into being ex nihilo (I'm very sorry for the caricature, but that's how it comes over to me) is utterly ahistorical. But those are quibbles that are not worth going into here. Though I do not agree with every detail of it, I very much endorse your proposal, and I'm just really glad you gave it a shot. I also agree with XOR'easter's suggestion of using "described as" rather than "defined as". Finally, I think it may benefit from some more copy-editing. I suggest the following merely as a stylistic update (if I change your meaning, please say so):
The practice of shiatsu is based on the traditional Chinese concept of qi, which is sometimes described as an "energy flow". This energy flow is supposed to be channeled through certain pathways in the human body, known as meridians, thus causing a variety of effects. Despite the fact that many practitioners use these ideas in explaining shiatsu, neither meridians nor qi exist as observable natural phenomena.
Of course, we also still need someone familiar with the sources to add references. PaleoNeonate, from the article's talk page I got the impression that you have been looking at some sources for this article; is this right? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 23:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic banter
|
---|
|
I thought maybe we should actually discuss the topic at hand. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 06:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Pretty long, probably has dubious content. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The IP does not want to accept it. What to do? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Word of warning that there is a new youtube ad from a site called ricasehaven going round claiming to show one trick that can cure all causes of vision loss with a "technique found by a nobel prize winner in stem cell research" from Harvard (along with other scientists working in the NHS University of Utah etc.) (that big pharma/opticians don't want you to know as usual with fringe quacks). So optic-related articles may or may not see some disruption. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
He's now into ancient and modern aliens. [15] Mentioned or used as a source at Honey Island Swamp monster, Rockwall, Texas, America Unearthed, In Search of Aliens, Honey Island Swamp monster, AVM Runestone. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Several IPs around North Carolina aren't liking my recent re-write. Geogene ( talk) 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 23:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Morning all. Just to make people aware there is now an R W Malone article that will need some eyes on it (following on from prior discussions. BLP balancing issue, particularly with regards to very limited sourcing and likely fringe theories. Koncorde ( talk) 09:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Generic object of dark energy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neologism for a fringe physics concept which I've brought to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic object of dark energy. Aside from that, there are concerns that it's too similar to Dark-energy star and Gravastar. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A striking amount of credulity in this article including claims of yogic powers, miracles, and supercentenarian status. jps ( talk) 09:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of sources in Economics in One Lesson at WP:RSN#Are these reliable sources for a statement an IP has been adding at Economics in One Lesson on the basis it is heavily sourced from the Mises Institute that we've discussed here. There's also a big NPOV problem IMHO. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in weighing in at Talk:Psychoanalysis#Request for Comment. The question raised is, "Should Psychoanalysis be included in Category:Pseudoscience?" Crossroads -talk- 23:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Isn't this fringe? The lead says "The title of book refers to the current situation of the United States and much of the Western world wherein the vision of the intelligentsia so predominates over all other visions that it constitutes the prevailing vision and it is one that differs from the views of most other people." Also mainly self-referenced with the last ref not backing the text. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Sowell's method is to jeer at his ideological adversaries. But sarcasm and sniping are no substitute for serious analysis. One would never know from his book that there is an enormous body of scholarship, based on solid research, dealing with all of the issues that Sowell flits over with such disdain. At every turn he misrepresents and trivializes the positions that he wishes to debunk, instead of setting forth these positions in depth and detail and engaging in honest debate. The result is a frivolous book that may titillate Sowell's constituents on the right but will have no significant impact on intellectual discourse.Steinberg, Stephen (1995). "No compassion for the wretched". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 10: 109–110. doi: 10.2307/2962781. JSTOR 2962781. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
brands the anointed as promoters of a worldview concocted out of fantasy impervious to any real-world considerations, I immediately thought of climate change deniers, such as Sowell. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussed briefly and recently by User:Paul H. and User:LaundryPizza03. [16] Seems clearly UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I recently created a consensus template on COVID-19 treatments, because I (and many others) have become frustrated at the endlessly repetitive discussions on relevant talk pages. See, for example: Talk:Bret Weinstein, Talk:Ivermectin, Talk:Didier Raoult, Talk:Pierre Kory, Talk:Hydroxychloroquine. My hope is that writing all of this down in a template could be helpful as a place to direct new and inexperienced users who have repeatedly come to these talk pages to push a POV. Much like it has worked for Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus), Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:Joe Biden#Current consensus, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (credit to ProcrastinatingReader on those prior templates).
However, I would appreciate your feedback. Overall, of course, but also on the following specific issues:
Thank you for any help you can provide.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Take care as to not push a point of view but to focus on the processes that determine what is a quality source. MarshallKe ( talk) 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This 2019 study indicates that 31% of Catholics in the United States still believe in Transubstantiation, the idea that the sacramental bread and wine physically transform into the body and blood of Jesus when they are consecrated during Holy Communion. Since this is an objectively measurable claim, two PhD scientists performed this experiment and found that the wheat DNA had not transformed into human DNA after consecration. Can this study be integrated into any of these articles in a way consistent with Wikipedia policy? MarshallKe ( talk) 22:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, transubstantiation dogma does not claim that genetic material is altered. I believe the dogma claims that the accidents of the host remain the same while the substance changes which is, conveniently, not something that can be empirically tested. jps ( talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any reliable source (or ecumenical statement) claiming that the Catholic Church believes that Communion wine ceases to be an aqueous solution of alcohol, phenolic compounds and congeners, and becomes an albumin suspension of lymphocytes, erythrocytes, thrombocytes, hormones and ions. This is likely because it doesn't appear to; debunking is difficult when there's no bunk. jp× g 03:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Using the scientific method to empirically disprove miracles is rather a pointless endevour. As faith and belief are subject to reason and argument. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 03:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)As far as I can tell, Brian J. Ford is best known for his claims that all large dinosaurs were "too big to walk" and therefore were obligately aquatic, ideas that haven't been taken seriously for over half a century. The relevant section needs signficant cleanup. It's also not clear if Brian J. Ford is actually notable for anything else, and the article itself is a total mess. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
An RfC has been opened here that may be of interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
When doing an insource search insource:"principia-scientific.org" I noticed this article that appears to have received little attention since its creation. A Skeptical Science article. Input welcome, on if notable enough, and to find more independent sources to improve the article, — Paleo Neonate – 23:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Their is no dispute in the reliable sources that the party leads a single-party authoritarian state, but a small cadre of users have been edit-warring to remove text (cited to peer-review academic publications) as to that fact, and to add in some unsourced material to boot. A number of deceptive edit summaries as well. More eyeballs greatly welcomed. Neutrality talk 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:COIN#Steve Kirsch about this article. Some of the likely COI-tainted editing has been WP:FRINGE related (e.g. [21]) so more eyes from fringe-savvy editors may help. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This is being claimed in sources such as the Jerusalem Post. [22]
It's copied from a 2014 article. Some articles need watching.
See [23] and World News Daily Report. Why the media is falling for this I have no idea. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Started out as a redirect to Human sacrifice, then IPs turned it into an own article, and now it is toggling. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This probably isn't appropriate for this noticeboard. MarshallKe ( talk) 19:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Edward Dutton about a month ago put an advert on his social media accounts telling people to edit his Wikipedia page because it cites biased left-wing sources that he wants removed. There seems to be some repeated white-washing attempts to remove certain sources. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
the official end of Wikipedia as a reliable sourcebecause we have the temerity to call " Caucasian"
an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race.He's also approvingly shared the attention-seeking whinges of Larry Sanger. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I tried to remove this insanity, but because the crank got the "hypothesis" published in a journal of disrepute, I got reverted. talk:coleoidea has the details.
2601:643:C002:2830:10B6:F2D8:E2EF:D6B5 ( talk) 01:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
As I was looking at Wikipedia's coverage of Panspermia more generally (both of the above mentioned papers are by noted panspermia proponents), I don't think our article on the topic emphasises enough the fringe nature of the claims and their supporters. I've managed to find a book explicitly calling it a "fringe theory" and added to the lead, though ideally the whole article needs a rework. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The best summary of mainstream viewpoint on panspermia would be something a bit like this. Is panspermia theoretically possible? Yes, there is a remote possibility that early solar system comets brought basic building blocks of life on earth (e.g. amino acids and the like). It's extremely fringe, given we've got all the ingredients already here on earth, with plenty of mechanisms to turn them into the building blocks of life, without the need to bring in space things. Panspermia just shifts the problem of the origin of life to a different planet, which somehow explodes without instantly destroying life/building blocks, which would then travel for millions of years in the inhospitable environment of space, and in a freak coincidence lands on Earth).
Anything more than basic building blocks arriving on earth, like full living organism, like bacteria, mushrooms, cephalopods, etc. is full on time cube nutter territory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Apparently I'm accused of advocating panspermia. Confused with Fred Hoyle? How did that start?Doing the same for Hawking, I found the Daily Mail (lol), something called creation.com and something called panspermia.org.
We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.XOR'easter ( talk) 21:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Editors may wish to weigh in on whether Devra Davis, is a "Conspiracy Theorist"? We are struggling to find an appropriate category. Do we have a category for people who promote fringe theories? Please join in the discussion on the talk page.
This scientist was once an epidemiologist employed by the US Government. She is now known for entirely unrelated achievements. She is the founder of a think tank that promotes the idea that Wifi, 5G and other radio systems are a major cause of diseases as diverse as infertility and cancer. There's no doubt that these are her views, the question is whether these views amount to a conspiracy theory or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
At least that's what Wikipedia claimed until a minute ago. The article Martinus Thomsen has been rewritten and expanded by a single user in the last two months, and several claims of Martinus are treated as facts. I fixed that statement in the lead but I wonder if the old article version was better. -- mfb ( talk) 14:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Came across this piece on Robert W. Malone and Michael Yeadon, which seems knowledge-ful. I've not come across logically.ai before and and first glance it looks reputable, and possible useful for fringe topics. Anybody know more about them? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Adrian David Cheok ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Adrian David Cheok seems to be the latest article affected by COVID-19 lab leak pre-print-itis. It's an article which has had problems with a persistent sock for a long while so I fear it may continue. Especially since it was co-written with Li-Meng Yan. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
JABS, the group that hired Andrew Wakefield to do his fraud thing, back then. New article, can probably use more eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
There is now a discussion about the above at WP:RSN#Science-Based Medicine. Your participation is welcome. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A new user is forum-shopping ideas from predatory journals regarding ufology and ancient astronauts. They were only contacted with a welcome while I was writing this notice. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The stories [of mysterious disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle] fed on each other, the hyperbole building, until, eventually, there were reports that there had been a last transmission from Taylor: "I know where I am now. ... Don't come after me! ... They look like they're from outer space!", then proceeds to aviation archaeologist John Myhre explaining the actual contents of the transmission, in which Taylor claimed to be near an isolated island (which Myhre identified as Walker's Cay).
What is going on here? Grassroots, but founded by an AAPS member? Sounds unlikely. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Article from last year, seems to need a bit of defringing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding the use of sources produced by 'skeptics' and fringe proponents over at RSN right now. You can find it here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a new article that looks like it needs attention. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
More eyes needed upon History of the Jews in Egypt: several IPs, some now blocked, delete this statement: [27].
If you wonder, it is from the handbook of a course taught at Harvard by a full professor, a conservative Jew, published by Beardsley Ruml under a copyleft license. It is published at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not the person to decide the facts of the statement; offhand I do not know and do not care. However, what source is it that they are saying is unreliable? Because it is copy left? Copyright can’t be a concern? Asking for History of the Jews in Spain, where I did not review for reliable sources. Elinruby ( talk) 01:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi - would editors experienced in assessing sources for medical topics please take a quick look at Talk:Chinese herbology and Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine? A relatively new user, who describes themselves as an an undergraduate neuroscientist and Qi Gong practitioner on their user page, is eager to add information about the efficacy of traditional Chinese herbal remedies to treat COVID19, and remove statements about pseudoscience. Thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Phantom vehicle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm sure that some reliably-sourced folklore about this topic exists, but the article doesn't appear to contain any. Instead, it's filled with "examples" of vehicle malfunctions that have been WP:SENSATIONALized, and non-notable superstitious rumors. (Pinging the overworked Bloodofox...)- LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I reverted three times and will stop doing that now. Getting tired of people who do not listen. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
widely separated archaeological excavations in the countries of Israel and Jordan contain late Iron Age (Iron IIb) architecture bearing damage from a great earthquake. I do not know how to handle that. Is it legit and relevant? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems unbalanced to me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Our superstition article is currently seeing a lot of activity from a few users. Unfortunately, this isn't for the better: I'm noticing a lot of poor quality sources being introduced into the article and a heavy POV slant that makes it read like a diatribe from the early 20th century rather than something one would expect from folklorists on a folklore studies topic (and where superstition is often referred to as folk belief). I've tagged it for a rewrite from scratch. It's needed it for a while. This page could use a lot of eyes. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
A superstition is any belief or practice considered by non-practitioners to be irrational- LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, "superstition" is a term that inhabits a particularly Western and Christian concept about what faith-based ideas are "serious" and which are not. As such, it's a term that is generally problematicized as a lot of the literature that uses this idea will often refer to religious beliefs that are not Christian as "superstitions" while assuming that ideas such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ are not. In the context of certain skeptical movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, the idea of "superstition" seems to have been imported from that religious persuasion. It would be nice to encourage some scholar to write a full accounting of the use of this term much as Gordin did with The Pseudoscience Wars. jps ( talk) 12:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@ ජපස: See topic which needs expansion Draft:Irrational beliefs is pretty neutral but I reached that term while researching for Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies. as you rightly say, even primary researching on topic Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies shows not only agnostic but pre 20th century theist christian scholarship itself was a lot introspecting and open minded but now things seems to have changed and they might be feeling unease and discomfort. History indicates in Roman times itself Christianity was very well criticized for superstitions.
But with new atheism topic of superstition is just not battle in between beliefs but there are genuine concerns from side of human rights and sciences etc. Secondly one won't be surprised if any tribal going on defensive and claiming folk culture defense but if one scratches a bit one finds apologists of majior religions are piggy backing concerns of tribal folk cultures. That is how I feel. Probably that is the reason of so much alarmist defenestration.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 14:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I came across the article for National League for Liberty in Vaccination because the Commons MOTD today was a French antivax protest for which we (until an hour ago) called it a demonstration for "freedom of vaccination" (sigh...separate issue). Anyway, I took a look at our article about this organization and it was pretty sparse. I read the sources included and made an [admittedly rather ... blunt?] edit for more context following WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find much else. Perhaps there are French speakers here who may be able to find more material if we're going to have an article on this organization. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I just removed this from Lumbee. It's at [29] Doug Weller talk 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently added: "evidence supporting" the use in menopause and irritable bowel syndrome. I am not sure how WP:MEDRS that is. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I have been working on Slavic mythology for almost two years now. I generally write articles from scratch because the articles on the English wiki contain fakelore or are too short. For the time being I focus on deities, as it is difficult to find reliable and scientific information about them in the English-speaking internet, and many people are interested in it. So I recently wrote a new article on the pseudo-goddess Lada from scratch. The article describes the sources, briefly describes the history of the development of the concept of this goddess, is neutral in that it presents famous/influential people who supported her historicity, but focuses on a critique of that historicity, since practically all modern scholars reject her historicity. To support this thesis, I cited the opinions of 6 professors/doctors of history/ slavic studies/ religious studies and 2 linguists. Besides, if necessary, I can spam more academic researchers who reject her historicity: Stanisław Urbańczyk, Jerzy Strzelczyk, Henryk Łowmiański, Leo Klejn, Evgeny Anichkov, probably also Radoslav Katičić and others. So I copied the article from my sandbox to actual article, and in the discussion I pointed out serious factual errors and unreliable sources. Despite this, the author of the old article ( Sangdeboeuf) reverted my article, and then split it up and restored it in pieces. I disagree with this because the article not only spreads obvious factoids, it presents them as the mainstream view in academia, which is absolutely not true. Now lets look at this:
As the only active Slavic mythology expert on English wikipedia at this point, I say that parts of the old article contain serious problems with WP:RELIABILITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. As if that wasn't enough, the author was confident enough to submit the article for a "good article," and since no one on the English Wikipedia knew the subject of Slavic mythology, the article was awarded without any problems. Although he was probably doing it in good faith. So I motion to completely replace the current article with mine, which is still in my sandbox. Sławobóg ( talk) 14:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
practically all modern scholars? (I'm assuming the citations are accurate, since I don't have access to English translations for most of them.) Nor is it actually shown how this conflicts with the existing sources, which generally acknowledge this rejection by certain writers yet conclude there is sufficient evidence for a cult of worship. These sources, including Ivanits (1989), Struk (1993), and Coulter & Turner (2013) , are published by generally reliable academic publishers. The idea that they are
non-criticalis an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps Sławobóg could provide some relevant quotations from their preferred sources to substantiate their claims? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
general awarenessof the subject. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Is 14 scholars a lot or a little? Without independent sources to
evaluate the disagreement, we just don't know. You're simply asking us to take it on faith that you haven't left out any relevant sources or overlooked any. I'm happy to mainly cite specialists in Slavic mythology, so I do find the quote from Znayenko more convincing than your bald assertions, thank you. However, based on this short quote, we can't imply that "Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado"
; see
WP:SYNTH. Nor can we imply anything based on the one writer who completely ignores Lada; that would be the epitome of
original research. I gave two examples of POV wording on the article talk page: "The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons"
and "East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either"
. Another one is "We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada"
. These are all statements of opinion that
need attribution. --
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 21:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
some relevant quotations from [Sławobóg's] preferred sources. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
"Contemporary scholars overwhelmingly reject the authenticity of the deities Lada and Lado"this statement is supported by quote from Znayenko and scholars I mentioned, most of whom published their works after Znayenko's book and are critical. I also know that as expert. That I know more about the subject than you I have proven in this discussion by listing leading researchers that you have not even heard of and using specialists' opinions in my articles - you use some random, free American sources and books that don't focus on anything. I also debunked Dixon-Kennedy. Besides, I have experience in this topic on Wikipedia - I have written over 20 articles in this field, while you have 1. Also, if one were to accept your constant repetition of "but how do we know that's the majority" it would be impossible to write anything on Wikipedia. I have also been supported here by other Wikipedians, including admin...
"The only 'authentic' sources mentioning the deity of Lada/Lado are the Gniezno Sermons"" and ""East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either"- no POV here - this is already referenced. Plus, it's not the researchers' "opinion" on these sources - footnotes and bibliographies were already used in middle ages.
"East Slavic sources cannot be considered independent sources either"- again, no POV, referenced since the begining.
"We should therefore assume that Długosz's Lyada corresponds to the Old Polish form *Łada"- I don't even why do you think it is POV here. Whole paragraph is explained and sourced since begining. Possibly bad wording?
The only mention of "pseudoscience" is the pseudoscience template. Older versions, such as
[31], still contained the sourced sentence In 1991, two thirds of the scientific community who have the requisite background to evaluate polygraph procedures considered polygraphy to be pseudoscience.
I guess it was removed because such things are not decided by voting. In any case, either the word should be in the article, or the template should be removed. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
removed for some reasonwhen I stated the reason in my edit summary is disingenuous, as is trying to trot me out in support of their argument. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
...how much weight to assign skeptics publishing in the popular press appears moot in this caseseemed to be the question presented, and the best response. Apologize if you think i misrepresented your edit in some way. fiveby( zero) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Because pseudoscience is nearly always added to the lead of those articles, with the argument that the "scientific community" has called it so. But as you've said the scientific community "ignores" the work of debunking of pseudoscience.It is important to get the wording right. If the source is reliable and it indicates that the scientific community has, where it has commented, indicated a certain idea is pseudoscience, then that is an appropriate framing. If that's not what the source indicates, then different wording can be had. In the context of this article, I am pretty sure that every scientific study that has examined polygraphs and the claims as to what their effectiveness may be has determined that there is essentially no evidence for polygraphs working in such a fashion. This is a hallmark of pseudoscience and the sources we have seem to indicate fairly plainly that this is a fair summary of the opinions of scientific consensus. Precise wording can be hashed out at the talkpage, but suffice to say that it can both be true that the scientific community has determined an idea to be pseudoscientific and that the bulk of the community ignores an idea as a matter of course. jps ( talk) 15:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Da Vinci Globe. The article has 15 sources, 10 of which are by Stefan Missinne publishing in the predatory journal Advances in Historical Studies - see [ [34]] and Cambridge Scholars Publishing (note their article has promotional material sourced to them). I haven't found much commentary on him. There's this [35] which has no author, and this blog which is just a brief recent comment on him. [36]. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Pentagon UFO videos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Additional eyes would be welcome at the Talk page, where a RfC is addressing the description of ufology as a pseudoscience. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Now at Pentagon UFO videos a POV tag has been added and a third opinion request regarding alleged NPOV issues has been made, both while the RfC and a VPP discussion directly concerning the RfC continue. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:RSN concerning this paper by Yuri Deigin and Rosana Segretto in Bioessays which may be of interest to those watching this noticeboard. See discussion here.
Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.
Thanks.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 23:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The fringe theory of Raja pratapaditya being just a zamidar is put forward in the course of an edit war by an user who have cited a source which is not of a history book but rather a citation of a historian's critique of another historian's work about whom the concerned article is dedicated to. The picture templete was deliberately removed there are several other historians who have worked on this particular person and the academiciqans have afairly mainstream view but that is not taken into account by the last editor of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samx don ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
We use this journal a lot as a source. [37]
Interestingly, I can't find any impact factor for it at SCImago Journal Rank. Its ISSN is 2162-6871. [38] Have I missed something? I've searched by title and here's the SJR search using the ISSN number. [39]
It claims to be peer reviewed but Stel Pavlou has had a paper accepted by it. [40] [41] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Derrick Lonsdale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just came across this article today; it seems like this man is a nutritionist who thinks various vitamins, excesses of hormones, and other stuff that seems psuedoscientific (from my perspective as a layman) is the true cause of diseases. Looks like it's being written in a somewhat promotional way; I added a criticism of one of his studies, but I imagine more are out there. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
What do you think about [43]? tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
And... most evidence for the name Yahshua has been removed from the article
? Are you kidding me? What evidence can there be for a
WP:FRINGE name of Jesus, concocted by a bunch of cultists in the 20th century? Wikipedia is
WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, so it admits no such evidence.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 15:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
You Jews make me sick. [...] Yet how many Jews have been responsible for creating this trash site of a page.(At Talk:Yahweh.) tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Si.427 is a Babylonian tablet depicting a land survey, one of many dating back to thousands of years earlier, with a hyped-up media campaign claiming it to be the first use of the Pythagorean theorem and the first-ever use of applied geometry. Both claims are demonstrably false, but editors Infinity Knight and Selfstudier have been systematically removing any countering opinions from experts in Babylonian mathematics (both peer-reviewed publications providing long-known evidence of more explicit knowledge from the same time, and self-published material criticizing the hype and falling under the "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" clause of WP:SPS). Thease edits leave only the hyped-up churnalism claims, violating WP:NPOV. Less-credulous opinions welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Mathematician uncovers the origins of applied geometry and land surveying after the rediscovery of a 3,700-year-old clay tablet. Which is, as she says, absurd. (Side note: given the vagaries of dating ancient documents, it's possible that the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, Berlin Papyrus 6619, and the Lahun Mathematical Papyri are even older, and all of them include examples of applied geometry.) XOR'easter ( talk) 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This was a redirect for a long time. It's now a page with sources that look very primary and text that is not easy to follow. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I tried and failed to deal with Gordon Pask eons ago. If anyone can make heads or tails of this stuff, I'd be most grateful. I am not even sure whether the subject material is broader than information science or not. There was some quote from Pask tsk-tsk-ing atomic theory, for example, which seemed to me to be rather astounding. But the jargon is so impenetrable and the ideas so opaque that I cannot tell whether it is my own ignorance that is preventing me from making sense of the sources and text or whether it is gobblety-gook. jps ( talk) 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Widom–Larsen theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widom–Larsen theory
Please comment. jps ( talk) 21:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Far to much use of her own works. Church Universal and Triumphant looks better but has two links to "WhoSampled" which is just an app - weird, and at least one blog. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a great film, if you look at the reception part of that article... Is it? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
71.82.105.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and VeryRareObserver ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who I presume are the same person) are slow edit warring to remove the word disproved from phrase "disproved theoretical continent" in the Lemuria article. It obviously doesn't exist, look at any bathymetric map of the ocean floor. That said, would some other phrasing such as "discredited" be better? As this was a legitimate scientific hypothesis at one point. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit late, but Lemuria is clearly watchlist-worthy (as if life isn't hard enough...) – Austronesier ( talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)