This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This seems like a very important topic given recent events, eg the Buffalo shooting, but it's written as an essay and I really do not have the time to help. I did find another source[ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pseudoscience-fake-news-social-media-facebook-twitter-misinformation-science-a9034321.html] but I've just got too much on my plate and start chemo in a few days. Thanks. I've told the student that I've posted here. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I came across this guy reading Angela Saini's Superior, where he is described as someone whose theories the Nazis liked a lot.
In June 2015, two ground-breaking archaeogenetic studies appeared to confirm certain key aspects of Kossinna's theories on settlement archaeology and Indo-European migrations, in what has been referred to as Kossinna's Smile.
This sounds dubious to me, especially because of the peacock term "ground-breaking". There is a slow discussion about it on the Talk page - April 2020, November 2020, January 2022. Maybe that can be sped up if knowledgeable editors chime in. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
One might eventually look back at June 2015 as a turning point for archaeologists dealing with the third millennium BC and the approximately 30 centuries thereafter. That month, two ancient DNA (aDNA) papers were published in the scientific journal Nature (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015), with far-reaching implications for our understanding of the later prehistory of Europe and Western Asia.....While I have no doubt that both papers are essentially right, they do not reflect the complexity of the past.
On another level, everyone will also have to accept the existence of large-scale prehistoric migrations, the fact that they were a driving force of cultural change and that there was a link to the Indo-European languages, which in turn makes the late dispersal theory much more probable than the supposed connection with early farming.
Jordan Lead Codices ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These are almost certainly a forgery, but the article is terrible and gives far too much prominence to a David Elkington. See a publicity website for him, his Graham Hancock page and most importantly, an Ofcom report about a rejected complaint he made about the BBC coverage of him which is pretty damning. [1] I don't have much confidence in Margaret Barker either as she seems pretty fringe. Article needs a major cleanup. I haven't found anything recent, but this doesn't seem to be used. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
is a two sentence stub. Ran into it when hidden comments were added to Ancient Aliens. [2] Not sure if they are appropriate or if we need to do something about the article. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I received a warning from Taxin609 about edit warring, which I half expected, however, neither Benmite or Pennsylvania2, the other parties involved, received a warning despite both having a history of edit warring, and the disputed content is still in the article when this is an issue best resolved on the Talk Page. 48Pills ( talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Self published author with what seems to be a fringe idea about where early mosques pointed. Unhappy new editor on talk page challenging neutrality. I just removed a chunk of trxt explaining how one of his critics was the greatest expert ever and I’m not sure if the King sources meets rs, the journal it’s in seems dubious.
[3]
Doug Weller
talk 19:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
First edit warring by IPs, now, finally discussions on the Talk page. But with accusations of Lyssenkoism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I was asked to restore this deleted article to draft, which I did (I think the subject is pretty clearly notable), but shortly found myself needing to remove content sourced to the subject's Twitter and YouTube posts and other WP:RSP-disfavored sources presenting fringey takes on COVID-19 in particular. I expect that this will eventually return to mainspace, and will need eyes on it. BD2412 T 05:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Are the Akashic records a fringe theory? My assessment is that they are a fringe theory, but I am requesting other opinions. I reviewed Draft:Linda Howe, which states that she is an authority on the Akashic records, and am requesting comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure there are a lot of believers in the Akashic records that consider them essentially scientific texts. Same is true of adherents to both theosophy and anthroposophy. jps ( talk) 02:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:So fringe doesn't apply to any of the sections, including those using self-published sources?
Doug Weller
talk 08:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Wrong thread.
Doug Weller
talk 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Article on a "Russian anthropologist and science popularizer".
"Drobyshevsky condemns the popular theory, put forward only according to the data of geneticists, that there are no human races, since their existence is visible to every person. He believes that the lack of mass collection of morphological data by the anthropologists of the world, both on large and small races after the Second World War, led to a failure in world science in the anthropological study of races
".
Drobyshevsky may possibly believe this. Wikipedia shouldn't however be asserting it as fact. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
And if so, does it comply with WP:FRINGE? See the talk page also. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Up for deletion for notability, but it has the smell of something fringey. One would expect some research backing up the technique if nothing else. Mangoe ( talk) 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's another move request that may be of interest: Talk:Reverse racism#Requested move 31 May 2022. The OP appears to believe that evidence exists to support the existence of discrimination towards white people, and that the current article title unjustly delegitimizes this evidence. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I suppose there is technically discrimination against any group you can name whatsoever. The Alberta source not only acknowledges the existence of anti-white discrimination, it explains how it never reaches the damaging heights of anti-black discrimination. (Sorry about that first sentence, I typed this as you were typing on my talk page, thanks for replying) Unnamed anon ( talk) 08:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion which led to this proposal, at Talk:Reverse sexism is also relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the article talk page about the use of the word "Fringe" in the opening paragraph of the article. I am involved as an admin as I just had to block an edit warring IP. However, after reading the discussion I am concerned that use of the term "fringe" is not supported by reliable sources and the arguments for its use sound rather WP:SYNTHy to me. Could some experienced editors have a look? Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Economics has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The dispute is on whether we can give due weight to critics of the field, some of whom equate it to pseudoscience. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
There's an ongoing RfC here about whether we should use Vice for reporting on a meeting to pray for Trump and discuss conspiracy theories around George Soros that featured notable anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, conspiritualists, etc. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Claims of therapeutic benefit with insufficient counterarguments. All but one of the sources are pro-fringe, and some of the sources are not about "hydrogen water" rather than general medical use of hydrogen. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Another newly edited article is pushing Francis Parker Yockey and other neo-Nazis. The article was previously deleted in 2010. About two-thirds of its references are to neo-Nazi sources. Llll5032 ( talk) 18:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Slow motion edit war underway with an editor arguing a particular source, PMID:34934897, constitutes clinical evidence for the diet. More eyes from savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Lake Parime#21st-Century Explorations - this is based solely on a report made to a science meeting and I can find no discussion of it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
He is obviously a climate change denier, and there are more sources for that than we can link without being ridiculous, but some people do not like the term. So, business as usual. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
POVFORK of COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events, with non- WP:MEDRS sources. My attempt to blank and redirect has been reverted by the page creator. More wise eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Some disagreement on how to characterize a co-author of this book, Matt Ridley. The present term "science writer" as well as being jejune, could seem a bit too coy in light of the fact The Guardian characterizes him as "a Conservative hereditary peer best known for his sceptical writings on climate change" [7] as well as mentioning other related notions that are not really "science" (e.g. that fracking protests are Russia-backed [8], or that CO2 emissions are merely "greening" the planet. [9]) He evidently refers to himself as a "science writer" for example in this [10] piece which contains some surprising claims too on dietary fat. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Falls under fringe because he's best known for a fringe theory. My main issue is with the Knights Templar bit as I think we should never use Alan Wilson, a retired shipping expert, and Baram Blackett, a businessman. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I found this double
WP:WEASEL: Many scholars believe that the story of Exodus, as told in the bible, did happen, yet only some of it can be proven.
The article would probably profit from historians having a look at it. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 13:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
There's been some off-wiki recruiting on this [12] and an uptick in activity regarding the virus origin. More eyes maffy be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
is owned and operated by Google or Microsoft and or maybe the Alphabet company aka Google.[13] It's good to know that clairvoyants on Twitter are on the case. This whole time I thought I was part of an entirely different cabal. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
which was deemed an abuse ofWell, if one person deemed that, then it has been well and truly deemed.
You are confusing two different pages.Bullshit. I did not even mention any pages, I just refuted your bad reasoning in a general way. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
unlikely and not supported by available evidence(and most are far less generous than this), then we must reflect these rather clear findings as such, even if there are some minority dissenting voices, even if what the scientific sources say is not the same thing as political agencies or newspapers say. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats, genus Rhinolophus. SARS-related coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV-2, are dispersed over a large geographical area across southern China and Southeast Asia. They have undergone extensive recombination throughout their evolutionary history indicating frequent transmission among their Rhinolophus host species., and picking one quote which does not put this hypothesis in doubt, and interpreting this the wrong way, seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING to me...
Taking into account the SARS-CoV-2 dating and its MRCA properties, three scenarios are most probable: (a) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been incubating for years inside bats, accumulating mutations, and probably through a random event, e.g. in the Huanan wet market, the virus was transmitted in humans, (b) A less virulent SARS-CoV-2 ancestor was infecting humans for years, until accumulation of mutations increased its virulence, (c) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been circulating in intermediate hosts until transmission to humans by a random event.The lack of certainty about the bat origin is here covered by the scientists in a specific way (i.e. we don't know for sure where the virus comes from, but it looks like it's from bats). You using this to argue that the "results [not being] highly convincing" is supposedly reason for us to cover an (unmentioned by the source) hypothetical lab-leak origin more favourably than the source does again seems like misinterpretation of the sources.
Although there is not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak, and most scientists support a natural origin of the virus, by a jump to humans from bats, if it was a direct spillover—or, more likely, through an intermediate mammal, researchers have looked into genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 bioengineering signals. A team of scientists combed through the genome sequence for any signs of lab tinkering and determined that were not engineered genetic elements and they concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was not a laboratory construct
Most scientists say that as with other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, and ultimately originated from a bat-borne virus.and
Available scientific evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.(in the detailed Investigations into the origin of COVID-19); or
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.(in the very summary-level overview at COVID-19 pandemic). Endlessly arguing over this and misinterpreting the sources is disruptive and borderline sea-lioning. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
showcaseany alternatives theories in the lead of the article. What the SAGO report describes as a
possibility[19], you describe as a
fringe theory[20], so your POV might need refreshing with newer and better sources. The SAGO report is clearly the WP:BESTSOURCE now, better even than Holmes et al, which it reviewed. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
This is about [21]. While I don't think that the nativity stories from NT gospels have historicity, I don't think that the authors of the gospels were spewing astrological gobbledygook (meaning that they were secretly adepts of the Christ Myth Theory). Even if we, modern people, regard them as tall stories, it does not mean that they were awarely lying like a dog. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.
— WP:FLAT
I was quite shocked to come across this statement in photosynthesis:
As far as I can tell, this statement simply makes no sense (in a standard atmospheric environment, molecular oxygen is abundant and cannot react with the environment, meaning it stores no energy, right?).
I removed that statement and traced it to an editor who has made several such edits to various articles, all containing statements along the lines of declaring that oxygen is a "high-energy" molecule which "stores energy in its double bond".
(Please note that all this is about chemistry, not nuclear reactions.)
I'm afraid this rises to the level of pseudoscience, and someone will have to go through all the places where this editor cited what they claim to be their own publications, but thought I'd ask for a second opinion before doing that.
IpseCustos ( talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the only known quantitative theoryindicates they should read WP:NFRINGE, WP:GNG, and WP:OR, particularly the independent sourcing. Maybe they have solved a major thermodynamic and biochemical question, but we need to source that to someone else's academic paper that indicates the view's prevalence within mainstream science. Convince other scientists, and we'll follow. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
If you can cite quantifiable textbook answers to these questions, please indicate that in a response.Given your familiarity with the topic, can you cite such a textbook (ideally, written by someone other than yourself) that repeats your findings? If so, it would make the case for inclusion much simpler, and we'd be able to add it easily without the potential WP:COI concerns. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Textbooks do not derive that combustion is always exothermic
Textbooks do not derive how batteries store and release energy
he is definitely not promoting fringe theories
As I see it, Klaus Schmidt-Rohr is entitled to add (limited) content and references to his own work, per WP:SELFCITE. These particular papers are WP:Primary in nature and relatively recent, so not yet widely critiqued in WP:Secondary sources which Wikipedia would prefer to use. My reading of the work is that it makes a plausible case to explain, for example, the use by plants of two photosystems. Some of the suggestions can be challenged, as with all theories. Thus I wouldn't call oxygen released by plants a waste product. Plants only photosynthesise when in sunlight: at other times they respire, using oxygen like the rest of us, so the "waste" product gets recycled. Also, I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond". If so, why doesn't it form an O8, or similar, allotrope as sulfur does? That would replace four double bonds with four single ones. [I don't expect anyone to respond, I'm just giving an example of why primary sources are less preferred]. To calculate the free energy released by a chemical reaction requires one to know all the starting materials and all the products. Calling one particular component "high energy" is not terribly helpful. So, in summary I suggest that Schmidt-Rohr help remove some of his more prominent citations, especially in the lead sections of articles, until the statements can be backed up by secondary references from review-type articles or books not written by him. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 15:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond"
Thank you for bringing up interesting scientific questions. Here are some comments: -- It is others who call oxygen a waste product; I consider it a valuable molecule storing most of the chemical energy in the biosphere and thus making all complex lifeforms possible. -- Oxygen does not form chains because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond in O2 (2x142 kJ/mol vs. 498 kJ/mol). So oxygen chains are less stable (higher in energy) than O2 and break up spontaneously. -- A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in countless reactions with millions of other molecules and does so forming a variety of products. F2, O2, H2O2, and NOx are examples. A high-energy molecule must have relatively weak electron-pair bonds, because it is the conversion of weaker to stronger electron-pair bonds that releases a lot of energy. Since the electron-pair bonds in organic fuels, CO2, and H2O are all significantly stronger than those in O2, reactions of the latter with organic molecules will always release a lot of energy. If you know that a molecule is high in chemical energy, you can predict that its reactions will be very exothermic (unless another high-energy molecule is formed). That is very useful in understanding bioenergetics. Indeed, in biochemistry, the analogous concept of "energy-rich" molecules is widely invoked. (However, some of the biomolecules often considered energy-rich do not meet the criteria for a high-energy molecule, since they release a lot of energy only in reaction with O2, and one must acknowledge that the energy released may come from O2 with its relatively weak double bond.) Klaus Schmidt-Rohr ( talk) 00:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond. If so, why then aren't you promoting the alternative idea that "oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a weak single bond"? I read an article DOI:10.1021/jacs.7b04232 that goes into considerable detail on this topic and I'd prefer that Wikipedia tried to summarise the whole story without over-simplification. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 13:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in ... reactions ...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination), which I nominated, closed as Delete. Since then, his work was cited explicitly by the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting and now The New York Times has done a profile of Woodley: [23].
I really don't have the stomach for this. Does anyone else?
jps ( talk) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This discussion at WP:AN may be of interest to the notice board. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 10:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
A lot of unsourced information added today - who in the world is "Charlie Solis" or "Charlie Davis Solis"? It's been added by User:DellBuddie1 who may be identifying himself on his user page as Solis, at least that's all that's on this user page. Our article on Conrad Hass has references but no citations, and I removed on that was a forum (although Hass is shown by 19th c sources as born in Dornback, which that was what the source was probably used for. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Charlie Solis Here. I have a degree in physics from Michigan Tech University and build micro gas + steam turbines. I cofounded TesTur Energy, a Combined Heat And Power Generation company. I also do research in rockets and rocket history. I’m sorry if my edits are still unfinished. I’m new to actual editing of wiki pages. I’m working on the citations for the work I added. However much of it is just parroting what’s already on the Conrad Hass, and company, pages. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have further questions. I’m still trying to figure out how to put a proper citation in the edits page but needed to sleep as it’s getting late where I am in Detroit. Will continue adding citations in the morning. Ps. I hope this is how to respond to you…— Preceding unsigned comment added by DellBuddie1 ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelative has reverted my edits. I have cited paper from PNAS on the negative relationship between education related polygenic scores and fertility. Is that fringe?-- 203.186.250.135 ( talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Generalrelative has removed my citation to PNAS paper [24]:
"Based on 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990, we find that the average POLYEDU has been declining at a rate of ∼0.010 standard units per decade, which is substantial on an evolutionary timescale. Most importantly, because POLYEDU only captures a fraction of the overall underlying genetic component the latter could be declining at a rate that is two to three times faster."
What other evidence you need?-- 203.186.250.135 ( talk) 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Taken together, these trends provide no evidence that social sorting is becoming increasingly genetic in nature or that dysgenic dynamics have accelerated.
Since the nineteenth century, a “race deterioration” has been repeatedly predicted as a result of the excessive multiplication of less gifted people (Galton 1869; see also Fig. 9.1). Nevertheless, the educational and qualification level of people in the industrialized countries has risen strongly. The fact that the “test intelligence” has also significantly increased (Flynn 2013) is difficult to explain for supporters of the dysgenic thesis: they suspect that the “phenotypic intelligence” has increased for environmental reasons, while the “genotypic quality” secretly decreases (Lynn 1996, p. 111). There is neither evidence nor proof for this theory.Generalrelative ( talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
“ | Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating (32). | ” |
may besimply indicates that this possibility is within the error range. Here's what they say prior to the sentence you just quoted:
For example, although the less educated respondents in the population have a fairly stable number of offspring over the birth cohorts, those with greater observed (i.e., phenotypic) education levels have fewer children over time. A similar pattern can be observed for height where only in more recent birth cohorts do we see those with higher stature having fewer children. Both of these phenotypic trends would seem to imply dynamics of emergent or strengthening dysgenic reproductive patterns. However, when we look at the relevant genetic scores in Fig. 2C, we find that the dysgenic trends inferred from phenotypic associations between education and height on the one hand, and fertility on the other, are not present with respect to the genotypic data.(Emphasis added.)
WP:DNFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I just reverted this edit at Webster Technique, as the paper supporting the 92% success rate was a questionnaire survey. I thought someone here might want to check whether I was right to revert, and put it on their watchlist. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 10:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a current RFC on Talk:Astrology regarding the inclusion of the word "pseudoscience" in the lede. 5.151.22.143 ( talk) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Dawit S Gondaria:, is pursuing undue/fringe ideas here imo, they state that despite several sources including the one currently attached to the article is not referring to the Adal Sultanate because of some dating errors. Upon review I tried explaining in vain that the sources are indeed discussing Adal but they wont even compromise instead they're latching onto one source that vaguely states "Walasma princes" killed the emperor. I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their preferred interpretation. Would like outside opinion on this, 3rd opinion was already tried and not accepted either by the user. Link to discussion can be found here [30]. Magherbin ( talk) 05:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their prefreed interpretation.You provided two sources (Abir Mordechai and BRILL publisher source) for the term Adal killed Tewodros I, and have read Tadesse Tamrat out of context (deliberatly or out of incompentence) to create this timeline for yourself. Tadesse Tamrat was talking Ifat and Adal in geographical terms (see Quotes nr 1 on talkpage covers entire pages 285-287). Abir is a old publication, and was uncertain in his wordings, BRILL publisher was not, a total of 2 sources. I provided several more recent sources that Ifat Sultanate was still around untill 1415. This has been put forward to WP:DRN an hour ago Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 05:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards [31] about weighing of sources on Teal Swan that editors may be interested in. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure she's notable. I'm pretty sure she doesn't work where it says she did but can't confirm it. Linkedin says adjunct at Empire State College, part of SUNY who published her book. I can see BLP vandalism in the history. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
These three articles are all quite interesting but they feel to lack relevance to Wikipedia and to be too much focused solely on a Rodnover pov Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
See recent edits and material I reverted now reinserted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
For some reason ice canopy was a redirect to Flood geology#Vapor/water canopy. However, there is noting in flood geology to explain why. So it now redirects to Sea ice#Fast ice versus drift (or pack) ice where the term is explained. What I need is a {{ redirect}} in that section saying why someone interested in an ice canopy should see flood geology. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The article contains fringe-sounding nutrition and health claims not backed by MEDRS; in fact, none of the references are adequately identified. The subject is a grade of duck meat produced from birds that were fed high volumes of sulfur. Also, the text is very informal in tone and has grammatical errors. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This article contains only a description of the theory and its proponents, with some sources being from pro-fringe media. In particular, some mainstream evaluations of this pseudoscience are wanted. Rundown of sources:
John Keel and The Repo Man are also mentioned without inline references. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Could use more improvements. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered a set of cryptid articles at WP:NPP created in March that all use similar poor references. The discoveries of these "cryptids" are attributed to William Beebe, an article which fails to mention any of them.
The only possible legitimate reference (weak support for notability) is Robert Ballard's Eternal Darkness. [32] I'd like to get a second opinion: PROD or AfD? Should there be a brief mention in the Beebe article? -- mikeu talk 23:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
References
Gasp! They are "criticized" by quacks! Actually, it's just disagreement again. Good page for watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"The group further demanded that all alternative medicines be taken off private health insurance which the Australian Government subsidizes. The Australian Government is currently examining the evidence of clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of natural therapies. The result, expected in April 2015, will include a decision as to which natural therapies should continue to receive the rebate.A fine illustration of why we warn against using the word " currently.. ! The references for this snippet are from 2012 — 2014. Anybody know what the Australian Government decided, and/or how it went after 2015? Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC).
Got one or more IPs keen to remove any mention of false claims from this person; could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Could use a going over. Of course, there are no theories in the article, just speculation and hypotheses. I'm not sure we should have sections labelled "Disputed evidence", as anything not disputed probably doesn't belong in the article. The Iceland section is a bit confusing. Worse is the "Claims of Norse contact with the Toltec" which seems based on this University of York article [33]. The problem is the author works in the University nursery [34] and is a member of the Visitor Experience Team Member at York Museums Trust, I'm not sure that "5 years of experience in various customer-facing roles alongside the full-time study of Medieval Archaeology, with a specialisation in The Viking Age and it's peripheries; from 535 AD to the mid-15th century" qualifies him as an RS. [35] Doug Weller talk 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
See the links I added to Talk:Young Earth creationism#YEC as a conspiracy theory (in the US). It seems that the idea was important enough for at least two creationist sites to attack it. Maybe it's significant enough not to be WP:UNDUE in the article? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Some discussion lately at the article on how to characterize this website and its activities (including maybe mention of its role on Wikipedia). May be of interest to FTN regulars. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Just a reminder... WP:Parity applies to the sourcing for the SBM article. IOW, not so strict rules as for mainstream topics. Just sayin'. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) |
Polarity therapy was created last month, and proposed for speedy deletion per WP:G4 because of the deletion in 2012 resulting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy. However, I had to decline the speedy-deletion nomination because this incarnation of the article is substantially different from the deleted one. The topic seems to have significant coverage in mainstream-consumer health websites, which might meet our threshold of notability even if no WP:MEDRS can be found (and I'm skeptical that any MEDRS sources can be found on this alternative health topic). ~ Anachronist ( talk) 22:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist,[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]], Whiteguru.Thank you all for participating here and sharing your views. But the article has beeen moved without giving me opportunity to expand. Isnt it wrong as per Wikipedia policy. In every past such instances, I was asked to elaborate the article and I did it. There are many articles where there is no universal consensus but they exist. Request you all to consider. Thanks. Gardenkur ( talk) 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. Thanks for your prompt response. However as you felt earlier that it meets Wikipedia policies I left it for other editors to improve. Will do the same now. Gardenkur ( talk) 04:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
And his family. Is this woowoo really all encyclopedic? Doug Weller talk 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Need more eyes upon Alfred Kinsey. See [37]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
child abuser or fraud.
Interesting collection of images: one showed up at Microwave auditory effect. If they are used in other articles, captions will definitely need editing to conform to FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Move discussion on a CT you probably never heard about. Opinions welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This is about [38]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute among editors among the status of the article, specifically content related to a supposed inspirational relationship of the subject to the legend of King Arthur by Linda A. Malcor and coauthors. I have no ability to discern whether or not that relationship exists, but it is adequately cited, at least at face, though other editors contend that it flies in the face of scholarly consensus (usually by demonstrating their knowledge of the original Latin, rather than pointing to secondary sources). See e.g. Special:Diff/1096381621. Any input onto the ongoing dispute would be appreciated, as would willingness to guide the editors along the dispute resolution process. Pinging @ TonySullivanBooks and Artoriusfadianus as a courtesy (several IP editors are involved as well). Feel free to briefly state your reasoning and view of the dispute here. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 04:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I will try to be briefYou failed.
I don't have much time for Wikipedia lately but thought I'd post these links here, considering that other regulars are familiar with science and its principles. My impression is that this may be confusing empirical science with naive realism; science of course goes way beyond human senses to formulate and test hypotheses (and it develops its own extra senses, a simple example being chemistry). This article probably belongs in WP but may need extra eyes, one of the proposed DYN seemed misleading, particularly. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronovisor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Blondeignore ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does mostly abusive rants on fringe topics (eg claiming NASA killed JFK) - not just talk pages either and their response to their talk page is snide comments.
Since they have been at it for more then a decade, they might need something 2001:8003:34A3:800:756A:FD3E:7FAF:BD1A ( talk) 01:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transrational until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There is discussion on this article's talk about a fringe source used in the article. (And used by the John Oliver show. So we're in good company.)
Discussion seems to revolve around whether or not it's ok to use the source, and if so, how to present it, and if not, is it still possible to include the facts allegedly discovered by the filmmakers. (Perhaps by citing Oliver.) ApLundell ( talk) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Pretty one-sided. It recounts what Peiser thinks but no reactions from the scientific community. Not just on climate change. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Bad edits being made by Dchmelik on list of orthopaths and orthopathy. User is repeatedly adding a website healthscience.org [40] which is the website of the National Health Association (The American Natural Hygiene Society) which has a long history of peddling raw food and anti-vax nonsense. Worse still the links being added do not mention such people as being orthopaths. For example, Dean Ornish is not an orthopath. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Herbert M. Shelton is now a nurse scientist? [41] which is unsourced and clearly false. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is concerning enough to bother with, but take a look at [42]. Including my posts at the bottom of the thread. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Jimbos talk page has not and has never been a place where a consensus on a topic like this will be decided, I'm not even sure a well attended RfC would stop the bickering. Are they also expecting Jimbo, who called alt-med practitioners "lunatic charlatans" to be a sympathetic ear? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 11:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Fringe writer arguing that Stonehenge served the purpose of a mnemonic centre for recording and retrieving knowledge by Neolithic Britons, who lacked written language. Needs cleanup, most is still the original text. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I take issue with some recent edits by Special:Contributions/Formcriticism. They seem to promote very early dating for NT writings, especially based upon a WP:PROFRINGE book by a certain Jonathan Bernier. I mean: from the title of his book it is patently obvious that he does not like the mainstream consensus.
At amazon.com he boasts an endorsement of his book by Pitre, but an endorsement by Pitre is nothing to be proud of, since Pitre is an apologist of fundamentalism rather than a real scholar. It's a free country, and if he does not want to obey the requirements of the historical method, no one can force him to do that. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see latest edits. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
That's cool. I mean, people can believe and argue whatever they want on the talkpages, I guess. What I think is a problem is when they become WP:WikiDragons who start to impose novel editorial philosophies in articlespace that contravene things like WP:ENC and WP:NOT. jps ( talk) 12:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Are the theocratic developments oozing from SCOTUS encouraging fundies to come out of the woodwork and turn out alternative facts everywhere now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know, the article reads okay to me. Other than serving as a honeypot that we have to watch, does anyone see any problems with it as is? jps ( talk) 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Here is a source by a professional geologist (notable enough to have a wiki biography: Lorence G. Collins) which explicitly calls the film's content "pseudoscience". See the last paragraph, e.g. jps ( talk) 18:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film by Thomas Purifoy Jr. that promotes the false notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life.with [44] and [45] as sources? They're not the best sources, but they're not self published or blogs. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If the concern is about it being stashed on someone's private web space, it's also uploaded to ResearchGate [46]. jps ( talk) 00:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.I don't even care about the pseudoscience label, which is why I haven't removed it, I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations. That is the
someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sourcesthat WP:SELFPUB is talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations.
WP:RSN# Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines. Doubt it’s going anywhere but a bit amusing. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder whether this person is notable enough for a biography. There does not seem to be a whole lot of mainstream coverage of him. The fact that the best sources that seem to exist about his ideas are in the form of a podcast gives me pause as to whether Wikipedia is equipped to host a biography of this person. jps ( talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
IP is insistent that ID should not be called pseudoscience. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've tried to improve the sourcing and the writing in that section of the article. That section is now dominated by Spencer's own written statements on the topic, so I believe it is WP:DUE. Based on his writings it seems that none of this content would bring Spencer any "shame." Just the opposite. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.What kind of scientist does he think he is?!?? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling saidis thoroughly false. I really dislike strawmen and people who use them, and this is not the first time you are doing this. I don't expect you to retract this, because last time you didn't either. My opinion of you is steadily getting worse and worse. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.What happened to this board? Did everybody get replaced by pod people? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.Some users here want to give them space. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sourcesobviously means that we have to actually use those multiple secondary sources. If we just repeat the misinformation fringe proponents spout without adding any mainstream refutation, Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for fringe views.
The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.
may be includedeven if they have
been rejected, in direct contradiction to that.
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [..] so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; [..] and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent designare a way to refute anything, I can only suggest that you are going to find it difficult to find people to agree with you. That doesn't belong in a biography. Not remotely. Refute with (properly-sourced, on topic) evidence. Evidence directly concerning the subject of the biography. Not appeals to emotion and denunciations of heresy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design...
Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer. I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.
rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design... But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.We just need a bit of expansion. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that I am "denouncing heresy". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers.Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that spreading anti-science propaganda without accompanying refutation is "an improvement" from just stating which pseudoscience he is a fan of. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
More COVID-related recent editing could use eyes Alexbrn ( talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a new account editing the alkaline diet removing criticisms from the article and several talk-page discussions. Based I what I have seen so far, this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet". I can see why some might think they are related but there appears to be some original research and other POV issues here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: @ Psychologist Guy: Maffty has been blocked, but three other IP addresses have appeared to edit that article, and two of them are blocked. The third one's contribution history has a comment admitting to block evasion for the second blocked IP address but asks who the first evasion block was supposed to be be for. I assume the first IP was blocked with an assumption that it's an evasion of Maffty's block, but I am not sure.
In any case, the IP address has been constructive and the edit requests look reasonable, but I'd like some more eyes on it. The article has been WP:PRODed for deletion, and I am not sure I agree with that given that the subject might be notable as Psychologist Guy suggested above. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I was redricted here for my draft page Diagalon, it uses reliable sources from seperate independent organisations such as the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. However user Curbon7 suggested isn't enough to warrant a standalone article? "To quote from WP:FRINGE, "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is", my question is is this, i have specified Diagalon is a far-right extremist group.[1][2], formed in Ottowa during the Canada convoy protests to protest COVID-19 restrictions and mandates[3][4]. It consists of over one hundred “ex-military members"[5] does this make it clear that this fringe group doesnt appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. my second question is does /info/en/?search=Draft:Diagalon warrant a standalone article? This group while obviously fringe has a wide array of media coverage and is its own concept completley seperate from the canadian trucker protests (while it is mentioned briefly in the candian protest articles) i belive it deserves its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingsomyipisntvisable ( talk • contribs) 12:08, July 26, 2022 (UTC)
Got new accounts and IPs taking issue with Wikipedia relaying the COVID-19 activities of Fenton. Could use more eyes (maybe from an admin?) Alexbrn ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Tom Whipple's article now Fenton's name is removed and it has an emendation at the bottom saying Tom removed it.? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer: each contribution in this booklet reflects the author’s viewpoint alone, and not the position of the entire groupScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn ( talk) 05:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Among the 41 academics named in its foreword, several of whom subsequently promoted it on social media, are Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology at Nottingham University, and the group’s spokeswoman, Marilyn James, professor of health economics at the University of Nottingham, and Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management, Queen Mary University of London.
<redacted>
Well Fenton's hit-piece has now landed. [60] At least one of the follow-up tweets about "defamatous" material [61] bears interestingly on who Holomatrix might have [62] been. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadio??!!!? What the hell!? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
They are working together. JBW and ScottishFinnishRadish have the same IP address, same timestamp and are listed on other pages Alexbrn has edited. ScottishFinnishRadish makes the threats against users who make changes he/she and Alexbrn do not like, and JBW swoops in to block the person.Alexbrn and myself are known for being thick as thieves, and generally agreeing 100% on content issues. Also, I am JBW's deep cover sock. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Just a note, while it seems correct that Fenton's name was not removed or the part on him clarified, there have been some changes to the Times article post publication which don't seem to have been clearly indicated. If we compare this version: [66] from the day of publication with this version from 2 days ago [67] we can see changes.
In particular a paragraph was added (after the part about Brady saying it was “grim but important reading”.
') which gives a response from Brady
Also the section on the document was changed from beginning with 'Brady told The Times that his comments, which appeared in a press release issued by the group that produced the report, referred to other parts of the report, and he had always been a vocal supporter of vaccinations.
The 50-page document argues that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' to instead say '
Among arguments about the harms caused by lockdown the 50-page document also states that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' making it clearer it's only one thing the document was about. (Note that this paragraph always mentioned it was written by Joel Smalley.) It also adds a comment from Smalley '
He suggested the Pfizer vaccine had not been tested sufficiently on older people.'
It looks like links have been added for Sumption and Toby Young although I'm not sure if that is just some randomness about when links are shown. Finally a response from Hart was added to the end
I guess the newer version is perhaps better for Fenton since while it doesn't specifically say this unlike the disclaimer which was added to the PDF, it does make it clearer the document is about multiple things, so it's possible someone in the foreword or promoting it on social media isn't endorsing everything in it such as the contentious vaccine part.A spokesperson for Hart said, “In Hart’s recently published overview of Covid-19 evidence, we noted that the January peak in Covid cases and deaths correlated both in time and geographically with the mass roll-out of the novel vaccines. However, Hart is mindful that correlation does not always equal causation and we are not asserting that vaccines are the cause.”
Also, I don't know if there was some earlier version although that archive isn't that long after publication, and I also don't know if there was some intermediate version that did say something different about Fenton which was removed.
IP inserting fringe, reverted at least twice. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 31 July 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. |
This seems like a very important topic given recent events, eg the Buffalo shooting, but it's written as an essay and I really do not have the time to help. I did find another source[ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pseudoscience-fake-news-social-media-facebook-twitter-misinformation-science-a9034321.html] but I've just got too much on my plate and start chemo in a few days. Thanks. I've told the student that I've posted here. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I came across this guy reading Angela Saini's Superior, where he is described as someone whose theories the Nazis liked a lot.
In June 2015, two ground-breaking archaeogenetic studies appeared to confirm certain key aspects of Kossinna's theories on settlement archaeology and Indo-European migrations, in what has been referred to as Kossinna's Smile.
This sounds dubious to me, especially because of the peacock term "ground-breaking". There is a slow discussion about it on the Talk page - April 2020, November 2020, January 2022. Maybe that can be sped up if knowledgeable editors chime in. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
One might eventually look back at June 2015 as a turning point for archaeologists dealing with the third millennium BC and the approximately 30 centuries thereafter. That month, two ancient DNA (aDNA) papers were published in the scientific journal Nature (Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015), with far-reaching implications for our understanding of the later prehistory of Europe and Western Asia.....While I have no doubt that both papers are essentially right, they do not reflect the complexity of the past.
On another level, everyone will also have to accept the existence of large-scale prehistoric migrations, the fact that they were a driving force of cultural change and that there was a link to the Indo-European languages, which in turn makes the late dispersal theory much more probable than the supposed connection with early farming.
Jordan Lead Codices ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These are almost certainly a forgery, but the article is terrible and gives far too much prominence to a David Elkington. See a publicity website for him, his Graham Hancock page and most importantly, an Ofcom report about a rejected complaint he made about the BBC coverage of him which is pretty damning. [1] I don't have much confidence in Margaret Barker either as she seems pretty fringe. Article needs a major cleanup. I haven't found anything recent, but this doesn't seem to be used. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
is a two sentence stub. Ran into it when hidden comments were added to Ancient Aliens. [2] Not sure if they are appropriate or if we need to do something about the article. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I received a warning from Taxin609 about edit warring, which I half expected, however, neither Benmite or Pennsylvania2, the other parties involved, received a warning despite both having a history of edit warring, and the disputed content is still in the article when this is an issue best resolved on the Talk Page. 48Pills ( talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Self published author with what seems to be a fringe idea about where early mosques pointed. Unhappy new editor on talk page challenging neutrality. I just removed a chunk of trxt explaining how one of his critics was the greatest expert ever and I’m not sure if the King sources meets rs, the journal it’s in seems dubious.
[3]
Doug Weller
talk 19:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
First edit warring by IPs, now, finally discussions on the Talk page. But with accusations of Lyssenkoism. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I was asked to restore this deleted article to draft, which I did (I think the subject is pretty clearly notable), but shortly found myself needing to remove content sourced to the subject's Twitter and YouTube posts and other WP:RSP-disfavored sources presenting fringey takes on COVID-19 in particular. I expect that this will eventually return to mainspace, and will need eyes on it. BD2412 T 05:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Are the Akashic records a fringe theory? My assessment is that they are a fringe theory, but I am requesting other opinions. I reviewed Draft:Linda Howe, which states that she is an authority on the Akashic records, and am requesting comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure there are a lot of believers in the Akashic records that consider them essentially scientific texts. Same is true of adherents to both theosophy and anthroposophy. jps ( talk) 02:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
:So fringe doesn't apply to any of the sections, including those using self-published sources?
Doug Weller
talk 08:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Wrong thread.
Doug Weller
talk 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Article on a "Russian anthropologist and science popularizer".
"Drobyshevsky condemns the popular theory, put forward only according to the data of geneticists, that there are no human races, since their existence is visible to every person. He believes that the lack of mass collection of morphological data by the anthropologists of the world, both on large and small races after the Second World War, led to a failure in world science in the anthropological study of races
".
Drobyshevsky may possibly believe this. Wikipedia shouldn't however be asserting it as fact. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
And if so, does it comply with WP:FRINGE? See the talk page also. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Up for deletion for notability, but it has the smell of something fringey. One would expect some research backing up the technique if nothing else. Mangoe ( talk) 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's another move request that may be of interest: Talk:Reverse racism#Requested move 31 May 2022. The OP appears to believe that evidence exists to support the existence of discrimination towards white people, and that the current article title unjustly delegitimizes this evidence. Generalrelative ( talk) 03:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I suppose there is technically discrimination against any group you can name whatsoever. The Alberta source not only acknowledges the existence of anti-white discrimination, it explains how it never reaches the damaging heights of anti-black discrimination. (Sorry about that first sentence, I typed this as you were typing on my talk page, thanks for replying) Unnamed anon ( talk) 08:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion which led to this proposal, at Talk:Reverse sexism is also relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the article talk page about the use of the word "Fringe" in the opening paragraph of the article. I am involved as an admin as I just had to block an edit warring IP. However, after reading the discussion I am concerned that use of the term "fringe" is not supported by reliable sources and the arguments for its use sound rather WP:SYNTHy to me. Could some experienced editors have a look? Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Economics has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The dispute is on whether we can give due weight to critics of the field, some of whom equate it to pseudoscience. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
There's an ongoing RfC here about whether we should use Vice for reporting on a meeting to pray for Trump and discuss conspiracy theories around George Soros that featured notable anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, conspiritualists, etc. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Claims of therapeutic benefit with insufficient counterarguments. All but one of the sources are pro-fringe, and some of the sources are not about "hydrogen water" rather than general medical use of hydrogen. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Could use more eyes. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Another newly edited article is pushing Francis Parker Yockey and other neo-Nazis. The article was previously deleted in 2010. About two-thirds of its references are to neo-Nazi sources. Llll5032 ( talk) 18:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Slow motion edit war underway with an editor arguing a particular source, PMID:34934897, constitutes clinical evidence for the diet. More eyes from savvy editors welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Lake Parime#21st-Century Explorations - this is based solely on a report made to a science meeting and I can find no discussion of it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
He is obviously a climate change denier, and there are more sources for that than we can link without being ridiculous, but some people do not like the term. So, business as usual. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
POVFORK of COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events, with non- WP:MEDRS sources. My attempt to blank and redirect has been reverted by the page creator. More wise eyes welcome. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Some disagreement on how to characterize a co-author of this book, Matt Ridley. The present term "science writer" as well as being jejune, could seem a bit too coy in light of the fact The Guardian characterizes him as "a Conservative hereditary peer best known for his sceptical writings on climate change" [7] as well as mentioning other related notions that are not really "science" (e.g. that fracking protests are Russia-backed [8], or that CO2 emissions are merely "greening" the planet. [9]) He evidently refers to himself as a "science writer" for example in this [10] piece which contains some surprising claims too on dietary fat. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Falls under fringe because he's best known for a fringe theory. My main issue is with the Knights Templar bit as I think we should never use Alan Wilson, a retired shipping expert, and Baram Blackett, a businessman. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I found this double
WP:WEASEL: Many scholars believe that the story of Exodus, as told in the bible, did happen, yet only some of it can be proven.
The article would probably profit from historians having a look at it. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 13:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
There's been some off-wiki recruiting on this [12] and an uptick in activity regarding the virus origin. More eyes maffy be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
is owned and operated by Google or Microsoft and or maybe the Alphabet company aka Google.[13] It's good to know that clairvoyants on Twitter are on the case. This whole time I thought I was part of an entirely different cabal. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
which was deemed an abuse ofWell, if one person deemed that, then it has been well and truly deemed.
You are confusing two different pages.Bullshit. I did not even mention any pages, I just refuted your bad reasoning in a general way. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
unlikely and not supported by available evidence(and most are far less generous than this), then we must reflect these rather clear findings as such, even if there are some minority dissenting voices, even if what the scientific sources say is not the same thing as political agencies or newspapers say. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats, genus Rhinolophus. SARS-related coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV-2, are dispersed over a large geographical area across southern China and Southeast Asia. They have undergone extensive recombination throughout their evolutionary history indicating frequent transmission among their Rhinolophus host species., and picking one quote which does not put this hypothesis in doubt, and interpreting this the wrong way, seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING to me...
Taking into account the SARS-CoV-2 dating and its MRCA properties, three scenarios are most probable: (a) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been incubating for years inside bats, accumulating mutations, and probably through a random event, e.g. in the Huanan wet market, the virus was transmitted in humans, (b) A less virulent SARS-CoV-2 ancestor was infecting humans for years, until accumulation of mutations increased its virulence, (c) The SARS-CoV-2 ancestor has been circulating in intermediate hosts until transmission to humans by a random event.The lack of certainty about the bat origin is here covered by the scientists in a specific way (i.e. we don't know for sure where the virus comes from, but it looks like it's from bats). You using this to argue that the "results [not being] highly convincing" is supposedly reason for us to cover an (unmentioned by the source) hypothetical lab-leak origin more favourably than the source does again seems like misinterpretation of the sources.
Although there is not yet any substantial evidence for a lab leak, and most scientists support a natural origin of the virus, by a jump to humans from bats, if it was a direct spillover—or, more likely, through an intermediate mammal, researchers have looked into genetic features of SARS-CoV-2 bioengineering signals. A team of scientists combed through the genome sequence for any signs of lab tinkering and determined that were not engineered genetic elements and they concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was not a laboratory construct
Most scientists say that as with other pandemics in human history, the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, and ultimately originated from a bat-borne virus.and
Available scientific evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.(in the detailed Investigations into the origin of COVID-19); or
The scientific consensus is that the virus is most likely of zoonotic origin, from bats or another closely-related mammal.(in the very summary-level overview at COVID-19 pandemic). Endlessly arguing over this and misinterpreting the sources is disruptive and borderline sea-lioning. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
showcaseany alternatives theories in the lead of the article. What the SAGO report describes as a
possibility[19], you describe as a
fringe theory[20], so your POV might need refreshing with newer and better sources. The SAGO report is clearly the WP:BESTSOURCE now, better even than Holmes et al, which it reviewed. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
This is about [21]. While I don't think that the nativity stories from NT gospels have historicity, I don't think that the authors of the gospels were spewing astrological gobbledygook (meaning that they were secretly adepts of the Christ Myth Theory). Even if we, modern people, regard them as tall stories, it does not mean that they were awarely lying like a dog. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.
— WP:FLAT
I was quite shocked to come across this statement in photosynthesis:
As far as I can tell, this statement simply makes no sense (in a standard atmospheric environment, molecular oxygen is abundant and cannot react with the environment, meaning it stores no energy, right?).
I removed that statement and traced it to an editor who has made several such edits to various articles, all containing statements along the lines of declaring that oxygen is a "high-energy" molecule which "stores energy in its double bond".
(Please note that all this is about chemistry, not nuclear reactions.)
I'm afraid this rises to the level of pseudoscience, and someone will have to go through all the places where this editor cited what they claim to be their own publications, but thought I'd ask for a second opinion before doing that.
IpseCustos ( talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
unless you can produce references and evidence to the contrary, you will have to acknowledge that the oxygen theory of combustion and respiration energetics is actually the only known quantitative theoryindicates they should read WP:NFRINGE, WP:GNG, and WP:OR, particularly the independent sourcing. Maybe they have solved a major thermodynamic and biochemical question, but we need to source that to someone else's academic paper that indicates the view's prevalence within mainstream science. Convince other scientists, and we'll follow. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
If you can cite quantifiable textbook answers to these questions, please indicate that in a response.Given your familiarity with the topic, can you cite such a textbook (ideally, written by someone other than yourself) that repeats your findings? If so, it would make the case for inclusion much simpler, and we'd be able to add it easily without the potential WP:COI concerns. Bakkster Man ( talk) 13:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Textbooks do not derive that combustion is always exothermic
Textbooks do not derive how batteries store and release energy
he is definitely not promoting fringe theories
As I see it, Klaus Schmidt-Rohr is entitled to add (limited) content and references to his own work, per WP:SELFCITE. These particular papers are WP:Primary in nature and relatively recent, so not yet widely critiqued in WP:Secondary sources which Wikipedia would prefer to use. My reading of the work is that it makes a plausible case to explain, for example, the use by plants of two photosystems. Some of the suggestions can be challenged, as with all theories. Thus I wouldn't call oxygen released by plants a waste product. Plants only photosynthesise when in sunlight: at other times they respire, using oxygen like the rest of us, so the "waste" product gets recycled. Also, I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond". If so, why doesn't it form an O8, or similar, allotrope as sulfur does? That would replace four double bonds with four single ones. [I don't expect anyone to respond, I'm just giving an example of why primary sources are less preferred]. To calculate the free energy released by a chemical reaction requires one to know all the starting materials and all the products. Calling one particular component "high energy" is not terribly helpful. So, in summary I suggest that Schmidt-Rohr help remove some of his more prominent citations, especially in the lead sections of articles, until the statements can be backed up by secondary references from review-type articles or books not written by him. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 15:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't like the idea that oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a "weak double bond"
Thank you for bringing up interesting scientific questions. Here are some comments: -- It is others who call oxygen a waste product; I consider it a valuable molecule storing most of the chemical energy in the biosphere and thus making all complex lifeforms possible. -- Oxygen does not form chains because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond in O2 (2x142 kJ/mol vs. 498 kJ/mol). So oxygen chains are less stable (higher in energy) than O2 and break up spontaneously. -- A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in countless reactions with millions of other molecules and does so forming a variety of products. F2, O2, H2O2, and NOx are examples. A high-energy molecule must have relatively weak electron-pair bonds, because it is the conversion of weaker to stronger electron-pair bonds that releases a lot of energy. Since the electron-pair bonds in organic fuels, CO2, and H2O are all significantly stronger than those in O2, reactions of the latter with organic molecules will always release a lot of energy. If you know that a molecule is high in chemical energy, you can predict that its reactions will be very exothermic (unless another high-energy molecule is formed). That is very useful in understanding bioenergetics. Indeed, in biochemistry, the analogous concept of "energy-rich" molecules is widely invoked. (However, some of the biomolecules often considered energy-rich do not meet the criteria for a high-energy molecule, since they release a lot of energy only in reaction with O2, and one must acknowledge that the energy released may come from O2 with its relatively weak double bond.) Klaus Schmidt-Rohr ( talk) 00:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
because two O-O single bonds are even weaker than the double bond. If so, why then aren't you promoting the alternative idea that "oxygen is a high-energy molecule because it has a weak single bond"? I read an article DOI:10.1021/jacs.7b04232 that goes into considerable detail on this topic and I'd prefer that Wikipedia tried to summarise the whole story without over-simplification. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 13:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
A high-energy molecule is one that releases a lot of energy in ... reactions ...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination), which I nominated, closed as Delete. Since then, his work was cited explicitly by the shooter in the 2022 Buffalo shooting and now The New York Times has done a profile of Woodley: [23].
I really don't have the stomach for this. Does anyone else?
jps ( talk) 11:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This discussion at WP:AN may be of interest to the notice board. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 10:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
A lot of unsourced information added today - who in the world is "Charlie Solis" or "Charlie Davis Solis"? It's been added by User:DellBuddie1 who may be identifying himself on his user page as Solis, at least that's all that's on this user page. Our article on Conrad Hass has references but no citations, and I removed on that was a forum (although Hass is shown by 19th c sources as born in Dornback, which that was what the source was probably used for. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Charlie Solis Here. I have a degree in physics from Michigan Tech University and build micro gas + steam turbines. I cofounded TesTur Energy, a Combined Heat And Power Generation company. I also do research in rockets and rocket history. I’m sorry if my edits are still unfinished. I’m new to actual editing of wiki pages. I’m working on the citations for the work I added. However much of it is just parroting what’s already on the Conrad Hass, and company, pages. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have further questions. I’m still trying to figure out how to put a proper citation in the edits page but needed to sleep as it’s getting late where I am in Detroit. Will continue adding citations in the morning. Ps. I hope this is how to respond to you…— Preceding unsigned comment added by DellBuddie1 ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelative has reverted my edits. I have cited paper from PNAS on the negative relationship between education related polygenic scores and fertility. Is that fringe?-- 203.186.250.135 ( talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Generalrelative has removed my citation to PNAS paper [24]:
"Based on 129,808 Icelanders born between 1910 and 1990, we find that the average POLYEDU has been declining at a rate of ∼0.010 standard units per decade, which is substantial on an evolutionary timescale. Most importantly, because POLYEDU only captures a fraction of the overall underlying genetic component the latter could be declining at a rate that is two to three times faster."
What other evidence you need?-- 203.186.250.135 ( talk) 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Taken together, these trends provide no evidence that social sorting is becoming increasingly genetic in nature or that dysgenic dynamics have accelerated.
Since the nineteenth century, a “race deterioration” has been repeatedly predicted as a result of the excessive multiplication of less gifted people (Galton 1869; see also Fig. 9.1). Nevertheless, the educational and qualification level of people in the industrialized countries has risen strongly. The fact that the “test intelligence” has also significantly increased (Flynn 2013) is difficult to explain for supporters of the dysgenic thesis: they suspect that the “phenotypic intelligence” has increased for environmental reasons, while the “genotypic quality” secretly decreases (Lynn 1996, p. 111). There is neither evidence nor proof for this theory.Generalrelative ( talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
“ | Thus, although there may be positive selection on height and slight negative selection on additive measures of the genetic architecture of education, these are not accelerating (32). | ” |
may besimply indicates that this possibility is within the error range. Here's what they say prior to the sentence you just quoted:
For example, although the less educated respondents in the population have a fairly stable number of offspring over the birth cohorts, those with greater observed (i.e., phenotypic) education levels have fewer children over time. A similar pattern can be observed for height where only in more recent birth cohorts do we see those with higher stature having fewer children. Both of these phenotypic trends would seem to imply dynamics of emergent or strengthening dysgenic reproductive patterns. However, when we look at the relevant genetic scores in Fig. 2C, we find that the dysgenic trends inferred from phenotypic associations between education and height on the one hand, and fertility on the other, are not present with respect to the genotypic data.(Emphasis added.)
WP:DNFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
References |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I just reverted this edit at Webster Technique, as the paper supporting the 92% success rate was a questionnaire survey. I thought someone here might want to check whether I was right to revert, and put it on their watchlist. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 10:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a current RFC on Talk:Astrology regarding the inclusion of the word "pseudoscience" in the lede. 5.151.22.143 ( talk) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Dawit S Gondaria:, is pursuing undue/fringe ideas here imo, they state that despite several sources including the one currently attached to the article is not referring to the Adal Sultanate because of some dating errors. Upon review I tried explaining in vain that the sources are indeed discussing Adal but they wont even compromise instead they're latching onto one source that vaguely states "Walasma princes" killed the emperor. I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their preferred interpretation. Would like outside opinion on this, 3rd opinion was already tried and not accepted either by the user. Link to discussion can be found here [30]. Magherbin ( talk) 05:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I provided several references that state he was killed by Adal but its been rejected for their prefreed interpretation.You provided two sources (Abir Mordechai and BRILL publisher source) for the term Adal killed Tewodros I, and have read Tadesse Tamrat out of context (deliberatly or out of incompentence) to create this timeline for yourself. Tadesse Tamrat was talking Ifat and Adal in geographical terms (see Quotes nr 1 on talkpage covers entire pages 285-287). Abir is a old publication, and was uncertain in his wordings, BRILL publisher was not, a total of 2 sources. I provided several more recent sources that Ifat Sultanate was still around untill 1415. This has been put forward to WP:DRN an hour ago Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 05:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at the BLP Noticeboards [31] about weighing of sources on Teal Swan that editors may be interested in. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure she's notable. I'm pretty sure she doesn't work where it says she did but can't confirm it. Linkedin says adjunct at Empire State College, part of SUNY who published her book. I can see BLP vandalism in the history. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
These three articles are all quite interesting but they feel to lack relevance to Wikipedia and to be too much focused solely on a Rodnover pov Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
See recent edits and material I reverted now reinserted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
For some reason ice canopy was a redirect to Flood geology#Vapor/water canopy. However, there is noting in flood geology to explain why. So it now redirects to Sea ice#Fast ice versus drift (or pack) ice where the term is explained. What I need is a {{ redirect}} in that section saying why someone interested in an ice canopy should see flood geology. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The article contains fringe-sounding nutrition and health claims not backed by MEDRS; in fact, none of the references are adequately identified. The subject is a grade of duck meat produced from birds that were fed high volumes of sulfur. Also, the text is very informal in tone and has grammatical errors. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This article contains only a description of the theory and its proponents, with some sources being from pro-fringe media. In particular, some mainstream evaluations of this pseudoscience are wanted. Rundown of sources:
John Keel and The Repo Man are also mentioned without inline references. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Could use more improvements. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered a set of cryptid articles at WP:NPP created in March that all use similar poor references. The discoveries of these "cryptids" are attributed to William Beebe, an article which fails to mention any of them.
The only possible legitimate reference (weak support for notability) is Robert Ballard's Eternal Darkness. [32] I'd like to get a second opinion: PROD or AfD? Should there be a brief mention in the Beebe article? -- mikeu talk 23:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
References
Gasp! They are "criticized" by quacks! Actually, it's just disagreement again. Good page for watching. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"The group further demanded that all alternative medicines be taken off private health insurance which the Australian Government subsidizes. The Australian Government is currently examining the evidence of clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of natural therapies. The result, expected in April 2015, will include a decision as to which natural therapies should continue to receive the rebate.A fine illustration of why we warn against using the word " currently.. ! The references for this snippet are from 2012 — 2014. Anybody know what the Australian Government decided, and/or how it went after 2015? Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC).
Got one or more IPs keen to remove any mention of false claims from this person; could use more eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Could use a going over. Of course, there are no theories in the article, just speculation and hypotheses. I'm not sure we should have sections labelled "Disputed evidence", as anything not disputed probably doesn't belong in the article. The Iceland section is a bit confusing. Worse is the "Claims of Norse contact with the Toltec" which seems based on this University of York article [33]. The problem is the author works in the University nursery [34] and is a member of the Visitor Experience Team Member at York Museums Trust, I'm not sure that "5 years of experience in various customer-facing roles alongside the full-time study of Medieval Archaeology, with a specialisation in The Viking Age and it's peripheries; from 535 AD to the mid-15th century" qualifies him as an RS. [35] Doug Weller talk 16:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
See the links I added to Talk:Young Earth creationism#YEC as a conspiracy theory (in the US). It seems that the idea was important enough for at least two creationist sites to attack it. Maybe it's significant enough not to be WP:UNDUE in the article? Doug Weller talk 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Some discussion lately at the article on how to characterize this website and its activities (including maybe mention of its role on Wikipedia). May be of interest to FTN regulars. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Just a reminder... WP:Parity applies to the sourcing for the SBM article. IOW, not so strict rules as for mainstream topics. Just sayin'. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) |
Polarity therapy was created last month, and proposed for speedy deletion per WP:G4 because of the deletion in 2012 resulting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy. However, I had to decline the speedy-deletion nomination because this incarnation of the article is substantially different from the deleted one. The topic seems to have significant coverage in mainstream-consumer health websites, which might meet our threshold of notability even if no WP:MEDRS can be found (and I'm skeptical that any MEDRS sources can be found on this alternative health topic). ~ Anachronist ( talk) 22:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist,[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]], Whiteguru.Thank you all for participating here and sharing your views. But the article has beeen moved without giving me opportunity to expand. Isnt it wrong as per Wikipedia policy. In every past such instances, I was asked to elaborate the article and I did it. There are many articles where there is no universal consensus but they exist. Request you all to consider. Thanks. Gardenkur ( talk) 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist. Thanks for your prompt response. However as you felt earlier that it meets Wikipedia policies I left it for other editors to improve. Will do the same now. Gardenkur ( talk) 04:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
And his family. Is this woowoo really all encyclopedic? Doug Weller talk 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Need more eyes upon Alfred Kinsey. See [37]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
child abuser or fraud.
Interesting collection of images: one showed up at Microwave auditory effect. If they are used in other articles, captions will definitely need editing to conform to FRINGE guidelines. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Move discussion on a CT you probably never heard about. Opinions welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This is about [38]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute among editors among the status of the article, specifically content related to a supposed inspirational relationship of the subject to the legend of King Arthur by Linda A. Malcor and coauthors. I have no ability to discern whether or not that relationship exists, but it is adequately cited, at least at face, though other editors contend that it flies in the face of scholarly consensus (usually by demonstrating their knowledge of the original Latin, rather than pointing to secondary sources). See e.g. Special:Diff/1096381621. Any input onto the ongoing dispute would be appreciated, as would willingness to guide the editors along the dispute resolution process. Pinging @ TonySullivanBooks and Artoriusfadianus as a courtesy (several IP editors are involved as well). Feel free to briefly state your reasoning and view of the dispute here. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)( talk, contribs) 04:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I will try to be briefYou failed.
I don't have much time for Wikipedia lately but thought I'd post these links here, considering that other regulars are familiar with science and its principles. My impression is that this may be confusing empirical science with naive realism; science of course goes way beyond human senses to formulate and test hypotheses (and it develops its own extra senses, a simple example being chemistry). This article probably belongs in WP but may need extra eyes, one of the proposed DYN seemed misleading, particularly. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 08:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronovisor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Blondeignore ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does mostly abusive rants on fringe topics (eg claiming NASA killed JFK) - not just talk pages either and their response to their talk page is snide comments.
Since they have been at it for more then a decade, they might need something 2001:8003:34A3:800:756A:FD3E:7FAF:BD1A ( talk) 01:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transrational until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There is discussion on this article's talk about a fringe source used in the article. (And used by the John Oliver show. So we're in good company.)
Discussion seems to revolve around whether or not it's ok to use the source, and if so, how to present it, and if not, is it still possible to include the facts allegedly discovered by the filmmakers. (Perhaps by citing Oliver.) ApLundell ( talk) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Pretty one-sided. It recounts what Peiser thinks but no reactions from the scientific community. Not just on climate change. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Bad edits being made by Dchmelik on list of orthopaths and orthopathy. User is repeatedly adding a website healthscience.org [40] which is the website of the National Health Association (The American Natural Hygiene Society) which has a long history of peddling raw food and anti-vax nonsense. Worse still the links being added do not mention such people as being orthopaths. For example, Dean Ornish is not an orthopath. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Herbert M. Shelton is now a nurse scientist? [41] which is unsourced and clearly false. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is concerning enough to bother with, but take a look at [42]. Including my posts at the bottom of the thread. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Jimbos talk page has not and has never been a place where a consensus on a topic like this will be decided, I'm not even sure a well attended RfC would stop the bickering. Are they also expecting Jimbo, who called alt-med practitioners "lunatic charlatans" to be a sympathetic ear? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 11:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Fringe writer arguing that Stonehenge served the purpose of a mnemonic centre for recording and retrieving knowledge by Neolithic Britons, who lacked written language. Needs cleanup, most is still the original text. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I take issue with some recent edits by Special:Contributions/Formcriticism. They seem to promote very early dating for NT writings, especially based upon a WP:PROFRINGE book by a certain Jonathan Bernier. I mean: from the title of his book it is patently obvious that he does not like the mainstream consensus.
At amazon.com he boasts an endorsement of his book by Pitre, but an endorsement by Pitre is nothing to be proud of, since Pitre is an apologist of fundamentalism rather than a real scholar. It's a free country, and if he does not want to obey the requirements of the historical method, no one can force him to do that. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see latest edits. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
That's cool. I mean, people can believe and argue whatever they want on the talkpages, I guess. What I think is a problem is when they become WP:WikiDragons who start to impose novel editorial philosophies in articlespace that contravene things like WP:ENC and WP:NOT. jps ( talk) 12:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Are the theocratic developments oozing from SCOTUS encouraging fundies to come out of the woodwork and turn out alternative facts everywhere now? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know, the article reads okay to me. Other than serving as a honeypot that we have to watch, does anyone see any problems with it as is? jps ( talk) 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Here is a source by a professional geologist (notable enough to have a wiki biography: Lorence G. Collins) which explicitly calls the film's content "pseudoscience". See the last paragraph, e.g. jps ( talk) 18:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film by Thomas Purifoy Jr. that promotes the false notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life.with [44] and [45] as sources? They're not the best sources, but they're not self published or blogs. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If the concern is about it being stashed on someone's private web space, it's also uploaded to ResearchGate [46]. jps ( talk) 00:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.I don't even care about the pseudoscience label, which is why I haven't removed it, I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations. That is the
someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sourcesthat WP:SELFPUB is talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I just don't know why we're looking at using a self-published open letter from someone with no impact and almost no publications over a secondary source co-written by authors which much higher impact, more publications and more citations.
WP:RSN# Violation of Biography of a Living Person Guidelines. Doubt it’s going anywhere but a bit amusing. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I wonder whether this person is notable enough for a biography. There does not seem to be a whole lot of mainstream coverage of him. The fact that the best sources that seem to exist about his ideas are in the form of a podcast gives me pause as to whether Wikipedia is equipped to host a biography of this person. jps ( talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
IP is insistent that ID should not be called pseudoscience. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I've tried to improve the sourcing and the writing in that section of the article. That section is now dominated by Spencer's own written statements on the topic, so I believe it is WP:DUE. Based on his writings it seems that none of this content would bring Spencer any "shame." Just the opposite. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.What kind of scientist does he think he is?!?? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
we should be trying to shame someone, as Hob Gadling saidis thoroughly false. I really dislike strawmen and people who use them, and this is not the first time you are doing this. I don't expect you to retract this, because last time you didn't either. My opinion of you is steadily getting worse and worse. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.What happened to this board? Did everybody get replaced by pod people? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.Some users here want to give them space. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Points that are not discussed in independent sourcesobviously means that we have to actually use those multiple secondary sources. If we just repeat the misinformation fringe proponents spout without adding any mainstream refutation, Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for fringe views.
The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position.
may be includedeven if they have
been rejected, in direct contradiction to that.
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [..] so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; [..] and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent designare a way to refute anything, I can only suggest that you are going to find it difficult to find people to agree with you. That doesn't belong in a biography. Not remotely. Refute with (properly-sourced, on topic) evidence. Evidence directly concerning the subject of the biography. Not appeals to emotion and denunciations of heresy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design...
Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer. I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.
rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design... But I think it's relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism.We just need a bit of expansion. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such.Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that I am "denouncing heresy". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
That is the sort of analysis which I see in secondary sources which will help readers.Yes! That is something I expect to hear on this board. Not that spreading anti-science propaganda without accompanying refutation is "an improvement" from just stating which pseudoscience he is a fan of. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
More COVID-related recent editing could use eyes Alexbrn ( talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a new account editing the alkaline diet removing criticisms from the article and several talk-page discussions. Based I what I have seen so far, this user has confused papers mentioning the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score with the "alkaline diet". I can see why some might think they are related but there appears to be some original research and other POV issues here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn: @ Psychologist Guy: Maffty has been blocked, but three other IP addresses have appeared to edit that article, and two of them are blocked. The third one's contribution history has a comment admitting to block evasion for the second blocked IP address but asks who the first evasion block was supposed to be be for. I assume the first IP was blocked with an assumption that it's an evasion of Maffty's block, but I am not sure.
In any case, the IP address has been constructive and the edit requests look reasonable, but I'd like some more eyes on it. The article has been WP:PRODed for deletion, and I am not sure I agree with that given that the subject might be notable as Psychologist Guy suggested above. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I was redricted here for my draft page Diagalon, it uses reliable sources from seperate independent organisations such as the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. However user Curbon7 suggested isn't enough to warrant a standalone article? "To quote from WP:FRINGE, "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is", my question is is this, i have specified Diagalon is a far-right extremist group.[1][2], formed in Ottowa during the Canada convoy protests to protest COVID-19 restrictions and mandates[3][4]. It consists of over one hundred “ex-military members"[5] does this make it clear that this fringe group doesnt appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. my second question is does /info/en/?search=Draft:Diagalon warrant a standalone article? This group while obviously fringe has a wide array of media coverage and is its own concept completley seperate from the canadian trucker protests (while it is mentioned briefly in the candian protest articles) i belive it deserves its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingsomyipisntvisable ( talk • contribs) 12:08, July 26, 2022 (UTC)
Got new accounts and IPs taking issue with Wikipedia relaying the COVID-19 activities of Fenton. Could use more eyes (maybe from an admin?) Alexbrn ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Tom Whipple's article now Fenton's name is removed and it has an emendation at the bottom saying Tom removed it.? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer: each contribution in this booklet reflects the author’s viewpoint alone, and not the position of the entire groupScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Alexbrn ( talk) 05:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Among the 41 academics named in its foreword, several of whom subsequently promoted it on social media, are Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology at Nottingham University, and the group’s spokeswoman, Marilyn James, professor of health economics at the University of Nottingham, and Norman Fenton, professor of risk information management, Queen Mary University of London.
<redacted>
Well Fenton's hit-piece has now landed. [60] At least one of the follow-up tweets about "defamatous" material [61] bears interestingly on who Holomatrix might have [62] been. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadio??!!!? What the hell!? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
They are working together. JBW and ScottishFinnishRadish have the same IP address, same timestamp and are listed on other pages Alexbrn has edited. ScottishFinnishRadish makes the threats against users who make changes he/she and Alexbrn do not like, and JBW swoops in to block the person.Alexbrn and myself are known for being thick as thieves, and generally agreeing 100% on content issues. Also, I am JBW's deep cover sock. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Just a note, while it seems correct that Fenton's name was not removed or the part on him clarified, there have been some changes to the Times article post publication which don't seem to have been clearly indicated. If we compare this version: [66] from the day of publication with this version from 2 days ago [67] we can see changes.
In particular a paragraph was added (after the part about Brady saying it was “grim but important reading”.
') which gives a response from Brady
Also the section on the document was changed from beginning with 'Brady told The Times that his comments, which appeared in a press release issued by the group that produced the report, referred to other parts of the report, and he had always been a vocal supporter of vaccinations.
The 50-page document argues that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' to instead say '
Among arguments about the harms caused by lockdown the 50-page document also states that the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine coincided' making it clearer it's only one thing the document was about. (Note that this paragraph always mentioned it was written by Joel Smalley.) It also adds a comment from Smalley '
He suggested the Pfizer vaccine had not been tested sufficiently on older people.'
It looks like links have been added for Sumption and Toby Young although I'm not sure if that is just some randomness about when links are shown. Finally a response from Hart was added to the end
I guess the newer version is perhaps better for Fenton since while it doesn't specifically say this unlike the disclaimer which was added to the PDF, it does make it clearer the document is about multiple things, so it's possible someone in the foreword or promoting it on social media isn't endorsing everything in it such as the contentious vaccine part.A spokesperson for Hart said, “In Hart’s recently published overview of Covid-19 evidence, we noted that the January peak in Covid cases and deaths correlated both in time and geographically with the mass roll-out of the novel vaccines. However, Hart is mindful that correlation does not always equal causation and we are not asserting that vaccines are the cause.”
Also, I don't know if there was some earlier version although that archive isn't that long after publication, and I also don't know if there was some intermediate version that did say something different about Fenton which was removed.
IP inserting fringe, reverted at least twice. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)