This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article in question was promoted to GA in 2019. A discussion to merge Bull and terrier into the Stafford article was proposed by Cavalryman on 2021-06-02, but went nowhere. I removed the merge tag from the article on 2022-01-24 but was reverted. I went to the merger discussion, and strongly opposed because the material the OP wants to add is based on anecdotal evidence or fringe theories that conflict with DNA evidence. It is "claimed" or "believed" that the Stafford descended from bull and terrier crosses, as did several other breeds of dogs - see Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development, dark blue in Figure 1 - Cladogram of 161 Domestic Dog Breeds. The bull and terrier was never a recognized breed; many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. The DNA further establishes that all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870, and are undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894). I support keeping the Bull and terrier article for historic reference, and perhaps expand it with DNA research. When the initial merger did not gain support, the OP tag-bombed the Stafford article, then proposed a rewrite, then added a NPOV tag, then opened yet another discussion on the article TP. The OP wants to make the bull and terrier cross appear to be a specific breed of dog that survived for some 150+/- years and that it is the Stafford. The UKC states Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England... whereas The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. The DNA evidence, plus verifiable information from 3 official breed registries ( AKC, TKC) & UKC, recognized kennel clubs and other experts all dispute the fringe theory that the bull and terrier is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. So...what should we do with the fringe theories that have been published in dog books that are promoting anecdotal accounts and fringe theories that cause confusion and conflict with the official registries, multiple experts and DNA evidence? Atsme 💬 📧 06:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
What reliable sources state
|
---|
Reference books that state directly that the Bull and Terrier was an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier:
Some other reference books that support this without using that specific name for the Bull and Terrier:
What kennel clubs that provide an historical overview about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier actually state:
|
Reliable sources cited that are claimed to refute the above
|
---|
|
Atsme, I urge you to drop this now. Above:
The mainstream view is the Bull and Terrier is an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, it has been demonstrated here and on the article talk page. And no sources have been provided that articulate any meaningful counter-narrative. Please just drop this, I am dumbfounded by your continued opposition. Cavalryman ( talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC).
I think what we have here is yet another case of "I found this term in a dog encyclopedia and created an article on it because every term for anything to do with dogs should have a Wikipedia article, too." It's why we had an F-load of redundant articles on dog "types", dog breed "groups", and dog breed "categories" using every different name variation from different kennel clubs, each as a stand-alone article, instead of being merged into overall dog-type articles for the most part. It's taken a long time to clean up, and clearly the cleanup isn't done yet.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Due to the lack of breed standards—breeding was for performance, not appearance—the "bull and terrier" eventually divided into the ancestors of "Bull Terriers" and " Staffordshire Bull Terriers", both smaller and easier to handle than the progenitor.[1]
References
some authorities believe Pointers, Greyhounds and Whippets added their influence). Hinks managed to achieve recognition for his breed before the original and so got the name. The world encyclopedia of dogs probably says it most succinctly:
These dogs [Staffordshire Bull Terriers] were termed Bull Terriers and this name remained with them for over 100 years although in the mid 1850's James Hinks of Birmingham introduced an all-white variety by crossing the original Bull Terrier with the Old English White Terrier (now extinct) and the Dalmatian. This variety developed into a fancier's dog and later, when it was established as a breed, its supporters registered as "Bull Terrier" with the Kennel Club in Britain. Actually it was the original Bull Terrier (as in Bulldog-Terrier or Bull and Terrier) who as the original of his kind had a right to the name, but later when he assumed show-bench status on emerging from his gladiatorial past, he had to contend with the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As a note I would dispute the reliability of the Canterbury Bull Terrier Club as a source, breed clubs are in no way independent from their breeds.
Regarding the IP's question Is this a fringe theory, YES or NO?
: It does not matter.
Are we finished here now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy are no longer, but several Arbitrators said that pseudoarcheology was covered by the fringe/pseudoscience sanctions. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on how to improve this article? As it stands, it's sourced entirely to dictionaries and primary sources, drawing heavily on the work of WP:PROFRINGE author Richard Lynn.
It seems to me that the topic is notable (and it withstood two AfDs in the past [11] [12]). A search on Google Scholar, for instance, yields numerous genetic studies on fruit flies, etc., along with a heavy sprinkling of pseudo-academic dross by the likes of Lynn. But as it stands almost nothing in the article appears to meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The only exception seems to be the “In fiction” section. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
increases in assortative mating at the phenotypic level for education are not matched at the genotypic level.Perhaps the whole idea of dysgenics at the level of human population groups is FRINGE? Does anyone know of mainstream contemporary geneticists who have argued otherwise? If not, perhaps this article needs to be rewritten either to focus on fruit flies or else to conform with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources in the article are out of date. Contrary to what you suggest above, dysgenics was never fringe, at least for traits like intelligence, for which a mechanism is apparent. Given the well documented and straightforwardly causal negative effect of (number of years of) education on female fertility the onus has been on those claiming dysgenics does not occur, to provide evidence. Under modern conditions, dysgenic fertility for IQ was widely assumed to be obviously true, and tests with polygenic scores detect it. See e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727 that used the national genetic registry in Iceland.
The study you cited as evidence against dysgenics, isn't; it just shows that assortative mating is not intensifying, and that patterns are weak or nonexistent if you (inappropriately) condition on marriage, which is itself increasingly correlated to intelligence. The pattern of interest for dysgenics is in the whole population not the shifting target of married couples. Sesquivalent ( talk) 00:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Much discussion at Talk about how this article on one of the declaration's "authors" should refer to the Great Barrington Declaration, and in particular its concept of "focused protection", in the lede. I suppose the same considerations would apply also to the Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya ledes. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Aajonus Vonderplanitz has to be one of our most bizarre fringe related articles, and it doesn't seem like our regular fringe-aware community has had much involvement in its development.
Basically, this guy advocated for a raw food diet, but taken to an extreme. It seems as though much of the article is based on his own reported, and highly dubious, descriptions of his life, such as that raw carrot juice cured his dyslexia and his cancer (naturally). Most of his bizarre claims are presented unchecked, except that they are qualified by noting that they are his claims. At best, his claims are described as controversial, despite the reality that they're about as controversial as flat earth theory. Which is to say, there's no controversy here among the relevant scientific community.
This definitely does not meet our standards.
I'm not sure what the solution to this is from a BLP standpoint, or if this article should even exist or just be merged into the history section at Raw Foodism.
But one thing is for sure: this article needs some serious attention and I don't have the time to give it these days, so I'm just dropping a note to you guys.
Noformation Talk 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Close reading of LABEL. A lot of the discussion revolves around it should always be used with attribution. Fringe articles of course often use labels. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
This is again being edit heavily. As I will be undergoing either bowel surgery or chemotherapy for bowel cancer which has (as is typical) spread to my liver, I'm trimming my watchlist and have removed Diop's article. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
An article about a fad diet and the guy behind it, recently attracting ire in the Talk page and correspondence from the Man Himself. Now, CarlFromVienna is edit warring away (the only existing?) WP:MEDRS source & content, that is critical of the diet. More eyes needed. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I do not doubt that this is a high quality source in accordance to MEDRS. Rather only the classification they give is unsatisfying as I have explained on the talk page. A good criticism would go much more into detail as to what specifically is problematic with McDougall‘s diet. CarlFromVienna ( talk) 11:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that vitamin k2 is found in natto so many Asian people get a good supply from fermented soybeans but in the west not many people have access to this. The conversion rate of K1 into K2 is very poor. Vitamin K2 is distributed around the entire body whilst vitamin k1 is not. Vitamin K2 travels to bone more effectively than K1.
I get my k2 from a fermented chickpea supplement. DHA is important for fetal and infant brain development, it is also very important for normal brain function in adults, unfortunately it deceases with age. In regard to brain atrophy or brain shrinkage this happens with aging from late 30s and 40s and increases from 60. It can be minimized by various lifestyle strategies like exercise and eating foods rich in DHA and EPA (seafood or microalgae supplements). There are no vegan foods sources rich in DHA and EPA apart from microalgae oils which are often found in supplement form.
ALA conversion to DHA is low in humans, with <1% dietary ALA converted to DHA, so it is essentially useless if you are a vegan and you rely on ALA foods like flaxseeds, chia seeds for DHA or EPA. You will get less than 1% conversion rate. Some vegan websites try and boost this up and say the conversation rate is 5% but that is really not good either. Which ever way you look at it or which studies you look at it is very low which nobody in the medical community disputes. Most of the studies I have seen report a 0.5% conversion rate. Even if the rate is 1% or 2% it is essentially useless. The only way to get DHA/EPA on a vegan diet is to take an algae supplement (liquid form) that the body will absorb.
Most vegans forget about EPA which is also very important. Microalgae supplements have both DHA/EPA. If a vegan is not taking an algae supplement there is an increased risk they will end up with dementia and other increased cognitive decline. I personally will not take that risk. Remember DHA is the most abundant omega-3 in the brain, it is crucial for brain function on a daily basis. Don't waste time taking flax. McDougall has made some outlandish claims, in one video I saw he said DHA does not matter for most people. He's been involved in various flame wars with Joel Fuhrman on DHA/EPA supplements because Fuhrman has come out and said vegans are deficient in DHA so should be taking supplements (he's right IMO). I agree there is no consensus in the vegan community about this but in the medical community there is a consensus and from what I have seen most doctors promoting veganism are peddling nutritional misinformation (I say this as someone who doesn't eat animal products). An expert on omega 3 fatty acids would be William E.M. Lands. I communicate with experts by email.
I take vitamin k2, iron, b12, DHA/EPA supplements. I may consider taurine, I get my iodine from seaweed. I believe veganism is for the animals, it is for the ethics, it isn't the best option for health. I have eaten a vegetarian and pescatarian diet for decades but have been a vegan for one year again now so I am trying it for the 6th time. You can be healthy long-term vegan but it is much harder than being a pescatarian or vegetarian.
I would say the DHA/EPA is very important. I am well aware that a lot of vegan doctors are opposed to DHA or EPA supplements. Unfortunately most of these doctors are peddling quackery and they are not omega-3 fatty acid researchers or qualified like someone like William E.M. Lands is. I disagree with Tim Radak, he even cites McDougall in his presentation but I cannot go into that here. I do not claim to be an expert but I think we should listen to experts and most vegan doctors are not.
Yes I was in hospital, on one occasion I collapsed and was so tired. I had no energy on a low-fat vegan diet, I was deficient in DHA, iodine, iron, b12, pretty much everything and lost massive weight almost anorexic, I was also severely dehydrated and was on a drip for over 5 hours. I was doing exercise so I was not lazy or have any pre-existing medical problems, and was only in my mid 20s at the time. Back then I was not supplementing. It is not a healthy diet long-term and could kill someone if you do not know what you are doing. McDougall's client base are mostly obese people who go on his diet and lose weight very quickly (his book is filled with pictures of this), a thin person on a low-fat vegan diet like that will lose even more weight and put them in danger. I say this from experience. Most vegans give it up after a few months, the drop out rate is like 90% and some of the long-term vegans secretly eat fish or chicken. People like the idea of a vegan diet but there are very few out there honestly doing it long-term, most end up doing it only short-term. If you honestly want to do it and stick with it long-term you have to do a lot of nutritional research, the DHA/EPA is very important for long-term. There is nothing else I can add here but hopefully you see I have had some experience with all this.
McDougall has admitted to eating chicken on his birthdays and turkey for thanksgiving and Christmas, so he actually doesn't even follow his own advice. A lot of these plant-based doctors just sell books to make money. Other users are now editing the McDougall article and I don't really have any criticisms of what is being added so I probably won't be editing the article as I have many other articles to be editing so I will not be adding anything else here. Thanks for the discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Removal of discretionary sanctions for the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under discussion Doug Weller talk 11:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This probably doesn't belong here, but I don't know a better place. The article Abrey Kamoo has been created in good faith, but it looks as if it is a 1904 hoax which was picked up by newspapers then, then largely forgotten, and in 2020 reappeared in the "Guides Gazette" (whatever that is) [22]. People living a remarkable life is a perfect subject for stories; people having too many remarkable things makes me wary though...
It looks like she invented a fanciful story about her life (where only the last part, that she lived with a son and no husband in Boston and worked in skin care, seems to be truthful), some of the less savvy newspapers of the time ran with it, and now we have an article perpetuating the same myths. But that is just "common sense" which is trumped by the "reliable sources", so is there a way to deal with this? Fram ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
not terribly reliable but another spelling to try. fiveby( zero) 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Coco, Hall, and Middleton all appear to derive from a March 2, 1904 story in The Lancaster Examiner, but here is "Her People Had Triplet Habit". The Washington Times. February 24, 1904. p. 10. Can't find anything on father or husband. Would at least attribute the story to the papers. fiveby( zero) 02:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
fleets of England, France, Russia, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Sardinia, the Kingdom of Naples & Sicily, and the Ottoman Empire. fiveby( zero) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
No Union soldier by the name of Kamoo could be found, but there was a phonetically similar name: Thomas H. Kamouse. This soldier, a strong candidate to have been "Tommy Kamoo," enlisted as a private in the 8th New York Cavalry on September 4, 1862, and was discharged on June 7, 1865. The regiment was engaged at Gettysburg on all three days of the battle, July 1-3, 1863. Maria Lewis also served in this regiment (see Chapter 10).
Although a cavalry regiment would not be expected to have a drummer boy, the 8th New York Cavalry regimental history reports that when it headed to Washington, D.C., in late November of 1861, it was escorted by the "Union Blues," a band that included a drum coprs of young boys dressed in Zouave uniforms. Additionally, 800 of the soldiers were originally unmounted. It is quite possible that at this early stage of the war, Kamoo worked her way through the ranks first as a drummer boy and then stayed on as a nurse or soldier.
Abrey Kamoo (Abbredalah Kaloss) is listed as having died on February 22, 1904 (Monday) in the article February 1904. It lists four newspaper articles that are also cited in this article as sources. Paul H. ( talk) 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor ( Finell) is trying to establish a new lede for this article with a take of its health "benefits" which seems at odds with what is cited in the article body. Edit warring too. More eyes could help broaden consensus. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Is Alexbrn an admin???— Finell 06:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain. They just want to emphasize as well that more high-quality research would be beneficial, and that as yet
there is no conclusive evidence that [Pilates] is superior to other forms of exercises.That sounds like a thoroughly NPOV statement to me. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
feasible therapy for people with MSthough
potential beneficial effects of Pilates are not significantly greater than those derived from the performance of other physical therapies.And of course, more high-quality studies would be beneficial. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
There is however only limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back painvs.
There is limited evidence that the Pilates method can alleviate such problems such as low back pain- both of these seem reasonable; they cautiously note one area where there is some weak evidence of effectiveness per the source. The "however only limited evidence" wording honestly reads to me as slightly less neutral (it sort of feels like it is pushing the reader towards a conclusion of "it's not really good for back pain" whereas the source is closer to
thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercise- the latter part of that statement, note, is probably more important and is in neither version.
Evidence from studies show that while Pilates improves balance, it has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition other than evidence that regular Pilates sessions can help muscle conditioning in healthy adults, when compared to doing no exercise.vs
Studies show that the Pilates method improves balance and muscle conditioning in healthy adults, but it is not effective to treat any medical condition. Both the things the rewrite says there is evidence for were already in the original. The one thing that caught my eye here is that the rewrite omits "compared to doing no exercise", which is important because the sources emphasize that there's no evidence Pilates has any advantages over any other form of exercise. So I would include that in some form; it's important to be clear that the advantages described here are just the standard advantages of doing any sort of physical exercise.
Pilates is "just exercise" exactly as much as Yoga is "just exercise". There are many practitioners that don't get deep into the woo bits - more so in Pilates than in Yoga -, but the foundational ideology is there and that is how it should be defined. One can practice Yoga or Tai Chi or whatever and say "for me, it is just exercise", I surely do. The place I go to is full of Joseph Pilates's quotes about "body and spirit" this and "breathing and posture" that on the walls. Exercising has health benefits, not surprising. Light exercise and stretching help with balance and flexibility, whoopity doo. Strengthening back muscles help with back pain, quelle surprise. None of this is particular to Pilates. VdSV9• ♫ 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I just removed a reference to the Köfels-impact-theory from Umhausen because from what I know it has not gained serious acceptance among scientists, but Mark Hempsell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and in a lesser measure Alan Bond (engineer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sound fairly uncritical on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Since the article's creation it has remained a dead stub so I would have slowly expanded this article. But as soon as I started, using a review in The Guardian, I was accused of advocacy. It is itself an advocacy book pushing for views that have no scientific consensus (and discredited speculation like about RaTG13, or that preadaptation to humans and the furin cleavage site are suspect, etc.) Consequently I thought this would be the right place to post a notice, in case someone else familiar with the politics/science dichotomy on the topic would like to work on the article (I'm no longer interested). — Paleo Neonate – 13:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The claim that the CIA secretly dosed a French town with LSD cannot be labeled as a claim or a conspiracy theory? Serious question. - - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I never can remember, is their guidance on how many published works we list? He’s an ancient astronauts writer among other things. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
It [43] seems to be from a reliable journal, but besides being a literalist view of the Bible, it says:
Here. [47] Doug Weller talk 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A section of modern-day devices that have been compared to or identified as dowsing devices was completely removed even though multiple editors pointed out that the comparisons are verified and due. Talk:Dowsing#Explosive Detectors, previously discussed here at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Dowsing.
I'm concerned that Dowsing#Scientific_reception isn't given the prominence (currently the last prose section) and presentation (currently a very restrained use of Wikipedia's voice) that a serious encyclopedia article should, and for some reason Dowsing#Studies is a separate section presented earlier in the article. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources were [48] and [49] although the original source is here. The lack of understanding is shown by this comment by a co-author. "It looks like this event was very injurious to agriculture. People didn't have good ways to store corn for a long period of time. Losing a crop or two would have caused widespread suffering." The artifacts studied in the paper are said to date from "252–383 CE". But the Hopewell weren't eating much maize at all until about 600 years later. [50]
The claim is that a comet burst set fire to a number of habitation sites simultaneously, but there's no evidence that they were contemporaneous or even habitation sites instead of ceremonial sites with the burning episodes being intentional anthropogenic ceremonial fires.
It gets worse. The main author is Kenneth Tankersley [51]. Most of the others seem to be grad students. We use him in several articles including Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. Also at Sheriden Cave and others. He used to claim he was Cherokee [52] (note his claim for ancestry from Red Bird) but when the Cherokee Nation denied that he later change to being a member of the Alabama recognized Piqua Shawnee tribe. [53] which of course is not an RS but is interesting. He is used as a source for Red Bird River Petroglyphs and Chief Red Bird but his claims have been rejected. [54] [55]
On the other hand, he definitely has his supporters. And no surprise, he's a member of the Comet Group. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Ran across this paragraph in ufology:
Multiple studies that investigate the subject or related topics in a serious manner have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
[1]
[2]
[3]
References
I'm not familiar with those journals and wonder if they are considered fringe or RS for this text? - - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Royal Rife ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lot of new demands on the Talk page to turn the article more friendly to his ideas, citing unreliable sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
100% Rifeaccording to Talk:Royal Rife. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I have had to revert recent changes. More eyes needed. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Now there is edit warring, so I have started a new section below. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
In the aftermath of the ArbCom/GSoW case, there is an RfC on this publication at WP:RSN#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer. Fringe-savvy editors will will likely find this of interest. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
A student editor plans to edit this article and like most new editors may need help. See Talk:Myth#Planning changes to this article (I added the section heading). It looks as though the page could use a rewrite and it’s good someone is planning to do some. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
mostly from a period around 2010-2012 (which, as far as modern practice on Wikipedia is concerned, is about antiquity or thereabouts)We could call those "antediluvian". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I have found it is important to take the temperature for these kinds of *disruptive* discussions prior to starting them lest we waste everyone's time. That's how we finally were able to consign the original research that was the "List of scientists who don't believe in global warming" to the dustbin of Wikipedia's memory hole. I also object generally to the attempts to police what is and is not discussed at noticeboards. Don't get me wrong, there are some conversations that do not belong here, but, as you might imagine since I brought this one up, I think this topic is one that is directly relevant to our work here. YMMV, but I'd appreciate if we could let others opine so I might see what the FTN regulars think of revisiting this subject. jps ( talk) 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, to me, Genesis creation sounds like it would be an article about who wrote the Book of Genesis and Genesis flood is easily confused with the book that kickstarted flood geology. If there are other terms that we could use that satisfied everyone, I'd be thrilled. jps ( talk) 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I was taking a look through the history of this bio on a minor race-and-intelligence researcher and saw that a brief section was added back in August about Woodley's work attempting to prove the existence of paranormal psychic phenomena [66]. This content appears to have been deleted because the account which added it, Woodley Meanie, was an obvious impersonation and thus a username violation. However the material seems to have been correctly framed and verifiable, based on Woodley's 2020 publication "Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence" [67]. I did a bit of googling and found an even more recent one, "Genetics of psychic ability –– A pilot case-control exome sequencing study" from 2021 [68]. The latter is discussed in this post on the website of the PROFRINGE organization Institute of Noetic Sciences: "Paper Published! Do Psychic Abilities Run in Families?": [69] That post does seem to imply that the authors of the paper worked in conjunction with the organization, so it is not really an independent secondary source, and it certainly wouldn't count as WP:FRIND. Thoughts about whether this merits inclusion in the article? And does anyone know of independent secondary sources discussing it? Generalrelative ( talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Notice: a separate item from this BLP, referring to Woodley's membership in the far-right Unz Foundation (an organization that supports, among other things, Holocaust denial) is now underway at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Woodley. Not forum shopping here; I was given an aggressive BLP warning by DGG in relation to this content. But it clearly relates to FRINGE as well since the warning appears to imply that we shouldn't mention membership in such organizations. Generalrelative ( talk) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I have decided to nominate the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This continues a section about Rife above.
A cherry-picked attempt has been made to squeeze a recommendation for Rife machines out of a comment from Cancer Research UK (CRUK) by the inclusion of this comment in our Royal Rife article:
The "recently" and " pulsed radiofrequency machines" are OR. The comment by CRUK, in its entirety, includes a more specific explanation which revealed the machines didn't even use the same frequencies as Rife machines, ergo the content isn't even relevant for the Rife article and it fails MEDRS.
Here is the comment from CRUK in their section labeled Research into Rife machines as a cancer treatment:
The Rife machine hasn't been through the usual process of scientific testing. There are studies that looked at low energy waves as a treatment for cancer. They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine. Some of these studies were in the laboratory.
One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines.
I reverted the cherry-picked content and left this edit summary: "Totally fails MEDRS (note "one" small study using frequencies that are "not the same as those of Rife machines."): "One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines."
I was reverted with this nasty edit summary: "Enough bullying... Your bias is anti-scientific. You have demonstrated it many times. Stop your useless editing wars."
These attempts to legitimize and promote fringe therapies fail for at least five reasons:
I'm not going to edit war over this, so I invite others to check out the situation. We also need admins who can take action. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPN#Michael Woodley. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Our artcle about Sex (not the act, which is covered at Sexual intercourse) has doubled in size over the last year xtools, almost entirely due to the contributions of CycoMa1, an editor who has just been topic banned at ANI from medical topics for CIR issues. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Medical_articles_topic_ban_for_CycoMa1. The whole article really needs to be checked over for neutrality, and possibly just wholesale removing their contributions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
wholesale removing their contributionsis called for -- TNT ( talk • she/her) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at WT:W2W (section link here) about requiring in-text attribution in articles. This is similar topic to the previous discussions establishing that the terms "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theor(y/ist)" can be used without attribution, conclusions which are not being disputed here, but related terms such as "denialist" are under discussion. As such, it may be of interest to this noticeboard. Sunrise ( talk) 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This addition to the article is disputed. Tajmar et al measured zero thrust. Shawyer keeps claiming everyone else must do it wrong. Should we discuss this claim in the article? -- mfb ( talk) 02:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
See [74] by Jason Colavito and also his Twitter feed [75]. Darvill's article is here. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Transylvania1916 claims that Ion Iliescu was the president of the Socialist Republic of Romania, and Petre Roman its prime-minister, which I have never heard before and seems wholly WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
president.
president of SRR. The other is a compendium of legislation, does not mention that, either.
Yeah, no, you revert my sourced edit, you come up with actual arguments: your edit isn't
sourcedin the meaning of WP:PAGs. It is your own original synthesis of two different sources, one of them being a WP:PRIMARY source.
president of SRR. Iliescu called himself
president of the Council of the National Salvation Front. See WP:1DAY. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this a fringe theory? My apologies, but I'm not clearly understanding how it is relevant to this board. It seems more like a dispute over terminology, but this looks more like David Rice Atchison trivia (if I may use a somewhat similar example from my home country). jps ( talk) 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
president of SRR. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I ask because it's being used to justify removing material from the Woodley article mentioned above. It says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." There's an explanatory note explaining who isn't well known at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.Publishing books, publishing articles, speaking at conferences, and giving interviews - all of which are supported in the article by RS and all of which, I assume, were intentional acts on the part of Woodley - define him as a public figure, and can be objectively interpreted as active efforts to achieve, among other things, media attention. If RS support this notable, "not low-profile" public figure's association with any group, claims that such content constitute defamation (i.e., damage to a person's reputation without justification) seem reckless and false. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers.True that, but a referenced post by the noted palaeontologist and author Darren Naish under the imprimatur of Scientific American isn't exactly chopped liver. The subject has authored/co-authored several published books, and in their professional capacity they agreed to be interviewed and quoted about cryptozoology. Sure, this person isn't exactly Elton John, or even Darren Naish for that matter. But IMO their activities have made them a "not low profile" public figure, and by extension reliably sourced information about their affiliation with a disgusting group is not defamatory. I certainly won't be losing any sleep, however, when the AfD results in article deletion. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Kabbalah, quantum physics, information theory... this looks worth keeping an eye on. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s about some sort of criminal organisation in the fictional Mormon ancient America. Only BOM sources. Someone has tagged it for notability but I’m thinking AfD. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I came across the John Mew article as it had a cite error. Looking at the most recent changes it looks like it's being edited by the subject, or someone close to him. As he has some "interesting" ideas about dentistry I thought I'd drop a note here. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmission∆ ° co-ords° 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Experts Say ‘Pseudoarchaelogists’ Are Threatening the Field With Pet Theories About the Ancient World Engineered to Go Viral The "viral" bit is about the alleged discovery of Sodom and the alleged airburst over Tell el-Hammam. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday I was removing some stuff sources to Andis Kaulins [79] who self-published this book claiming "that many ancient megalithic sites are not tombs, but are remnants of ancient local, regional and perhaps even larger Neolithic surveys of the Earth by Stone Age astronomy, with gigantic stones being placed as immovable survey markers." [80]. I found this article which had a note saying "Besides Fedorova and Fischer, who are discussed here, these include José Imbelloni, Barry Fell, Egbert Richter-Ushanas, Andis Kaulins, Michael H. Dietrich, Lorena Bettocchi, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov." I didn't see the point of mentioning all these fringe authors so I deleted it. I also added an OR tag as I consider a lot of the notes to be pure original research. I was reverted by User:Kwamikagami who says on my talk page "The article passed FA with that info included. No OR problems then. What we have here is an insistence of TRUTH, as with other fields rife with pseudoscholarship. One linguist here on WP likened the author at issue (Dietrich) to reading von Däniken." But that was in 2009. So I have three issues. Is there justification for mentioning the fringe authors? Are many of the notes OR? Does this still meet our FA standard? Rongorongo also has some notes that appear to me to be original research, some clearly not sourced IMHO. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was an independent objection; I assumed it was in response to BigDan/Xcalibur pushing TRUTH, or at least removing anything that would deny the TRUTH. I'd have to check how many mentioned in the fn are SELFPUB. Deletion may indeed be the way to go. The reason for mentioning those authors, though, was that they may be mentioned in popular accounts of rongorongo, so readers may wonder about them if there's no mention at all. Certainly we cleared out a lot of garbage about them when we prepared the article for FA, with Bettocchi and Rjabchikov fighting to keep it and insisting that we give them the coverage that they deserved. Imbelloni was published in Man, and his claims sparked an expedition to Easter Island. His claim that rongorongo was related to the Indus Valley script is still repeated, despite being published in the 1920s and repeatedly debunked. Fell is well-known as FRINGE, though his claims about rongorongo are incidental to what he's best known for.
As for FA review, there's been little change to the articles since FA, with Austronesier and me mostly keeping any fringy cruft from building up again. — kwami ( talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
They have, and there isn'tNo, the experts haven't weighed in (except for Esen-Baur). You haven't provided a single RS (or any source) refuting this. Xcalibur ( talk) 08:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)\
Repeating something does not make it true.That much we can agree on. And repeating that "wikipedia is doomed" is no less an obnoxious, disingenuous comment than it was the first time. This is especially so when rongorongo studies seem to be moribund -- you yourself said that the Y! study group is inactive. When I say you didn't read, it's not sophistry on my part, it's an honest response to all these misunderstandings. Yes it is a review, and Esen-Baur does have relevant expertise, especially since (assuming the Dietrich theory is true) rongorongo is not even a script, but a notation system! Anyway, if any of the experts you accept have evaluated Dietrich, I'd be interested in a link. For my part, here's the Esen-Baur review, a significant source, but not the only one: [81] Xcalibur ( talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
belatedly realized that he'd already been debunked by the RR groupthis never happened. I haven't seen a single link or shred of evidence for this conspiracy theory. Let's not forget, you were called out for spouting nonsense about De Laat (although to your credit, you acknowledged this and edited). Speaking of De Laat, their disagreement with Dietrich isn't relevant, especially when there's a CoI.
he doesn't want his book summarized on WPI didn't realize that authors had creative control over content discussing their work on wiki. Besides, I updated my summary to reflect that De Laat's latest paper is a substantial revision, although the rest is still there because that's what most sources cover.
then let's accept what she says: that she's not an expert,I don't believe EB ever said this, and she has relevant credentials.
Dietrich requires expert review.She asked for further peer review, which is reasonable. That doesn't negate EB being a review, which it clearly is.
So you have zero sourcesI do have the sources, though. The fact that Dietrich had multiple papers published in scholarly journals already elevates his work above De Laat, which is self-published. Of course that's not enough by itself, which is why I have a secondary RS journal article, and then there's the Die Zeit article, mentions in other papers on rongorongo, etc (multiple blog-like sources discuss this, although they don't count as RS). Certainly not enough for a stand-alone article, but it should be fine for adding a section.
So why are you fighting to add nonsense to WP?I haven't seen a single valid point against the content (IDONTLIKEIT is not valid).
Mentioning it here as I'm guessing not everyone watches that page. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The dangerous social movements of our time are not represented significantly in Wikipedia.- That is because disobeying fringe (and falsebalance) is a ground for sanction. Once we take that away, we are on course to be the next r/incel or like community.
@ DGG: it is true that what you say is not new, but it appears to me that you are looking for spooks where there are none and are playing a dangerous game here of carrying water for a group that adheres to a particular set of beliefs about the race and intelligence controversy which I think are best described as being "intellectual dark web". This argument has appealed to a certain crowd who think of themselves as torch-bearers for the Sokal hoax when I think they are better described as last gasps of a moribund approach to scientific racism. Part of the reason we have a fringe guideline at all is because, essentially by definition, the sources that surround fringe claims tend to be on the thin side. Knowing when a particular perspective is noticed enough to be described on Wikipedia is delicate when you have a group creating their own alternate universe of sourcing. This was true 15 years ago and it is true today. jps ( talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
the science is settled that race is not biologically determined. It is pseudoscientific to claim otherwise.even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there? This seems like a case of semantics to me. Xcalibur ( talk) 11:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at allThis is your opinion. The scientific sources disagree with you and with the conservative/libertarian news sources and blog you probably got that misinformation from. (The pseudoscience of climate change denial is, like the pseudoscience of holocaust denial, politically motivated.) We go not with your opinion but with the reliable sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there?. Races and ethnicities are not delineated by biology. A fringe issue that has been extensively debated on Wikipedia in different forums over the last two years is whether claims of genetic racial differences in intelligence are fringe. In all of those discussions the consensus of editors, based on an examination of reliable sources, has been that those racialist claims are fringe. NightHeron ( talk) 11:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
what's NOT settled is how much of this is anthropogenic vs naturalThis is incorrect. If you are of this opinion, you are contrary to the reliable sources on the subject. The added denialist talking points (which is what your arguments are, whether you believe it or not) about past climate change are so efficiently debunked in the associated literature that we even explain why the arguments are incorrect on relevant pages here at Wikipedia! The long and the short of it is that your armchair arguments here, while commonly made by interlocutors who arrive at climate change talkpages at Wikipedia, really are wrong and do not belong in the encyclopedia as anything more than an object lesson for incorrect arguments. That's how we treat it, and that's definitely the best way to treat it considering that any alternative would just be appointing random individuals as arbiters of content rather than reliable sources. jps ( talk) 16:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if climate change skepticism is politically motivated, that is certainly no less true for climate change proponents.No, accepting climate change is simply motivated by facts. Climate change denial is grounded in the belief that free markets cannot do wrong. This belief is solidly refuted by the fact of man-made climate change and is therefore an obstacle to accepting that fact. Those who do not have that belief do not have a reason to reject the science, and that is why they accept it. So, the reason why üpeople on the left tend to accept the science is not the presence of a political position but the absence of one specific false worldview. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
You are ignorant enough to think that the argument that "weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change" has not been roundly debunked in reliable sources, that's for sure. Again, you need to do more research on this topic. Since there really are no reliable sources which argue that climate change denial belongs in "alternative theoretical formulation", I also chalk this up to ignorance on your part. This is me being generous. There are some people who come to this topic with motivated reasoning. I am assuming that's not what's happening here. jps ( talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
"weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change"I didn't actually say this. I brought it up because there's a common thread: the difficulty of predicting complex systems. If you want me to explain any further, you can ask, otherwise you can re-read my posts, which should be informative. Xcalibur ( talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
However, no one can research this today without getting tarred-&-feathered and losing their career and reputation.There is no evidence that I have seen that there is any kind of "tar and feathering" as such at least not any more than there is in any other dead-end area. I know that a lot of race realists and IDW types like to say that this is true, but the claim is "evidence free" as they say. Let's say you spend your time trying to find out whether the moon affects people's likelihood of hospitalization. It is absolutely the case that you will not be treated with scholarly respect: you are barking up a pseudoscientific tree. jps ( talk) 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
But the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at allPlease see WP:FRINGE/ALT, explicitly covering this case. Things can be fringe without being pseudoscience or quackery. The root issue seems to be people who are insisting that we can't even call this view a minority one. One that typically strays into WP:RGW territory (ie. "The Man" is suppressing my favorite theory in mainstream scientific journals, it should be more prominent here to compensate).
even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there?This is a significant bag of worms to this one (there's a good reason it's under DS), but the short version revolves around two concepts. 1) Race is not a good proxy for genetic variation, two anglo-European individuals may be more genetically dissimilar than an anglo-European and an east-Asian. 2) Defining and measuring intelligence is, in and of itself, a construct; there are numerous examples of cultural biases in intelligence testing, on top of why one culture or another values certain mental activities higher than others. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe it's RGW to point out that if a valid minority view is underrepresented in RS, that poses a problem for a neutral encyclopedia.. The suggestion that the viewpoint deserves more representation in RS is precisely WP:RGW (
Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow), with a sprinkling of WP:CRYSTAL (
Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.).
By extending FRINGE that far, you end up with gatekeepers forcing viable content out of articles for violating their orthodoxy.I see WP:FRINGE/ALT as the clarification of the boundary specifically to avoid this issue. If it's being abused, address the abuse, rather than changing the guideline. Regardless, the policy of WP:UNDUE already covers the concept of a minority viewpoint being identified as such:
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.Emphasis exists in the policy, not added by me. Contrary to your view that content must be given additional prominence to remain neutral, policy says the opposite. See also WP:GEVAL:
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.(Emphasis added)
view is underrepresented in RS, core content policy dictates we are to give it correspondingly less representation. Your arguments against the guideline WP:FRINGE are in opposition to the core content policy WP:NPOV. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
When it comes to controversial issues like climate, it should present both sides in good faith← this is called WP:PROFRINGE whether it's climate, evolution, JFK assassination, cancer-cure enemas or whatever. WP:GEVAL exist to stop it. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Not only is it comparable, it is a perfect object lesson for the problem with people trying to promote their pet ideas in the encyclopedia. You have made it clear that you are partial to climate change denial arguments. Others are partial to creationism. Others are partial to JFK conspiracy theories, etc. We are unable to distinguish between which of these fringe theories is correct and which are incorrect. Therefore we go by what the WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources say. That offends the believers in those ideas. I am sure there are, even now, some fringe proponents balking at being lumped with the climate change deniers as strenuously as you are balking being lumped with them. But we have no other means to figure out what is encyclopedic and what is not. The only alternative is to name an editor-in-chief, but that's not the Wikipedia model. jps ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
If the RS themselves are not neutral, then the "neutral POV" becomes a fiction.Here, I believe you are simply incorrect regarding core policy. If the high quality mainstream journals (ie, Nature, Science) only publish meta-analysis supporting the mainstream view, then it is indeed the mainstream that is presumed default and the minority view must be contextualized as the minority relative to. If the minority view is to be considered equivalent, it needs to be published in those top-quality journals alongside the mainstream. To 'correct' for the 'imbalance' of those journals does not improve neutrality, it harms it. It's even an example in WP:RGW:
Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community. You might disagree with that policy, but it is indeed foundational content policy, and no change to WP:FRINGE would affect this concept. The more we debate this, the less focus we can spend on actionable concerns.
But when minority views are drowned out, strawmanned, or only attacked, it's simply not fair representation. This might make sense for pseudoscience and quackery, but not for plausible minority views.This is where there's room for discussion, probably. And this is where 'it depends' comes into play depending on how significant/plausible the minority is. In the specific context of BLPs for advocates of minority views, the view should very much be discussed but I don't think this is disputed. Where on the fringe scale it is will affect how it's presented. Personally, I'd want there to be a pretty high bar of prevalence for a minority view for the BLP to present the author's view as the one which gets the 'final word', like refuting a mainstream criticism. Stepping out of hypothetical world for a moment, this is the kind of thing I would sooner consider for advocates where experimental data is scant or impossible (ie. string theory or futurism) than for established fields with significant experimental data. Yes, even if it turns out they were right in the end, the article should reflect it now if reliable sources say their peers dismiss them currently. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
An IP found quite a few faults, and indeed, the article needs a brush-up. I started by slight reorganizing and NPOVing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians.Since Illig is a "historian," it directly contradicts itself. What about
The hypothesis is refuted by the vast majority of scholars.And perhaps a source to pin to it. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Die Historiker, das sind die anderen, er zählt sich selbst nicht dazu, und sie ihn auch nicht, weil er nie Geschichte studiert hat, sondern promovierter Germanist und Diplomkaufmann ist.The historians are the others, he does not count himself among them, and neither do they, because he never studied history but a specialist in German studies with a doctorate, and a business graduate. This is pretty consistently what sources say; only a few call him a historian, probably because they guessed he is one since he writes about history. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Posted today. [93]. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
generally unreliable for factual reporting. I would look for another source or leave it out. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article in question was promoted to GA in 2019. A discussion to merge Bull and terrier into the Stafford article was proposed by Cavalryman on 2021-06-02, but went nowhere. I removed the merge tag from the article on 2022-01-24 but was reverted. I went to the merger discussion, and strongly opposed because the material the OP wants to add is based on anecdotal evidence or fringe theories that conflict with DNA evidence. It is "claimed" or "believed" that the Stafford descended from bull and terrier crosses, as did several other breeds of dogs - see Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development, dark blue in Figure 1 - Cladogram of 161 Domestic Dog Breeds. The bull and terrier was never a recognized breed; many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. The DNA further establishes that all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860-1870, and are undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation (Lee, 1894). I support keeping the Bull and terrier article for historic reference, and perhaps expand it with DNA research. When the initial merger did not gain support, the OP tag-bombed the Stafford article, then proposed a rewrite, then added a NPOV tag, then opened yet another discussion on the article TP. The OP wants to make the bull and terrier cross appear to be a specific breed of dog that survived for some 150+/- years and that it is the Stafford. The UKC states Today's Bull Terrier is the direct descendant of the original bull-and-terrier crosses made in England... whereas The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a descendant of the Bull and Terrier crosses made in Great Britain in the late 1700's. It was given the name "Staffordshire" in reference to an area where it was very popular, to differentiate it from the other Bull and Terrier breeds. The DNA evidence, plus verifiable information from 3 official breed registries ( AKC, TKC) & UKC, recognized kennel clubs and other experts all dispute the fringe theory that the bull and terrier is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. So...what should we do with the fringe theories that have been published in dog books that are promoting anecdotal accounts and fringe theories that cause confusion and conflict with the official registries, multiple experts and DNA evidence? Atsme 💬 📧 06:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
What reliable sources state
|
---|
Reference books that state directly that the Bull and Terrier was an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier:
Some other reference books that support this without using that specific name for the Bull and Terrier:
What kennel clubs that provide an historical overview about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier actually state:
|
Reliable sources cited that are claimed to refute the above
|
---|
|
Atsme, I urge you to drop this now. Above:
The mainstream view is the Bull and Terrier is an early name for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, it has been demonstrated here and on the article talk page. And no sources have been provided that articulate any meaningful counter-narrative. Please just drop this, I am dumbfounded by your continued opposition. Cavalryman ( talk) 07:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC).
I think what we have here is yet another case of "I found this term in a dog encyclopedia and created an article on it because every term for anything to do with dogs should have a Wikipedia article, too." It's why we had an F-load of redundant articles on dog "types", dog breed "groups", and dog breed "categories" using every different name variation from different kennel clubs, each as a stand-alone article, instead of being merged into overall dog-type articles for the most part. It's taken a long time to clean up, and clearly the cleanup isn't done yet.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Due to the lack of breed standards—breeding was for performance, not appearance—the "bull and terrier" eventually divided into the ancestors of "Bull Terriers" and " Staffordshire Bull Terriers", both smaller and easier to handle than the progenitor.[1]
References
some authorities believe Pointers, Greyhounds and Whippets added their influence). Hinks managed to achieve recognition for his breed before the original and so got the name. The world encyclopedia of dogs probably says it most succinctly:
These dogs [Staffordshire Bull Terriers] were termed Bull Terriers and this name remained with them for over 100 years although in the mid 1850's James Hinks of Birmingham introduced an all-white variety by crossing the original Bull Terrier with the Old English White Terrier (now extinct) and the Dalmatian. This variety developed into a fancier's dog and later, when it was established as a breed, its supporters registered as "Bull Terrier" with the Kennel Club in Britain. Actually it was the original Bull Terrier (as in Bulldog-Terrier or Bull and Terrier) who as the original of his kind had a right to the name, but later when he assumed show-bench status on emerging from his gladiatorial past, he had to contend with the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier. As a note I would dispute the reliability of the Canterbury Bull Terrier Club as a source, breed clubs are in no way independent from their breeds.
Regarding the IP's question Is this a fringe theory, YES or NO?
: It does not matter.
Are we finished here now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions for the Ancient Egyptian race controversy are no longer, but several Arbitrators said that pseudoarcheology was covered by the fringe/pseudoscience sanctions. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on how to improve this article? As it stands, it's sourced entirely to dictionaries and primary sources, drawing heavily on the work of WP:PROFRINGE author Richard Lynn.
It seems to me that the topic is notable (and it withstood two AfDs in the past [11] [12]). A search on Google Scholar, for instance, yields numerous genetic studies on fruit flies, etc., along with a heavy sprinkling of pseudo-academic dross by the likes of Lynn. But as it stands almost nothing in the article appears to meet our standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The only exception seems to be the “In fiction” section. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
increases in assortative mating at the phenotypic level for education are not matched at the genotypic level.Perhaps the whole idea of dysgenics at the level of human population groups is FRINGE? Does anyone know of mainstream contemporary geneticists who have argued otherwise? If not, perhaps this article needs to be rewritten either to focus on fruit flies or else to conform with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The sources in the article are out of date. Contrary to what you suggest above, dysgenics was never fringe, at least for traits like intelligence, for which a mechanism is apparent. Given the well documented and straightforwardly causal negative effect of (number of years of) education on female fertility the onus has been on those claiming dysgenics does not occur, to provide evidence. Under modern conditions, dysgenic fertility for IQ was widely assumed to be obviously true, and tests with polygenic scores detect it. See e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727 that used the national genetic registry in Iceland.
The study you cited as evidence against dysgenics, isn't; it just shows that assortative mating is not intensifying, and that patterns are weak or nonexistent if you (inappropriately) condition on marriage, which is itself increasingly correlated to intelligence. The pattern of interest for dysgenics is in the whole population not the shifting target of married couples. Sesquivalent ( talk) 00:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Much discussion at Talk about how this article on one of the declaration's "authors" should refer to the Great Barrington Declaration, and in particular its concept of "focused protection", in the lede. I suppose the same considerations would apply also to the Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya ledes. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Aajonus Vonderplanitz has to be one of our most bizarre fringe related articles, and it doesn't seem like our regular fringe-aware community has had much involvement in its development.
Basically, this guy advocated for a raw food diet, but taken to an extreme. It seems as though much of the article is based on his own reported, and highly dubious, descriptions of his life, such as that raw carrot juice cured his dyslexia and his cancer (naturally). Most of his bizarre claims are presented unchecked, except that they are qualified by noting that they are his claims. At best, his claims are described as controversial, despite the reality that they're about as controversial as flat earth theory. Which is to say, there's no controversy here among the relevant scientific community.
This definitely does not meet our standards.
I'm not sure what the solution to this is from a BLP standpoint, or if this article should even exist or just be merged into the history section at Raw Foodism.
But one thing is for sure: this article needs some serious attention and I don't have the time to give it these days, so I'm just dropping a note to you guys.
Noformation Talk 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Close reading of LABEL. A lot of the discussion revolves around it should always be used with attribution. Fringe articles of course often use labels. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
This is again being edit heavily. As I will be undergoing either bowel surgery or chemotherapy for bowel cancer which has (as is typical) spread to my liver, I'm trimming my watchlist and have removed Diop's article. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
An article about a fad diet and the guy behind it, recently attracting ire in the Talk page and correspondence from the Man Himself. Now, CarlFromVienna is edit warring away (the only existing?) WP:MEDRS source & content, that is critical of the diet. More eyes needed. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I do not doubt that this is a high quality source in accordance to MEDRS. Rather only the classification they give is unsatisfying as I have explained on the talk page. A good criticism would go much more into detail as to what specifically is problematic with McDougall‘s diet. CarlFromVienna ( talk) 11:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that vitamin k2 is found in natto so many Asian people get a good supply from fermented soybeans but in the west not many people have access to this. The conversion rate of K1 into K2 is very poor. Vitamin K2 is distributed around the entire body whilst vitamin k1 is not. Vitamin K2 travels to bone more effectively than K1.
I get my k2 from a fermented chickpea supplement. DHA is important for fetal and infant brain development, it is also very important for normal brain function in adults, unfortunately it deceases with age. In regard to brain atrophy or brain shrinkage this happens with aging from late 30s and 40s and increases from 60. It can be minimized by various lifestyle strategies like exercise and eating foods rich in DHA and EPA (seafood or microalgae supplements). There are no vegan foods sources rich in DHA and EPA apart from microalgae oils which are often found in supplement form.
ALA conversion to DHA is low in humans, with <1% dietary ALA converted to DHA, so it is essentially useless if you are a vegan and you rely on ALA foods like flaxseeds, chia seeds for DHA or EPA. You will get less than 1% conversion rate. Some vegan websites try and boost this up and say the conversation rate is 5% but that is really not good either. Which ever way you look at it or which studies you look at it is very low which nobody in the medical community disputes. Most of the studies I have seen report a 0.5% conversion rate. Even if the rate is 1% or 2% it is essentially useless. The only way to get DHA/EPA on a vegan diet is to take an algae supplement (liquid form) that the body will absorb.
Most vegans forget about EPA which is also very important. Microalgae supplements have both DHA/EPA. If a vegan is not taking an algae supplement there is an increased risk they will end up with dementia and other increased cognitive decline. I personally will not take that risk. Remember DHA is the most abundant omega-3 in the brain, it is crucial for brain function on a daily basis. Don't waste time taking flax. McDougall has made some outlandish claims, in one video I saw he said DHA does not matter for most people. He's been involved in various flame wars with Joel Fuhrman on DHA/EPA supplements because Fuhrman has come out and said vegans are deficient in DHA so should be taking supplements (he's right IMO). I agree there is no consensus in the vegan community about this but in the medical community there is a consensus and from what I have seen most doctors promoting veganism are peddling nutritional misinformation (I say this as someone who doesn't eat animal products). An expert on omega 3 fatty acids would be William E.M. Lands. I communicate with experts by email.
I take vitamin k2, iron, b12, DHA/EPA supplements. I may consider taurine, I get my iodine from seaweed. I believe veganism is for the animals, it is for the ethics, it isn't the best option for health. I have eaten a vegetarian and pescatarian diet for decades but have been a vegan for one year again now so I am trying it for the 6th time. You can be healthy long-term vegan but it is much harder than being a pescatarian or vegetarian.
I would say the DHA/EPA is very important. I am well aware that a lot of vegan doctors are opposed to DHA or EPA supplements. Unfortunately most of these doctors are peddling quackery and they are not omega-3 fatty acid researchers or qualified like someone like William E.M. Lands is. I disagree with Tim Radak, he even cites McDougall in his presentation but I cannot go into that here. I do not claim to be an expert but I think we should listen to experts and most vegan doctors are not.
Yes I was in hospital, on one occasion I collapsed and was so tired. I had no energy on a low-fat vegan diet, I was deficient in DHA, iodine, iron, b12, pretty much everything and lost massive weight almost anorexic, I was also severely dehydrated and was on a drip for over 5 hours. I was doing exercise so I was not lazy or have any pre-existing medical problems, and was only in my mid 20s at the time. Back then I was not supplementing. It is not a healthy diet long-term and could kill someone if you do not know what you are doing. McDougall's client base are mostly obese people who go on his diet and lose weight very quickly (his book is filled with pictures of this), a thin person on a low-fat vegan diet like that will lose even more weight and put them in danger. I say this from experience. Most vegans give it up after a few months, the drop out rate is like 90% and some of the long-term vegans secretly eat fish or chicken. People like the idea of a vegan diet but there are very few out there honestly doing it long-term, most end up doing it only short-term. If you honestly want to do it and stick with it long-term you have to do a lot of nutritional research, the DHA/EPA is very important for long-term. There is nothing else I can add here but hopefully you see I have had some experience with all this.
McDougall has admitted to eating chicken on his birthdays and turkey for thanksgiving and Christmas, so he actually doesn't even follow his own advice. A lot of these plant-based doctors just sell books to make money. Other users are now editing the McDougall article and I don't really have any criticisms of what is being added so I probably won't be editing the article as I have many other articles to be editing so I will not be adding anything else here. Thanks for the discussion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Removal of discretionary sanctions for the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under discussion Doug Weller talk 11:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This probably doesn't belong here, but I don't know a better place. The article Abrey Kamoo has been created in good faith, but it looks as if it is a 1904 hoax which was picked up by newspapers then, then largely forgotten, and in 2020 reappeared in the "Guides Gazette" (whatever that is) [22]. People living a remarkable life is a perfect subject for stories; people having too many remarkable things makes me wary though...
It looks like she invented a fanciful story about her life (where only the last part, that she lived with a son and no husband in Boston and worked in skin care, seems to be truthful), some of the less savvy newspapers of the time ran with it, and now we have an article perpetuating the same myths. But that is just "common sense" which is trumped by the "reliable sources", so is there a way to deal with this? Fram ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
not terribly reliable but another spelling to try. fiveby( zero) 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Coco, Hall, and Middleton all appear to derive from a March 2, 1904 story in The Lancaster Examiner, but here is "Her People Had Triplet Habit". The Washington Times. February 24, 1904. p. 10. Can't find anything on father or husband. Would at least attribute the story to the papers. fiveby( zero) 02:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
fleets of England, France, Russia, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Sardinia, the Kingdom of Naples & Sicily, and the Ottoman Empire. fiveby( zero) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
No Union soldier by the name of Kamoo could be found, but there was a phonetically similar name: Thomas H. Kamouse. This soldier, a strong candidate to have been "Tommy Kamoo," enlisted as a private in the 8th New York Cavalry on September 4, 1862, and was discharged on June 7, 1865. The regiment was engaged at Gettysburg on all three days of the battle, July 1-3, 1863. Maria Lewis also served in this regiment (see Chapter 10).
Although a cavalry regiment would not be expected to have a drummer boy, the 8th New York Cavalry regimental history reports that when it headed to Washington, D.C., in late November of 1861, it was escorted by the "Union Blues," a band that included a drum coprs of young boys dressed in Zouave uniforms. Additionally, 800 of the soldiers were originally unmounted. It is quite possible that at this early stage of the war, Kamoo worked her way through the ranks first as a drummer boy and then stayed on as a nurse or soldier.
Abrey Kamoo (Abbredalah Kaloss) is listed as having died on February 22, 1904 (Monday) in the article February 1904. It lists four newspaper articles that are also cited in this article as sources. Paul H. ( talk) 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor ( Finell) is trying to establish a new lede for this article with a take of its health "benefits" which seems at odds with what is cited in the article body. Edit warring too. More eyes could help broaden consensus. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Is Alexbrn an admin???— Finell 06:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain. They just want to emphasize as well that more high-quality research would be beneficial, and that as yet
there is no conclusive evidence that [Pilates] is superior to other forms of exercises.That sounds like a thoroughly NPOV statement to me. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
feasible therapy for people with MSthough
potential beneficial effects of Pilates are not significantly greater than those derived from the performance of other physical therapies.And of course, more high-quality studies would be beneficial. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention with most of the effect sizes being considered medium. However, there is no conclusive evidence that Pilates is superior to other forms of exercises.. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
There is however only limited evidence to support the use of Pilates to alleviate problems such as lower back painvs.
There is limited evidence that the Pilates method can alleviate such problems such as low back pain- both of these seem reasonable; they cautiously note one area where there is some weak evidence of effectiveness per the source. The "however only limited evidence" wording honestly reads to me as slightly less neutral (it sort of feels like it is pushing the reader towards a conclusion of "it's not really good for back pain" whereas the source is closer to
thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercise- the latter part of that statement, note, is probably more important and is in neither version.
Evidence from studies show that while Pilates improves balance, it has not been shown to be an effective treatment for any medical condition other than evidence that regular Pilates sessions can help muscle conditioning in healthy adults, when compared to doing no exercise.vs
Studies show that the Pilates method improves balance and muscle conditioning in healthy adults, but it is not effective to treat any medical condition. Both the things the rewrite says there is evidence for were already in the original. The one thing that caught my eye here is that the rewrite omits "compared to doing no exercise", which is important because the sources emphasize that there's no evidence Pilates has any advantages over any other form of exercise. So I would include that in some form; it's important to be clear that the advantages described here are just the standard advantages of doing any sort of physical exercise.
Pilates is "just exercise" exactly as much as Yoga is "just exercise". There are many practitioners that don't get deep into the woo bits - more so in Pilates than in Yoga -, but the foundational ideology is there and that is how it should be defined. One can practice Yoga or Tai Chi or whatever and say "for me, it is just exercise", I surely do. The place I go to is full of Joseph Pilates's quotes about "body and spirit" this and "breathing and posture" that on the walls. Exercising has health benefits, not surprising. Light exercise and stretching help with balance and flexibility, whoopity doo. Strengthening back muscles help with back pain, quelle surprise. None of this is particular to Pilates. VdSV9• ♫ 22:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I just removed a reference to the Köfels-impact-theory from Umhausen because from what I know it has not gained serious acceptance among scientists, but Mark Hempsell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and in a lesser measure Alan Bond (engineer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sound fairly uncritical on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Since the article's creation it has remained a dead stub so I would have slowly expanded this article. But as soon as I started, using a review in The Guardian, I was accused of advocacy. It is itself an advocacy book pushing for views that have no scientific consensus (and discredited speculation like about RaTG13, or that preadaptation to humans and the furin cleavage site are suspect, etc.) Consequently I thought this would be the right place to post a notice, in case someone else familiar with the politics/science dichotomy on the topic would like to work on the article (I'm no longer interested). — Paleo Neonate – 13:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The claim that the CIA secretly dosed a French town with LSD cannot be labeled as a claim or a conspiracy theory? Serious question. - - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I never can remember, is their guidance on how many published works we list? He’s an ancient astronauts writer among other things. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
It [43] seems to be from a reliable journal, but besides being a literalist view of the Bible, it says:
Here. [47] Doug Weller talk 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A section of modern-day devices that have been compared to or identified as dowsing devices was completely removed even though multiple editors pointed out that the comparisons are verified and due. Talk:Dowsing#Explosive Detectors, previously discussed here at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Dowsing.
I'm concerned that Dowsing#Scientific_reception isn't given the prominence (currently the last prose section) and presentation (currently a very restrained use of Wikipedia's voice) that a serious encyclopedia article should, and for some reason Dowsing#Studies is a separate section presented earlier in the article. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources were [48] and [49] although the original source is here. The lack of understanding is shown by this comment by a co-author. "It looks like this event was very injurious to agriculture. People didn't have good ways to store corn for a long period of time. Losing a crop or two would have caused widespread suffering." The artifacts studied in the paper are said to date from "252–383 CE". But the Hopewell weren't eating much maize at all until about 600 years later. [50]
The claim is that a comet burst set fire to a number of habitation sites simultaneously, but there's no evidence that they were contemporaneous or even habitation sites instead of ceremonial sites with the burning episodes being intentional anthropogenic ceremonial fires.
It gets worse. The main author is Kenneth Tankersley [51]. Most of the others seem to be grad students. We use him in several articles including Massacre at Ywahoo Falls. Also at Sheriden Cave and others. He used to claim he was Cherokee [52] (note his claim for ancestry from Red Bird) but when the Cherokee Nation denied that he later change to being a member of the Alabama recognized Piqua Shawnee tribe. [53] which of course is not an RS but is interesting. He is used as a source for Red Bird River Petroglyphs and Chief Red Bird but his claims have been rejected. [54] [55]
On the other hand, he definitely has his supporters. And no surprise, he's a member of the Comet Group. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Ran across this paragraph in ufology:
Multiple studies that investigate the subject or related topics in a serious manner have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
[1]
[2]
[3]
References
I'm not familiar with those journals and wonder if they are considered fringe or RS for this text? - - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Royal Rife ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lot of new demands on the Talk page to turn the article more friendly to his ideas, citing unreliable sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
100% Rifeaccording to Talk:Royal Rife. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I have had to revert recent changes. More eyes needed. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Now there is edit warring, so I have started a new section below. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
In the aftermath of the ArbCom/GSoW case, there is an RfC on this publication at WP:RSN#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer. Fringe-savvy editors will will likely find this of interest. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
A student editor plans to edit this article and like most new editors may need help. See Talk:Myth#Planning changes to this article (I added the section heading). It looks as though the page could use a rewrite and it’s good someone is planning to do some. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
mostly from a period around 2010-2012 (which, as far as modern practice on Wikipedia is concerned, is about antiquity or thereabouts)We could call those "antediluvian". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I have found it is important to take the temperature for these kinds of *disruptive* discussions prior to starting them lest we waste everyone's time. That's how we finally were able to consign the original research that was the "List of scientists who don't believe in global warming" to the dustbin of Wikipedia's memory hole. I also object generally to the attempts to police what is and is not discussed at noticeboards. Don't get me wrong, there are some conversations that do not belong here, but, as you might imagine since I brought this one up, I think this topic is one that is directly relevant to our work here. YMMV, but I'd appreciate if we could let others opine so I might see what the FTN regulars think of revisiting this subject. jps ( talk) 17:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, to me, Genesis creation sounds like it would be an article about who wrote the Book of Genesis and Genesis flood is easily confused with the book that kickstarted flood geology. If there are other terms that we could use that satisfied everyone, I'd be thrilled. jps ( talk) 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I was taking a look through the history of this bio on a minor race-and-intelligence researcher and saw that a brief section was added back in August about Woodley's work attempting to prove the existence of paranormal psychic phenomena [66]. This content appears to have been deleted because the account which added it, Woodley Meanie, was an obvious impersonation and thus a username violation. However the material seems to have been correctly framed and verifiable, based on Woodley's 2020 publication "Anomalous information reception by mediums: A meta-analysis of the scientific evidence" [67]. I did a bit of googling and found an even more recent one, "Genetics of psychic ability –– A pilot case-control exome sequencing study" from 2021 [68]. The latter is discussed in this post on the website of the PROFRINGE organization Institute of Noetic Sciences: "Paper Published! Do Psychic Abilities Run in Families?": [69] That post does seem to imply that the authors of the paper worked in conjunction with the organization, so it is not really an independent secondary source, and it certainly wouldn't count as WP:FRIND. Thoughts about whether this merits inclusion in the article? And does anyone know of independent secondary sources discussing it? Generalrelative ( talk) 23:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Notice: a separate item from this BLP, referring to Woodley's membership in the far-right Unz Foundation (an organization that supports, among other things, Holocaust denial) is now underway at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Woodley. Not forum shopping here; I was given an aggressive BLP warning by DGG in relation to this content. But it clearly relates to FRINGE as well since the warning appears to imply that we shouldn't mention membership in such organizations. Generalrelative ( talk) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I have decided to nominate the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This continues a section about Rife above.
A cherry-picked attempt has been made to squeeze a recommendation for Rife machines out of a comment from Cancer Research UK (CRUK) by the inclusion of this comment in our Royal Rife article:
The "recently" and " pulsed radiofrequency machines" are OR. The comment by CRUK, in its entirety, includes a more specific explanation which revealed the machines didn't even use the same frequencies as Rife machines, ergo the content isn't even relevant for the Rife article and it fails MEDRS.
Here is the comment from CRUK in their section labeled Research into Rife machines as a cancer treatment:
The Rife machine hasn't been through the usual process of scientific testing. There are studies that looked at low energy waves as a treatment for cancer. They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine. Some of these studies were in the laboratory.
One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines.
I reverted the cherry-picked content and left this edit summary: "Totally fails MEDRS (note "one" small study using frequencies that are "not the same as those of Rife machines."): "One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines."
I was reverted with this nasty edit summary: "Enough bullying... Your bias is anti-scientific. You have demonstrated it many times. Stop your useless editing wars."
These attempts to legitimize and promote fringe therapies fail for at least five reasons:
I'm not going to edit war over this, so I invite others to check out the situation. We also need admins who can take action. -- Valjean ( talk) 02:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPN#Michael Woodley. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Our artcle about Sex (not the act, which is covered at Sexual intercourse) has doubled in size over the last year xtools, almost entirely due to the contributions of CycoMa1, an editor who has just been topic banned at ANI from medical topics for CIR issues. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Medical_articles_topic_ban_for_CycoMa1. The whole article really needs to be checked over for neutrality, and possibly just wholesale removing their contributions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
wholesale removing their contributionsis called for -- TNT ( talk • she/her) 21:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC at WT:W2W (section link here) about requiring in-text attribution in articles. This is similar topic to the previous discussions establishing that the terms "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theor(y/ist)" can be used without attribution, conclusions which are not being disputed here, but related terms such as "denialist" are under discussion. As such, it may be of interest to this noticeboard. Sunrise ( talk) 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This addition to the article is disputed. Tajmar et al measured zero thrust. Shawyer keeps claiming everyone else must do it wrong. Should we discuss this claim in the article? -- mfb ( talk) 02:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
See [74] by Jason Colavito and also his Twitter feed [75]. Darvill's article is here. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Transylvania1916 claims that Ion Iliescu was the president of the Socialist Republic of Romania, and Petre Roman its prime-minister, which I have never heard before and seems wholly WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
president.
president of SRR. The other is a compendium of legislation, does not mention that, either.
Yeah, no, you revert my sourced edit, you come up with actual arguments: your edit isn't
sourcedin the meaning of WP:PAGs. It is your own original synthesis of two different sources, one of them being a WP:PRIMARY source.
president of SRR. Iliescu called himself
president of the Council of the National Salvation Front. See WP:1DAY. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this a fringe theory? My apologies, but I'm not clearly understanding how it is relevant to this board. It seems more like a dispute over terminology, but this looks more like David Rice Atchison trivia (if I may use a somewhat similar example from my home country). jps ( talk) 17:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
president of SRR. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I ask because it's being used to justify removing material from the Woodley article mentioned above. It says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." There's an explanatory note explaining who isn't well known at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.Publishing books, publishing articles, speaking at conferences, and giving interviews - all of which are supported in the article by RS and all of which, I assume, were intentional acts on the part of Woodley - define him as a public figure, and can be objectively interpreted as active efforts to achieve, among other things, media attention. If RS support this notable, "not low-profile" public figure's association with any group, claims that such content constitute defamation (i.e., damage to a person's reputation without justification) seem reckless and false. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
the sourcing we're using for it is a blog post by one of the speakers.True that, but a referenced post by the noted palaeontologist and author Darren Naish under the imprimatur of Scientific American isn't exactly chopped liver. The subject has authored/co-authored several published books, and in their professional capacity they agreed to be interviewed and quoted about cryptozoology. Sure, this person isn't exactly Elton John, or even Darren Naish for that matter. But IMO their activities have made them a "not low profile" public figure, and by extension reliably sourced information about their affiliation with a disgusting group is not defamatory. I certainly won't be losing any sleep, however, when the AfD results in article deletion. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Kabbalah, quantum physics, information theory... this looks worth keeping an eye on. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s about some sort of criminal organisation in the fictional Mormon ancient America. Only BOM sources. Someone has tagged it for notability but I’m thinking AfD. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I came across the John Mew article as it had a cite error. Looking at the most recent changes it looks like it's being edited by the subject, or someone close to him. As he has some "interesting" ideas about dentistry I thought I'd drop a note here. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmission∆ ° co-ords° 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Experts Say ‘Pseudoarchaelogists’ Are Threatening the Field With Pet Theories About the Ancient World Engineered to Go Viral The "viral" bit is about the alleged discovery of Sodom and the alleged airburst over Tell el-Hammam. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday I was removing some stuff sources to Andis Kaulins [79] who self-published this book claiming "that many ancient megalithic sites are not tombs, but are remnants of ancient local, regional and perhaps even larger Neolithic surveys of the Earth by Stone Age astronomy, with gigantic stones being placed as immovable survey markers." [80]. I found this article which had a note saying "Besides Fedorova and Fischer, who are discussed here, these include José Imbelloni, Barry Fell, Egbert Richter-Ushanas, Andis Kaulins, Michael H. Dietrich, Lorena Bettocchi, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov." I didn't see the point of mentioning all these fringe authors so I deleted it. I also added an OR tag as I consider a lot of the notes to be pure original research. I was reverted by User:Kwamikagami who says on my talk page "The article passed FA with that info included. No OR problems then. What we have here is an insistence of TRUTH, as with other fields rife with pseudoscholarship. One linguist here on WP likened the author at issue (Dietrich) to reading von Däniken." But that was in 2009. So I have three issues. Is there justification for mentioning the fringe authors? Are many of the notes OR? Does this still meet our FA standard? Rongorongo also has some notes that appear to me to be original research, some clearly not sourced IMHO. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was an independent objection; I assumed it was in response to BigDan/Xcalibur pushing TRUTH, or at least removing anything that would deny the TRUTH. I'd have to check how many mentioned in the fn are SELFPUB. Deletion may indeed be the way to go. The reason for mentioning those authors, though, was that they may be mentioned in popular accounts of rongorongo, so readers may wonder about them if there's no mention at all. Certainly we cleared out a lot of garbage about them when we prepared the article for FA, with Bettocchi and Rjabchikov fighting to keep it and insisting that we give them the coverage that they deserved. Imbelloni was published in Man, and his claims sparked an expedition to Easter Island. His claim that rongorongo was related to the Indus Valley script is still repeated, despite being published in the 1920s and repeatedly debunked. Fell is well-known as FRINGE, though his claims about rongorongo are incidental to what he's best known for.
As for FA review, there's been little change to the articles since FA, with Austronesier and me mostly keeping any fringy cruft from building up again. — kwami ( talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
They have, and there isn'tNo, the experts haven't weighed in (except for Esen-Baur). You haven't provided a single RS (or any source) refuting this. Xcalibur ( talk) 08:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)\
Repeating something does not make it true.That much we can agree on. And repeating that "wikipedia is doomed" is no less an obnoxious, disingenuous comment than it was the first time. This is especially so when rongorongo studies seem to be moribund -- you yourself said that the Y! study group is inactive. When I say you didn't read, it's not sophistry on my part, it's an honest response to all these misunderstandings. Yes it is a review, and Esen-Baur does have relevant expertise, especially since (assuming the Dietrich theory is true) rongorongo is not even a script, but a notation system! Anyway, if any of the experts you accept have evaluated Dietrich, I'd be interested in a link. For my part, here's the Esen-Baur review, a significant source, but not the only one: [81] Xcalibur ( talk) 10:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
belatedly realized that he'd already been debunked by the RR groupthis never happened. I haven't seen a single link or shred of evidence for this conspiracy theory. Let's not forget, you were called out for spouting nonsense about De Laat (although to your credit, you acknowledged this and edited). Speaking of De Laat, their disagreement with Dietrich isn't relevant, especially when there's a CoI.
he doesn't want his book summarized on WPI didn't realize that authors had creative control over content discussing their work on wiki. Besides, I updated my summary to reflect that De Laat's latest paper is a substantial revision, although the rest is still there because that's what most sources cover.
then let's accept what she says: that she's not an expert,I don't believe EB ever said this, and she has relevant credentials.
Dietrich requires expert review.She asked for further peer review, which is reasonable. That doesn't negate EB being a review, which it clearly is.
So you have zero sourcesI do have the sources, though. The fact that Dietrich had multiple papers published in scholarly journals already elevates his work above De Laat, which is self-published. Of course that's not enough by itself, which is why I have a secondary RS journal article, and then there's the Die Zeit article, mentions in other papers on rongorongo, etc (multiple blog-like sources discuss this, although they don't count as RS). Certainly not enough for a stand-alone article, but it should be fine for adding a section.
So why are you fighting to add nonsense to WP?I haven't seen a single valid point against the content (IDONTLIKEIT is not valid).
Mentioning it here as I'm guessing not everyone watches that page. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The dangerous social movements of our time are not represented significantly in Wikipedia.- That is because disobeying fringe (and falsebalance) is a ground for sanction. Once we take that away, we are on course to be the next r/incel or like community.
@ DGG: it is true that what you say is not new, but it appears to me that you are looking for spooks where there are none and are playing a dangerous game here of carrying water for a group that adheres to a particular set of beliefs about the race and intelligence controversy which I think are best described as being "intellectual dark web". This argument has appealed to a certain crowd who think of themselves as torch-bearers for the Sokal hoax when I think they are better described as last gasps of a moribund approach to scientific racism. Part of the reason we have a fringe guideline at all is because, essentially by definition, the sources that surround fringe claims tend to be on the thin side. Knowing when a particular perspective is noticed enough to be described on Wikipedia is delicate when you have a group creating their own alternate universe of sourcing. This was true 15 years ago and it is true today. jps ( talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
the science is settled that race is not biologically determined. It is pseudoscientific to claim otherwise.even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there? This seems like a case of semantics to me. Xcalibur ( talk) 11:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at allThis is your opinion. The scientific sources disagree with you and with the conservative/libertarian news sources and blog you probably got that misinformation from. (The pseudoscience of climate change denial is, like the pseudoscience of holocaust denial, politically motivated.) We go not with your opinion but with the reliable sources. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there?. Races and ethnicities are not delineated by biology. A fringe issue that has been extensively debated on Wikipedia in different forums over the last two years is whether claims of genetic racial differences in intelligence are fringe. In all of those discussions the consensus of editors, based on an examination of reliable sources, has been that those racialist claims are fringe. NightHeron ( talk) 11:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
what's NOT settled is how much of this is anthropogenic vs naturalThis is incorrect. If you are of this opinion, you are contrary to the reliable sources on the subject. The added denialist talking points (which is what your arguments are, whether you believe it or not) about past climate change are so efficiently debunked in the associated literature that we even explain why the arguments are incorrect on relevant pages here at Wikipedia! The long and the short of it is that your armchair arguments here, while commonly made by interlocutors who arrive at climate change talkpages at Wikipedia, really are wrong and do not belong in the encyclopedia as anything more than an object lesson for incorrect arguments. That's how we treat it, and that's definitely the best way to treat it considering that any alternative would just be appointing random individuals as arbiters of content rather than reliable sources. jps ( talk) 16:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if climate change skepticism is politically motivated, that is certainly no less true for climate change proponents.No, accepting climate change is simply motivated by facts. Climate change denial is grounded in the belief that free markets cannot do wrong. This belief is solidly refuted by the fact of man-made climate change and is therefore an obstacle to accepting that fact. Those who do not have that belief do not have a reason to reject the science, and that is why they accept it. So, the reason why üpeople on the left tend to accept the science is not the presence of a political position but the absence of one specific false worldview. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
You are ignorant enough to think that the argument that "weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change" has not been roundly debunked in reliable sources, that's for sure. Again, you need to do more research on this topic. Since there really are no reliable sources which argue that climate change denial belongs in "alternative theoretical formulation", I also chalk this up to ignorance on your part. This is me being generous. There are some people who come to this topic with motivated reasoning. I am assuming that's not what's happening here. jps ( talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
"weather prediction is a useful comparison to climate change"I didn't actually say this. I brought it up because there's a common thread: the difficulty of predicting complex systems. If you want me to explain any further, you can ask, otherwise you can re-read my posts, which should be informative. Xcalibur ( talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
However, no one can research this today without getting tarred-&-feathered and losing their career and reputation.There is no evidence that I have seen that there is any kind of "tar and feathering" as such at least not any more than there is in any other dead-end area. I know that a lot of race realists and IDW types like to say that this is true, but the claim is "evidence free" as they say. Let's say you spend your time trying to find out whether the moon affects people's likelihood of hospitalization. It is absolutely the case that you will not be treated with scholarly respect: you are barking up a pseudoscientific tree. jps ( talk) 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
But the scientific minority view that global warming is not primarily anthropogenic and/or not a real danger is not FRINGE at allPlease see WP:FRINGE/ALT, explicitly covering this case. Things can be fringe without being pseudoscience or quackery. The root issue seems to be people who are insisting that we can't even call this view a minority one. One that typically strays into WP:RGW territory (ie. "The Man" is suppressing my favorite theory in mainstream scientific journals, it should be more prominent here to compensate).
even if you believe that race is a construct, there are biological differences between ethnic groups, aren't there?This is a significant bag of worms to this one (there's a good reason it's under DS), but the short version revolves around two concepts. 1) Race is not a good proxy for genetic variation, two anglo-European individuals may be more genetically dissimilar than an anglo-European and an east-Asian. 2) Defining and measuring intelligence is, in and of itself, a construct; there are numerous examples of cultural biases in intelligence testing, on top of why one culture or another values certain mental activities higher than others. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe it's RGW to point out that if a valid minority view is underrepresented in RS, that poses a problem for a neutral encyclopedia.. The suggestion that the viewpoint deserves more representation in RS is precisely WP:RGW (
Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow), with a sprinkling of WP:CRYSTAL (
Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.).
By extending FRINGE that far, you end up with gatekeepers forcing viable content out of articles for violating their orthodoxy.I see WP:FRINGE/ALT as the clarification of the boundary specifically to avoid this issue. If it's being abused, address the abuse, rather than changing the guideline. Regardless, the policy of WP:UNDUE already covers the concept of a minority viewpoint being identified as such:
Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.Emphasis exists in the policy, not added by me. Contrary to your view that content must be given additional prominence to remain neutral, policy says the opposite. See also WP:GEVAL:
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.(Emphasis added)
view is underrepresented in RS, core content policy dictates we are to give it correspondingly less representation. Your arguments against the guideline WP:FRINGE are in opposition to the core content policy WP:NPOV. Bakkster Man ( talk) 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
When it comes to controversial issues like climate, it should present both sides in good faith← this is called WP:PROFRINGE whether it's climate, evolution, JFK assassination, cancer-cure enemas or whatever. WP:GEVAL exist to stop it. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Not only is it comparable, it is a perfect object lesson for the problem with people trying to promote their pet ideas in the encyclopedia. You have made it clear that you are partial to climate change denial arguments. Others are partial to creationism. Others are partial to JFK conspiracy theories, etc. We are unable to distinguish between which of these fringe theories is correct and which are incorrect. Therefore we go by what the WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources say. That offends the believers in those ideas. I am sure there are, even now, some fringe proponents balking at being lumped with the climate change deniers as strenuously as you are balking being lumped with them. But we have no other means to figure out what is encyclopedic and what is not. The only alternative is to name an editor-in-chief, but that's not the Wikipedia model. jps ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
If the RS themselves are not neutral, then the "neutral POV" becomes a fiction.Here, I believe you are simply incorrect regarding core policy. If the high quality mainstream journals (ie, Nature, Science) only publish meta-analysis supporting the mainstream view, then it is indeed the mainstream that is presumed default and the minority view must be contextualized as the minority relative to. If the minority view is to be considered equivalent, it needs to be published in those top-quality journals alongside the mainstream. To 'correct' for the 'imbalance' of those journals does not improve neutrality, it harms it. It's even an example in WP:RGW:
Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community. You might disagree with that policy, but it is indeed foundational content policy, and no change to WP:FRINGE would affect this concept. The more we debate this, the less focus we can spend on actionable concerns.
But when minority views are drowned out, strawmanned, or only attacked, it's simply not fair representation. This might make sense for pseudoscience and quackery, but not for plausible minority views.This is where there's room for discussion, probably. And this is where 'it depends' comes into play depending on how significant/plausible the minority is. In the specific context of BLPs for advocates of minority views, the view should very much be discussed but I don't think this is disputed. Where on the fringe scale it is will affect how it's presented. Personally, I'd want there to be a pretty high bar of prevalence for a minority view for the BLP to present the author's view as the one which gets the 'final word', like refuting a mainstream criticism. Stepping out of hypothetical world for a moment, this is the kind of thing I would sooner consider for advocates where experimental data is scant or impossible (ie. string theory or futurism) than for established fields with significant experimental data. Yes, even if it turns out they were right in the end, the article should reflect it now if reliable sources say their peers dismiss them currently. Bakkster Man ( talk) 18:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
An IP found quite a few faults, and indeed, the article needs a brush-up. I started by slight reorganizing and NPOVing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The hypothesis has never attracted any support from historians.Since Illig is a "historian," it directly contradicts itself. What about
The hypothesis is refuted by the vast majority of scholars.And perhaps a source to pin to it. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Die Historiker, das sind die anderen, er zählt sich selbst nicht dazu, und sie ihn auch nicht, weil er nie Geschichte studiert hat, sondern promovierter Germanist und Diplomkaufmann ist.The historians are the others, he does not count himself among them, and neither do they, because he never studied history but a specialist in German studies with a doctorate, and a business graduate. This is pretty consistently what sources say; only a few call him a historian, probably because they guessed he is one since he writes about history. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Posted today. [93]. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
generally unreliable for factual reporting. I would look for another source or leave it out. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)