This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Flight 105 UFO sighting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this really a "Good" article? It doesn't say much of anything.... but I guess that is par for the course with UFO sightings of this nature. jps ( talk) 23:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
If a reader wants to know how UFO hysteria spread and developed, Flight 105 is an important datapoint in the story.Have any third party sources expressed this, or wrote of Flight 105 as culturally significant? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially. Two sentences devoted to describing it as part of the saucer craze. Where is the justification for an article to stand on its own? jps ( talk) 09:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially.Come on now, J. That's not a fair characterization, ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible. Louie asked if any third party RSes mention 105 -- they do. It's not our idea to list Flight 105 after Kenneth Arnold in 1947 flying disc craze. Feoffer ( talk) 13:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible.Please try to dial down the gaslighting if possible. But back to the topic...Being just one of a great many UFO sightings during that period for which the supporting evidence is solely "We saw somethin'!", the significance of the event seems suspect. I am also not seeing any sources that identify this particular event as an "important datapoint" for understanding the spread and development of
I compare it to doing something like taking each creationist claim and writing an article about it.GOOD communicating, jps. I understand your concern now.... If we keep Flight 105 as a standalone, I'll need to add more context about mass hysteria and such. Now that I understand your concern, I do think there's lots to be said for moving 105 into the parent article. But that won't work for all the sub-articles -- some of them have to be split off or the parent article will become unreadable. Flight 105 is literally inseparable from the craze, and it would be the best candidate for merging back into parent article.
One thing I worry about is that we don't really have a clear standard for the notability of UFO sightings. Over the course of years LuckyLouie and I have been going through sightings articles to see which ones we had decent sources for and which ones we did not. Often the conclusions were pretty deflating. Most UFO sightings are attested to in simply awful sources that mix credulity with all sorts of weird armchair commentary and irrelevant discourse to the extent that it can become untenable to do much more than just say that it is a story that is included in the MUFON database. I once had a student in a data science class who thought that it would be interesting to see what could be done with that database, only to throw his hands up in despair when he realized that the data was so poorly organized, accounted for, and cleaned that he had an easier time handling the used car market in the US than the UFO sightings database. It's just not a very well accounted-for set of events. jps ( talk) 11:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
the data was so poorly organized, accounted for, and cleaned that he had an easier time handling the used car market in the US than the UFO sightings database:hahaha! Some people have to learn the hard way. Can't any idiot submit a report? That's like asking someone to plot someone's daydreams as if they real objects -- the result is gonna be art, not data.
we don't really have a clear standard for the notability of UFO sightings
21st-century discussionYeah, but being talked about by whom? UFO enthusiasts will discuss all sorts of claims that range from the truly notable to the truly obscure and sometimes bring them up in their grey literature again and again and again. One approach might be to look at which sightings have been subject to ongoing WP:FRIND coverage, but even that gets a bit confused as there is a spectrum of credulity within the UFOlogy community. Some debunking happens in-house, as it were. Often it is due to petty rivalries and the like: to-bolster-my-claim-I-deflate-yours style. jps ( talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
by whomMy view is that even 21st century fiction can make it more important for us to cover topics. When I heard about the fictional work Moonfall (film), it became a little more important that we have a good article on the Hollow Moon theory, so that new readers could easily learn how science proved the moon is not hollow. But of course, I'm talking about how I personally prioritize which articles to work on, not making a new standard for others to follow. Feoffer ( talk) 01:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Talk page, section "Why Thiomersal was removed in the U.S.". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Newly created article is a good example of a topic for which notability is claimed using WP:SENSATIONAL coverage by multiple sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
American Family Association is listed as an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people. AFA is currently used in the article about the 2022 film Lightyear.
Here is the following material:
The American Family Association called for Christians to boycott the movie over the same-sex kiss scene. [1]
References
Should this fringe source, whose argument is based on fringe theories about religion and homosexuality, be used in the article? If not, should I remove the statement? Viriditas ( talk) 00:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"Just because an organisation is fringe doesn't necessarily mean that it's announcements shouldn't be covered if RS deem it significant.". What is significant about a fringe hate group making an announcement about a film they dislike because it shows two gay people kissing, an announcement based solely on their fringe theories? I don’t think they should be used as a source anywhere on Wikipedia. I agree to disagree with your position. Viriditas ( talk) 00:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
[Moved from WP:Villagepump (technical):]
Various claims relating to effects at the Planck scale have been included in WP over the last years, often vociferously defended, but never reliably sourced. This mythology seems to have permeated to where it is mentioned in print outside WP, and that WP editors seem to accept it as a given. An example that I came across recently where apparently reasonable editors simply fail to understand this effect because it is:
In neither case could the restored source be checked: the link is dead and neither the ISBN nor the author/title combination appears to exist. The statement "it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length" is given undue prominence, given that it can be, at best, described as pseudoscientific speculation (that may even have gained visibility through WP). How should we deal with this kind of self-perpetuating topic that draws its strength from WP folklore? — Quondum 11:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible, perhaps alonside the publisher's list of contents for Basic Electronics Egineering. NebY ( talk) 10:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Edits from today added "Demonology as a career path", with examples such as Ed and Lorraine Warren. I would delete it myself, with a comment such as " Wizards of the Coast may be another place to start a career path as a demonologist", but maybe it belongs there... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Can someone with experience dealing with racial pseudoscience review the recent edits at Uyghurs and History of the Uyghur people? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Socionics. Crossroads -talk- 17:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone is inserting crappy sources and removing good ones, see [4]. To sum up, their church does not like that God was originally a Pagan deity, so they deny that Yahweh is worthy of worship, they deny that God=Yahweh. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Pieruto33: What the heck is wendag.com? It does not remotely look like a WP:RS. And you have replaced Amsterdam University Press with MDPI, which made it to Beall's List. At the same time you have removed fas.harvard.edu and the book of a winner of the Dan David Prize. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I have to qualify my previous statement about their church
: on one hand, they claim that the Bible is a work of fiction, on the other hand, they speak of demonic entities. So, this leaves me puzzled about their own religion.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 22:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Digit ratio Seems to be a chaotic mess of cherry picked primary sources some of which don't even agree with whats being said in the article. The few non primary ones also decidedly call it pseudoscience. I'm not familiar enough with medical literature or WP:medrs to know where to even begin with this. Any help or eyes on this would be good.— blindlynx 14:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't aware Scientific American has been criticized for "claiming that spiritual treatment of mental illness is more successful than conventional medicine, [1] publishing misinformation about evolution denialism [2] [3]". A SPA added the material and is edit-warring over it (and much more), but I expect some mention may be DUE. It could use work from someone more familiar that myself with proper referencing and presentation of such FRINGE issues. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References
There is a section on this article that cites a lot of primary sources, "Advocacy of exclusively meat diet". The section had previously been deleted by RandomCanadian [5] who had raised concerns about it here last year. I don't thing the entire section should be removed but there clearly is some pro-fringe material there. I plan on working on it, but any help would be appreciated. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Tessy María López Goerne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article has been the subject of recent edit warring. Looks to be some PROFRINGE issues regarding the subject's promotion of "nanogel" as a treatment for COVID among other ailments. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
[Shadow government (conspiracy theory)] - why all the quotes? Looks like this needs some work. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thegotics is an interesting one. It's been sitting in the NPP queue for a while. The article states that it is the field of study concerned with the morphological, functional, evolutionary and behavioural elements of thegosis and the treatment of its related physical, emotional, and social disorders.
"Thegosis" refers to the sharpening of teeth through tooth-grinding, and the sources discuss this phenomenon. However, the idea of "thegotics" as a field of study and a medical treatment seems to go beyond what the sources claim. The concept of thegotics seems to mostly be promoted by two researchers, R.G. Every and K.B. Scally - the article is quite closely paraphrased from the latter's
website. The claim that There has been general acceptance of the phenomenon in some scientific disciplines but in the medical science disciplines, there has been strong criticism
(sourced to an editorial by K.B. Scally) is a bit of a red flag. I think this could use more eyes from this noticeboard. Thanks,
Spicy (
talk) 00:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It's maybe a question similar to the one in the Sheldrake case. Some recent editing in the lede around the question of whether Wikipedia should be describing Weinstein as an "evolutionary biologist". More eyes welcome. Bon courage ( talk) 04:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
According to this diff from user:Aliveness Cascade, a seven year veteran editor, yesterday. They made the same claims on the same Talk page in January, but that slipped past me at the time. After I stopped laughing, I remembered that a number of fellow FTN frequentors actually know Eddy, and I wondered what his reaction is? Thanks, - Roxy the dog 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I created this recently (it's just notable I think) as one of the many pseudo-bodies in the UK lobbying with health misinformation, particularly wrt COVID/vaccines. It's started attracting more attention and could definitely uses some eye from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage ( talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Article on a book by conservative commentator
Jonah Goldberg. The lead accurately notes that this book presents a view that contradicts the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology.
However the
Reception section is carefully weighted to provide the reader with a
WP:FALSEBALANCE on the matter. It's also a
WP:QUOTEFARM, but that's a lesser concern. I'll be doing a clean-up when I am able to find the time, but if others are inclined, help would be greatly appreciated.
Generalrelative (
talk) 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw concerns about the editing of this article on WP:BLPN, and thought I would cross post it here as it may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 20:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that the article of conspiracy theorist Anthony Summers and the pages that mention him should be given a closer look. His article is a listing of his books in WP:PROMO tone, and many articles reference his theories (and his JFK conspiracy theories in particular) with varying levels of authority. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I am having a dispute on consensus on reverting the edit these edits in Ghouta chemical attack as I am being told the Syrian government and U.N investigation are fringe and shouldn’t be in the infobox, I don’t think the U.N or Syria accusations are fringe figures in the war as the U.N investigation is what government accusations of both sides are based on and the Syrian government is one of two being accused which makes it a key figure in the attack, the accusation and investigation have been reported on by mainstream media below https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/8/28/syria-denies-chemical-weapons-claim
and the u.n investigation, which can be found here https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/syria-civil-war
I don’t think the accusation of Syrian government opposition using chemical weapons is fringe as mainstream media has mentioned accusations of notable Syrian opposition using chemical weapons multiple times by Al Nusra Front, ISIS and the FSA which can be found below https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/5/6/syria-rebels-reject-un-chemical-weapons-claim https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/syria-says-it-did-not-and-will-not-use-chemical-weapons/
I think the controversial nature of the Wikipedia page is leading to a bias in consensus on the balance/neutrality of the page and that the Syrian government accusations and U.N investigation links should be relisted in the infobox due to their notability in the attack Bobisland ( talk) 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Both the U.N and Syrian government accusations and investigations are references to support claims being made and yes they are also not wanting to include the U.N investigation and only including one claim in something that’s disputed rather than both and the U.N investigation which is based on evidence Bobisland ( talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Since they aren’t directly mentioning re-adding the U.N investigation it doesn’t mean they aren’t against it as they’ve repeatedly disputed my claim that the U.N investigation isn’t fringe by calling the edit a improvement that shouldn’t be reverted when I mention it (or they ignore it) and I never said the Syrian government claim was in the lead only the accusation against the Syrian government which was placed in the same edit that removed all accusations into a note in which later edits removed the disputes altogether and editorialized the 3rd party accusations as a fact
“If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead.”
I already disputed that the Syrian government accusations being stated as fact in the lead and all the other accusations links including the U.N investigation being removed, regardless the dispute of perpetrators doesn’t have to be in the lead to be in the perpetrators infobox Bobisland ( talk) 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Stumbled across this article while reading Worlds in Collision, in which the author is quoted criticising the book. However, the section Mike_Baillie#Comet_theories seems to affirmitively support Baillie's comet catastrophism claims in wikivoice. I am aware this is a BLP, but the section should be heavily modified/cut down. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
New user edit-warring WP:PROFRINGE text into articles. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
[ https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2022/11/james-powells-response-to-mark-boslough.html?m=1] defending Allen West. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE POV being advocated at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Book of Daniel. Please reply there.
DRN has been closed at premature. I was speaking of edits like [10] and [11]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The second-century date for the visions of Danial (caps. 7-12) is accepted as beyond reasonable doubt by critical scholarship. The dating of the tales in chaps. 1-6 is less evident and is keenly debated.[1]
Modern scholarship now judges that the book had a long process of development. Although oral traditions concerning Daniel may indeed go back to the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (mid-6th century BCE), the story collection appears to have taken shape during the Persian period and to have reached its final form in the early Hellenistic era (3rd century BCE). The apocalypses, however, can be closely dated to the time of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168–164 BCE).[2]
That division is obscured by the articles opening "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse..." and buried later in Book_of_Daniel#Development. fiveby( zero) 04:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
Lot of fringe- and fringe-adjacent edits emanating from mostly infrequent editors. More eyeballs may be helpful. Neutrality talk 21:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Persistent IP edit-wars fringe stuff in. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Can there be “scientific consensus” among near-death researchers? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@ AvantiShri:. Welcome to Wikipedia! We have been working on these kinds of topics for a long time. jps ( talk) 16:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The Galileo Project ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just alerted to this one where it’s basically a “we’re looking for UFOs project” that seems to be focused on sourcing from the research group itself. Didn’t have time to really delve into it since I’m just heading out, but it definitely set off some red flags for me at a glance. Hopefully someone more familiar with this area can take a look. KoA ( talk) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Are stigmata "real"? Is it fringe to describe them as such? See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The followers of Pio claim not only the authenticity of his stigmata, but also the authenticity of levitation (!), miracles, healings, prophecies etc.. This is all nonsense, of course, and is based on the "reports" of affect-laden followers. The user SanctumRosarium (nomen est omen!) now wants to press a Catholic summary into the introduction of the article. This is certainly not possible, because all the criticized things never happened, of course. In addition, extremely long quotations from followers are put into the article, which do not contain any encyclopedically meaningful information. They should be massively shortened, and in some cases deleted. A WP-article can present faith content, but it certainly cannot pretend that the view of believers and often fanatical followers is equivalent to an ideologically neutral orientation.
Catholic POV is what both users Rafaelosornio and SanctumRosarium in particular are trying to set. Both are believers in an ultra-conservative form of Catholicism. Their contributions are not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia. I ask for support to let the article remain reasonable. Mr. bobby ( talk) 17:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Aseem Malhotra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last paragraph of the lede:
His views on diet and health have been criticized by the British Heart Foundation as "misleading and wrong", and his public questioning of the need ever to use statins has been condemned as a danger to public health.[10] His "Pioppi diet" was named by the British Dietetic Association as one of the "top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018".[4] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan,[11] which claims that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus; such claims are not backed by medical research evidence.[1] He has also campaigned against the use of COVID mRNA vaccines.[12]
Dispute over how much background info to present on (mostly nutritional) health, for which he has notable fringe viewpoints. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Some editors may recall discussions of Sweatman and Göbekli Tepe, eg Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 4 Pinging a few: @ Aluxosm, GenQuest, Schazjmd, and Joe Roe:. The attacked editors are me and User:Hoopes. The blog, evidently the first of several, is here. [14]. Among other things it says that someone, probably me, deleted an article he created about Coherent Catastrophism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). SPI about the creator of the article, MystifiedCitizen, is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Interested editors should check out Comet Research Group. I just removed material sourced to the dubious journal "Science Progress". jps ( talk) 12:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Re: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: That WP:PROSELINEy mess that is the "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis " section needs a total rewrite. It also screams "cherry picking! cherry picking!". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that pocket journals exist. The question really is one of trying to decide how much of the idea has been discussed by truly independent sources. What I suggest is contacting relevant experts in paleoclimatology and asking them what they think. After they stop yelling, try to gather some indication of where the best debunking may be. Some of it is already present in the article, no doubt. jps ( talk) 01:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia is a community project, it is fine for someone to do all the work themselves. One technique if you are nervous is to WP:SANDBOX your ideas. Don't worry about formatting, style, community building, etc. The oldtimers can shepherd that through. We are happy just to have the data dump, as it were. jps ( talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need sentences like this?
Proponents of the hypothesis have responded to defend their findings, disputing the accusation of irreproducibility or replicating their findings, [1] [2] [3] [4] and have published further research. [5] [6] Critics of the hypothesis have addressed the claims, [7] [8] [9] and have published counterarguments. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
This essentially says nothing of substance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Now that you've provided that information, I recall reading about it before, but this connection has been pretty thoroughly buried in the search results. Allen Whitt, probably, does not deserve as standalone article, I'm guessing. jps ( talk) 16:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Is Powell's opinion really due here? What does this sentence add to the article? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)In January 2022, James L. Powell compared the hesitancy in accepting the hypothesis to other initially controversial ideas such as continental drift, lunar impact cratering, and anthropogenic global warming [15] and suggested that a kind of groupthink had set in amongst critics. [16]
References
Starts November 11. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Never heard of him before, found his name in a stupid book by Wikipedia-article-less David Ash and Peter Hewitt, who mention his "L-field" and put him in a line with Hans Driesch, Semyon Kirlian and Rupert Sheldrake. The article about him could possibly use improving. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a form of alternative medicine. A few months ago the article was massively expanded by SPA, who also significantly expanded the article about the its creator Marion Rosen. Needs cleanup to comply with WP:MEDRS. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The brand new article vabbing could use some attention. First two sentences: "Vabbing is a term coined to describe the process of rubbing vaginal juice as a perfume. It has been described as being a very effective way to attract individuals of the opposite gender." Surely pseudoscience, right? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Professor Elgar says there's no research that vabbing works. "I think the whole idea of vabbing is hilarious, and I hope no one takes it too seriously."[15] Text sourced to that citation:
There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne.Lol. Endwise ( talk) 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne., and then goes on to mention some junk studies. Seems pseudoscientific to me. I can't say the same for the "lipstick on jeans" example though. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely pseudoscience to claim that humans have pheromone receptors. But the easy solution is to just excise that poorly attributed idea entirely. The sources used are fine. We just need to focus on the facts rather than the wild speculations of the true believers. jps ( talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
His COVID politics is described as "vindicated", higher death rates in Florida are deleted for no reason, and the criticism of it is described as "initially". Is that how it should be? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
"The pseudoscience of intelligent design" - that is in several ledes of ID cranks. The usual dance is "IP deletes the word pseudoscience, regular reverts that - repeat until FALSE". Now, User:Emir of Wikipedia has deleted it and, for the first time, someone gave a valid reason. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
electronic cigarette ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
See this talk page section
An editor at this page (joined by a brand new SPA) is attempting to remove the text "nicotine is highly addictive
" based on research reports from Public Health England
[17] and the National Academies
[18] which say, in effect "more research is needed to understand if the delivery system affects how addictive a nicotine product is". These sources also say that it could be more addictive based on the added flavorings and delivery mechanisms, or less addictive if limited in delivery and without other tobacco ingredients etc. These same sources say that trading smoking for e-cigarette use is preferable given the much lower health risks of e-cigarettes. Which is pretty undisputed at this point, but does not mean that it helps them quit vaping as well, so much as trading one for the other:
[19]
[20]
[21]
And then we have reports, clinical practice guidelines, and systematic reviews from the NIH/ Surgeon General/CDC/ American Academy of Pediatrics/ Cochrane/ US PSTF/ American Thoracic Society which say that nicotine in e-cigs is still highly addictive. And we have systematic reviews from other very trustworthy publications which say that it may not actually help people quit smoking (let alone quit nicotine), if done outside of a medical therapeutic relationship or otherwise supervised "quit" program: [22] [23] [24]
Would be great to get some other eyes on this. Thanks all — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
We seem agreed that it is incorrect to characterise telegony in general as pseudoscience. Discussions as to whether specific recent research merits discussion in the article appear to be outside the remit of this noticeboard, and should be discussed on the article talk page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is about [25]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Before the discussion, we need to define the terminology first. Scientific terminology must be defined in the way scientists use in scientific literatures. Telegony is not a theory. The term is used to call an observed phenomenon by scientists. The definition of telegony written in the latest scientific research papers.
Please reply if you have any objections. -- Trusci ( talk) 11:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that Tgeorgescu is the only remaining opponent to my contributions, having tried to have a constructive talk based on evidences. But he is uncooperative, not answering the questions that I think are necessary. So I, as a newbie here, am not sure what an appropriate action is in this situation. I would really appreciate it if you suggest effective things or express objections to the content of the contributions, if exist, with reasons explicitly. -- Trusci ( talk) 09:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
|
A new RfC which should be of interest to WP:FRINGE-savvy editors. Bon courage ( talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
As Doug predicted, we're seeing some disruptive edits to articles on topics related to or mentioned in Graham Hancock's new Netflix documentary. Additional eyes on these articles would be appreciated:
Please feel free to add things to the list. And here's some early critical reviews of the series, for those interested: Jason Colavito, Carl Feagans, Flint Dibble. – Joe ( talk) 08:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
the Wikipedia article on Graham Hancock is not WP:RSIt is new to me that any WP article could be a RS. And the term pseudoarcheology is sourced in that article. But admittedly, the proper source was not placed where it should be. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
How is the pseudoscience provenance of Hancock's claims at all controversial? jps ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a new editor adding unsourced text to the Bimini road article. Paul H. ( talk) 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Specifically should the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis be described as fringe in the lead? Doug Weller talk 16:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I think one important point is that few sources describe the Sphinx as older than Egyptian civilization. I think this absence of sources is really the reason why this theory is fringe and should be called as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
No mention of his fringe views, and should we call him an expert in the lead? Seems related to the Graham Hancock issue. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think any of the awards should be there. Awards should generally have their own article.
I don't think that the academic merits of Danny Hilman are much of relevance here. Many reknowned experts occasionally have their unlucky moments of dubious fame, especially when it comes to bold statements that have not been proposed in scholarly publications, but rather in non-academic contexts such as interviews etc. The dating hype was an ephemeral storm in a teapot, and the article was expanded in 2012/2013 around this hype, with the usual poor sources inapt for a topic like this. I'm against making too much of this by construing a "Pseudoarcheaology" or "Fringe" section; this is why I've initially dumped this under the heading "Media coverage". Megalithic sites in Indonesia are cool enough without weird stories of lost continents etc.
Btw, Doug and I would be happy to see an English version of the article about Harry Truman Simanjuntak :) It is rather telling that Indonesia's top archaeologist remained quite in the background during this hype. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Person says stupid thing about climate science, person repeats same stupid thing years later, editor wants to document stupid thing twice. Yeah, let's hammer it in that climate has always been changing and that climate has always been changing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis over how to present the recent "extensive literature review" [28] by James L. Powell a longtime advocate of the hypothesis, which unsuprisingly, concludes that the YDIH was "prematurely rejected". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the talkpage, I brought up a pretty good deep dive into the question as to whether this program even existed. Now tagged as factually disputed. jps ( talk) 01:09, 20 November 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.
See WP:BLPN#Graham Hancock. The crew is being naughty by removing "best known for his pseudoscientific theories" from the lead. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Is here [29] Doug Weller talk 15:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Obviously no good as a source, but loads of reliable sources. [30]. But it looks as though it might have been inactive this year. (Also I may have mentioned this before, if so, apologies.) Doug Weller talk 17:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Fertility and intelligence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user with 5 edits, 3 of them edit warring over this article, insists on reverting my removal of material I believe to be WP:PROFRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:SYNTH. I've begun a discussion here: Talk:Fertility and intelligence#WP:PROFRINGE / WP:OR. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Ooo, mind control by electromagnetic radiation. I think some people believed that sort of thing in the 1970s. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've had this biography of an allegedly levitating Saint on my watchlist for some time, after removing Wikipedia-voice claims to the effect that he actually flew, and note that despite my efforts it is still in need of much work. Is there anyone here that could take a look, and maybe do something about the way it describes those who find said Saint's aeronautic adventures less than plausible as being 'skeptics'? I'm rather engaged in dealing with other articles at the moment, and maybe fresh eyes on it would be better anyway. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet Research Group
Please comment. I was somewhat surprised to come to this conclusion, but there really is not much of anything written about the group per se. It's all about individual members, teams, and associated beliefs, as far as I can tell. jps ( talk) 09:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
See Flying car#List of flying cars, and Talk:Flying car/Archive 1#Whitehead.
In brief, the Flying cars article includes in its list of such vehicles, Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine, claimed by his supporters to have successfully flown that year, two years prior to the Wright brothers first flights. Though the description given in our list is somewhat equivocal ("Believed not to have flown, although this has been challenged") any inclusion in the list at all appears to me to be undue per WP:FALSEBALANCE etc, given the lack of credibility given to the claims by academic historians of aviation. Am I right in my assessment? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 09:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems to me that the list contains a lot more than just literal "flying cars". Some of the things included are just plans. jps ( talk) 12:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
American immigrant Gustave Whitehead believed that a practical aeroplane would have to be roadable, so that it could be taken from its storage shed to a suitable takeoff point. In 1901 he equipped his No. 21 aeroplane with a road engine. Although mainstream consensus is that it never flew (the claim remains controversial), the machine was reported to have driven satisfactorily.which seems to be accurate and acceptable. Whiteheads' #21 was built as a flying car, although perhaps not a successful one, so it should be included. If this article excluded unsuccessful flying cars, ones that were only prototypes or very short production runs that never made full production, then we could just delete the whole article, as there has not been one produced in any significant numbers to date. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
(the claim remains controversial). - Ahunt ( talk) 13:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
An aircraft can still be an aircraft if it hasn't flown, or is incapable of flight...? Really? So Wikipedia should describe things that can't fly as 'flying cars'? I'd like to see a policy-based justification for that... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Putting aside whether it flew or not, do any sources refer to Whitehead's invention as a "flying car"? The flying car article describes a flying car as "a vehicle which can function both as a personal car or automobile and as an aircraft" - was there any indication that Whitehead's invention functioned as "a personal car or automobile" or was it just an "aircraft" with a novel way of taxiing? - M.nelson ( talk) 15:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Closing this before it goes any further
WP:OFFTOPIC for this noticeboard. This is not an indictment of any particular user, but simply an attempt to help decrease tensions. Stop sniping at each other. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
A wider issue has emerged from this discussion. Many articles on aircraft discuss and/or list both types which have flown and types which have not and/or never left the drawing board. An illustrative selection include; List of de Havilland aircraft, Variable-sweep wing, the overarching multi-page List of aircraft and of course Flying car; there are dozens, if not hundreds more. This follows the standard practice of the thousands of reference works which these articles draw on as reliable sources. (There are exceptions, of course. For example there are works dedicated to unbuilt projects under one theme or another, and no doubt some of those will have sufficient coverage here to merit their own articles. But these are the relatively rare exceptions that prove the rule.) However some editors here, who are not familiar with mainstream aviation literature, feel that this is confusing. Should all these articles and lists be:
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
|
Give the obvious issues with the
Gustave Whitehead biography - the same boosterism of Whiteheads discredited claims to flight - I started a thread on the talk page. With much the same results as noted elsewhere. Including this gem of an argument: Whitehead's supporters may not have provided sufficient evidence that it flew, but it's also true that no one has been able to definitively prove that it did not fly. Sure, some have speculated that the aircraft could not have achieved flight due to various reasons, but even those are based on photos or drawings which may or may not have accurately depicted the aircraft in its final configuration for the alleged 1901 flight. Your failure or refusal to recognize these factors leads me to believe that you are unable to contribute neutrally to this topic.
[35] 'Neutrality' on this topic thus appears to revolve around vacuous unsourced speculation about things Whitehead might possibly have done with his machines to make them fly being given equal weight with the opinions of those qualified to actually discuss the matter. This is fringe POV-pushing of the most blatant kind, and needs serious attention from anyone not wishing Wikipedia to be a platform for pseudohistorical fan-fiction.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 19:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
But I also recognize that the 1948 Wright-Smithsonian contract renders the Smithsonian a non-independent source.The idea that a 1948 contract, made before most people involved were even born, in any way invalidates the peer-reviewed opinions of the curator of the exhibit (a respected academic historian who publishes on many things) is ludicrous. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Is this: Tom Crouch, senior curator of aeronautics for the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) of the Smithsonian Institution, studied evidence for the alleged flight and in 2016 he issued a strong rebuttal, noting many other authorities who had already done so.
the article content in question? I've looked through
Gustave Whitehead,
Whitehead No. 21, and
Claims to the first powered flight without seeing a usage where we would actually need to worry about a COI. The above quote is in a paragraph discussing Jane's, is clearly attributed and a well-known rebuttal, so what's the problem? Until there some content in wiki-voice to be included but can't be cited to the
RAeS statement or Scientific American it's a nonissue. But
ZLEA if that comes up, the 2016 article is not a Smithsonian publication and the journal editors were well aware of the contract.
There is an unrelated issue with "The Flight Claims of Gustave Whitehead": there are more than one version 2013-2016 and one unpublished by Gibbs-Smith. It looks like more of a running, updated rebuttal to Whitehead claims so issued in 2016 isn't really correct. Also not sure about the 38 historians and journalists "Statement Regarding The Gustave Whitehead Claims of Flight" because i cannot find where it has been published and can't find a copy. fiveby( zero) 04:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
We the undersigned are convinced that the evidence now available fails to support the claim that Gustave Whitehead made sustained, powered, controlled flights prior to the Wright brothers. The arguments in favor of such flights are based on a single flawed news article combined with questionable witness testimony gathered more than thirty years after the fact. Whitehead's claims were rejected by local newspapers and by individuals in the best position to judge, including virtually all of those who funded his experiments. Whitehead left no letters, diaries, notebooks, calculations, or drawings recording his experiments, his thoughts, or the details of his craft.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
To pseudoscience or not to pseudoscience, that is here the question. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I recently tried to fix this article but I was reverted by a single purpose account a few times giving edit summaries that content is biased. I am sure there will be more white-washing on the article. I suspect there is conflict of interest with the account, because the account and IP that have done reverts have only edited material related to Stephen Budiansky going back years.
In a nutshell Stephen Budiansky is a biographer and writer who has written quite a few books about animal cognition, nothing fringe about that but some of his ideas in these books are fringe. Budiansky is one of the few writers in the world on this topic who denies animals have consciousness. Most academics and scholars in the field of animal behaviour accept animal do have consciousness (I know there is a big debate still about how much) but Budiansky is one of the very few who denies it outright. He also speculates in his books that animals feel no pain, he is pretty much alone in that camp. He has also written a bunch of books criticizing conservationism, ecology and the environment. He seems to confuse the animal rights movement with conservationism which is a bad error because they are at odds with each other. He also confuses artificial selection with natural selection. His arguments in his books have been criticized by Jerry Coyne, Niles Eldredge and several other evolutionary biologists for containing inaccuracies. The consensus from academics in the journals is that Budiansky has been making a lot of mistakes in his books. I don't think we should suppress reviews if they happen to offer critical content. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Noticeboard readers may be interested in this ongoing RFC Talk:Male_expendability#Request_for_comment:_State_ideas_about_biology_in_Wikipedia's_voice?. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
A user added a fringe-sounding content about an incident being caused by a specific type of strangelet called a magnetized quark nugget. The source used is a paper in Scientific Reports, but is it credible? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
"Terrestrial craters caused by non-meteorite impacts offer larger areas and longer observation times.", then lists Tamil Nadu as 1 of 3 non-meteorite impacts mentioned in the news. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Here. [39] Starts with "This series publicly disparages archaeologists and devalues the archaeological profession on the basis of false claims and disinformation. I write to encourage you to correctly classify the genre of the show, to provide disclaimers about the unfounded suppositions in the show, and ideally to balance the deleterious content in the show with scientifically accurate information about our human past." It notes that "the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists". There's also "Netflix and ITN Productions are actively assaulting our expert knowledge, fostering distrust of our scientific community, diminishing the credibility of our members in the public eye, and undermining our extensive and ongoing efforts at outreach and public education." Well worth reading. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Much of the article Ivan Katchanovski is a discussion of the theory that the Euromaidan Massacre in Ukraine was a false flag operation by allies of the protesters. See the section Ivan Katchanovski#The "Snipers' Massacre" and the talk page discussion Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski#Snipers'_Massacre. Readers of this noticeboard are invited to contribute. Adoring nanny ( talk) 16:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Much of this article is taken up with a theory that the 2014 Massacre of Euromaidan protesters in Kyiv was a false flag operation by protesters and their supporters. See Ivan_Katchanovski#The_"Snipers'_Massacre" and Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski#Snipers'_Massacre. Readers of this board are invited to participate. Adoring nanny ( talk) 16:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
There is now evidence for its effectiveness, according to the lede. Are the sources good enough? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The classic media claims that hypnotherapy would help with smoking cessation was popular decades ago, but I don't think this is the go-to any longer (we should to look for some more recent metareviews for that). There are far stronger aids for such according to even the sources in the article. The menopause claims are a bit concerning to me as they are sourced to precisely one researcher/practitioner, Gary Elkins: [41]. This strikes me as some really borderline stuff. jps ( talk) 16:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Criminal stereotype of African Americans ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Brand new account seeks to include the exciting discovery of a gene *proving* that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to violence. Under discussion at Talk:Criminal stereotype of African Americans#MAOA gene, where this user is accusing me of censorship for pointing out that they've misread the study. As usual with this sort of thing, more eyes would be helpful. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 22:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Göbekli Tepe#Removal of claimed "pseudoscience" from further reading about whether to include a) a sceptical blog post and/or b) five sources on what I would call fringe views in the further reading section. Third opinions are welcome. – Joe ( talk) 08:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It's published in a peer-reviewed journalComplete junk is published in peer-reviewed journals all the time. We are not obligated to include any paper simply because it's peer reviewed. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
it doesn't actually say anything of substance about Göbekli Tepe
It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat.I'd highly advise simply using less charged language, as you did with 'outing' above. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Although the OP didn't list them, there are several other sources in question here. Excluding the Sweatman articles already discussed, they are:
Anyone have any reasons to exclude any of these? Skyerise ( talk) 15:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Noticed some edits from a class project starting to arrive on articles on various spices, fruits and so on. These will probably need review. The course page is Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Siena College/Traditional Chinese Medicine (Fall 2022). - MrOllie ( talk) 00:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Siena College/Traditional Chinese Medicine (Fall 2022). jps ( talk) 01:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This may be a stretch to list here. Suggestions on better venues are appreciated.
Shadow banning is a main topic of Twitter_Files#Part_two_(by_Bari_Weiss). Shadow banning has been partial protected, but I expect we'll need more eyes, especially until everyone is distracted by Twitter files part three. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Almost all of the sources seem rubbish. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Lots of unreliable sources, the article reads as promotion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Javier Sierra and Jonathan Black. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Under attack by IP who misrepresented at least one source (see edit summary of one of my reverts). Could use more watchers, maybe. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I have never used this noticeboard before, but I hope, I am in the right place. This theory is about nutrition and body weight.
I have looked into the following reference books to find information about the set point theory and they don't even mention it:
The article should make clear that this is not an established concept, but I am having trouble to find references to do so. The theory seems to be from the 1990 and early 2000s. It never made it's way into the body of evidence of nutritional science. Can someone help to put the article in better context? CarlFromVienna ( talk) 07:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
A new article, Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death, was created in August that seems a watered down version of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. I haven't had a chance to go over it in detail, but thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 14:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is being discussed at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contrary_reports_about_Adolf_Hitler's_death— blindlynx 19:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Please expect more-than-average disruption. Thanks to Elon Musk. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
A couple of articles to give some perspective. I expect lots more disruption.
I've notices that articles related to the Sovereign citizen movement, pseudolaw, tax scam etc.. ecosystem are peppered with sentences not been clearly describing stuff as nonsense or otherwise written in an universe tone, particularly in the history sections. Doesn't seem to serious just something that's worth having a few more eyes on— blindlynx 21:08, 13 December 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. |
Flight 105 UFO sighting ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this really a "Good" article? It doesn't say much of anything.... but I guess that is par for the course with UFO sightings of this nature. jps ( talk) 23:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
If a reader wants to know how UFO hysteria spread and developed, Flight 105 is an important datapoint in the story.Have any third party sources expressed this, or wrote of Flight 105 as culturally significant? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially. Two sentences devoted to describing it as part of the saucer craze. Where is the justification for an article to stand on its own? jps ( talk) 09:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It's included as an item in a list in that article, essentially.Come on now, J. That's not a fair characterization, ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible. Louie asked if any third party RSes mention 105 -- they do. It's not our idea to list Flight 105 after Kenneth Arnold in 1947 flying disc craze. Feoffer ( talk) 13:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
ppllease try to dial down the battleground if possible.Please try to dial down the gaslighting if possible. But back to the topic...Being just one of a great many UFO sightings during that period for which the supporting evidence is solely "We saw somethin'!", the significance of the event seems suspect. I am also not seeing any sources that identify this particular event as an "important datapoint" for understanding the spread and development of
I compare it to doing something like taking each creationist claim and writing an article about it.GOOD communicating, jps. I understand your concern now.... If we keep Flight 105 as a standalone, I'll need to add more context about mass hysteria and such. Now that I understand your concern, I do think there's lots to be said for moving 105 into the parent article. But that won't work for all the sub-articles -- some of them have to be split off or the parent article will become unreadable. Flight 105 is literally inseparable from the craze, and it would be the best candidate for merging back into parent article.
One thing I worry about is that we don't really have a clear standard for the notability of UFO sightings. Over the course of years LuckyLouie and I have been going through sightings articles to see which ones we had decent sources for and which ones we did not. Often the conclusions were pretty deflating. Most UFO sightings are attested to in simply awful sources that mix credulity with all sorts of weird armchair commentary and irrelevant discourse to the extent that it can become untenable to do much more than just say that it is a story that is included in the MUFON database. I once had a student in a data science class who thought that it would be interesting to see what could be done with that database, only to throw his hands up in despair when he realized that the data was so poorly organized, accounted for, and cleaned that he had an easier time handling the used car market in the US than the UFO sightings database. It's just not a very well accounted-for set of events. jps ( talk) 11:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
the data was so poorly organized, accounted for, and cleaned that he had an easier time handling the used car market in the US than the UFO sightings database:hahaha! Some people have to learn the hard way. Can't any idiot submit a report? That's like asking someone to plot someone's daydreams as if they real objects -- the result is gonna be art, not data.
we don't really have a clear standard for the notability of UFO sightings
21st-century discussionYeah, but being talked about by whom? UFO enthusiasts will discuss all sorts of claims that range from the truly notable to the truly obscure and sometimes bring them up in their grey literature again and again and again. One approach might be to look at which sightings have been subject to ongoing WP:FRIND coverage, but even that gets a bit confused as there is a spectrum of credulity within the UFOlogy community. Some debunking happens in-house, as it were. Often it is due to petty rivalries and the like: to-bolster-my-claim-I-deflate-yours style. jps ( talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
by whomMy view is that even 21st century fiction can make it more important for us to cover topics. When I heard about the fictional work Moonfall (film), it became a little more important that we have a good article on the Hollow Moon theory, so that new readers could easily learn how science proved the moon is not hollow. But of course, I'm talking about how I personally prioritize which articles to work on, not making a new standard for others to follow. Feoffer ( talk) 01:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Talk page, section "Why Thiomersal was removed in the U.S.". -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Newly created article is a good example of a topic for which notability is claimed using WP:SENSATIONAL coverage by multiple sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
American Family Association is listed as an anti-LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for the "propagation of known falsehoods" and the use of "demonizing propaganda" against LGBT people. AFA is currently used in the article about the 2022 film Lightyear.
Here is the following material:
The American Family Association called for Christians to boycott the movie over the same-sex kiss scene. [1]
References
Should this fringe source, whose argument is based on fringe theories about religion and homosexuality, be used in the article? If not, should I remove the statement? Viriditas ( talk) 00:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"Just because an organisation is fringe doesn't necessarily mean that it's announcements shouldn't be covered if RS deem it significant.". What is significant about a fringe hate group making an announcement about a film they dislike because it shows two gay people kissing, an announcement based solely on their fringe theories? I don’t think they should be used as a source anywhere on Wikipedia. I agree to disagree with your position. Viriditas ( talk) 00:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
[Moved from WP:Villagepump (technical):]
Various claims relating to effects at the Planck scale have been included in WP over the last years, often vociferously defended, but never reliably sourced. This mythology seems to have permeated to where it is mentioned in print outside WP, and that WP editors seem to accept it as a given. An example that I came across recently where apparently reasonable editors simply fail to understand this effect because it is:
In neither case could the restored source be checked: the link is dead and neither the ISBN nor the author/title combination appears to exist. The statement "it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length" is given undue prominence, given that it can be, at best, described as pseudoscientific speculation (that may even have gained visibility through WP). How should we deal with this kind of self-perpetuating topic that draws its strength from WP folklore? — Quondum 11:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible, perhaps alonside the publisher's list of contents for Basic Electronics Egineering. NebY ( talk) 10:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Edits from today added "Demonology as a career path", with examples such as Ed and Lorraine Warren. I would delete it myself, with a comment such as " Wizards of the Coast may be another place to start a career path as a demonologist", but maybe it belongs there... -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Can someone with experience dealing with racial pseudoscience review the recent edits at Uyghurs and History of the Uyghur people? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
More eyes are needed at Socionics. Crossroads -talk- 17:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone is inserting crappy sources and removing good ones, see [4]. To sum up, their church does not like that God was originally a Pagan deity, so they deny that Yahweh is worthy of worship, they deny that God=Yahweh. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Pieruto33: What the heck is wendag.com? It does not remotely look like a WP:RS. And you have replaced Amsterdam University Press with MDPI, which made it to Beall's List. At the same time you have removed fas.harvard.edu and the book of a winner of the Dan David Prize. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I have to qualify my previous statement about their church
: on one hand, they claim that the Bible is a work of fiction, on the other hand, they speak of demonic entities. So, this leaves me puzzled about their own religion.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 22:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Digit ratio Seems to be a chaotic mess of cherry picked primary sources some of which don't even agree with whats being said in the article. The few non primary ones also decidedly call it pseudoscience. I'm not familiar enough with medical literature or WP:medrs to know where to even begin with this. Any help or eyes on this would be good.— blindlynx 14:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't aware Scientific American has been criticized for "claiming that spiritual treatment of mental illness is more successful than conventional medicine, [1] publishing misinformation about evolution denialism [2] [3]". A SPA added the material and is edit-warring over it (and much more), but I expect some mention may be DUE. It could use work from someone more familiar that myself with proper referencing and presentation of such FRINGE issues. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
References
There is a section on this article that cites a lot of primary sources, "Advocacy of exclusively meat diet". The section had previously been deleted by RandomCanadian [5] who had raised concerns about it here last year. I don't thing the entire section should be removed but there clearly is some pro-fringe material there. I plan on working on it, but any help would be appreciated. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Tessy María López Goerne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article has been the subject of recent edit warring. Looks to be some PROFRINGE issues regarding the subject's promotion of "nanogel" as a treatment for COVID among other ailments. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
[Shadow government (conspiracy theory)] - why all the quotes? Looks like this needs some work. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thegotics is an interesting one. It's been sitting in the NPP queue for a while. The article states that it is the field of study concerned with the morphological, functional, evolutionary and behavioural elements of thegosis and the treatment of its related physical, emotional, and social disorders.
"Thegosis" refers to the sharpening of teeth through tooth-grinding, and the sources discuss this phenomenon. However, the idea of "thegotics" as a field of study and a medical treatment seems to go beyond what the sources claim. The concept of thegotics seems to mostly be promoted by two researchers, R.G. Every and K.B. Scally - the article is quite closely paraphrased from the latter's
website. The claim that There has been general acceptance of the phenomenon in some scientific disciplines but in the medical science disciplines, there has been strong criticism
(sourced to an editorial by K.B. Scally) is a bit of a red flag. I think this could use more eyes from this noticeboard. Thanks,
Spicy (
talk) 00:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It's maybe a question similar to the one in the Sheldrake case. Some recent editing in the lede around the question of whether Wikipedia should be describing Weinstein as an "evolutionary biologist". More eyes welcome. Bon courage ( talk) 04:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
According to this diff from user:Aliveness Cascade, a seven year veteran editor, yesterday. They made the same claims on the same Talk page in January, but that slipped past me at the time. After I stopped laughing, I remembered that a number of fellow FTN frequentors actually know Eddy, and I wondered what his reaction is? Thanks, - Roxy the dog 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I created this recently (it's just notable I think) as one of the many pseudo-bodies in the UK lobbying with health misinformation, particularly wrt COVID/vaccines. It's started attracting more attention and could definitely uses some eye from fringe-savvy editors. Bon courage ( talk) 14:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Article on a book by conservative commentator
Jonah Goldberg. The lead accurately notes that this book presents a view that contradicts the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology.
However the
Reception section is carefully weighted to provide the reader with a
WP:FALSEBALANCE on the matter. It's also a
WP:QUOTEFARM, but that's a lesser concern. I'll be doing a clean-up when I am able to find the time, but if others are inclined, help would be greatly appreciated.
Generalrelative (
talk) 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw concerns about the editing of this article on WP:BLPN, and thought I would cross post it here as it may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 20:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that the article of conspiracy theorist Anthony Summers and the pages that mention him should be given a closer look. His article is a listing of his books in WP:PROMO tone, and many articles reference his theories (and his JFK conspiracy theories in particular) with varying levels of authority. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I am having a dispute on consensus on reverting the edit these edits in Ghouta chemical attack as I am being told the Syrian government and U.N investigation are fringe and shouldn’t be in the infobox, I don’t think the U.N or Syria accusations are fringe figures in the war as the U.N investigation is what government accusations of both sides are based on and the Syrian government is one of two being accused which makes it a key figure in the attack, the accusation and investigation have been reported on by mainstream media below https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/8/28/syria-denies-chemical-weapons-claim
and the u.n investigation, which can be found here https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/politics/syria-civil-war
I don’t think the accusation of Syrian government opposition using chemical weapons is fringe as mainstream media has mentioned accusations of notable Syrian opposition using chemical weapons multiple times by Al Nusra Front, ISIS and the FSA which can be found below https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2013/5/6/syria-rebels-reject-un-chemical-weapons-claim https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/syria-says-it-did-not-and-will-not-use-chemical-weapons/
I think the controversial nature of the Wikipedia page is leading to a bias in consensus on the balance/neutrality of the page and that the Syrian government accusations and U.N investigation links should be relisted in the infobox due to their notability in the attack Bobisland ( talk) 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Both the U.N and Syrian government accusations and investigations are references to support claims being made and yes they are also not wanting to include the U.N investigation and only including one claim in something that’s disputed rather than both and the U.N investigation which is based on evidence Bobisland ( talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Since they aren’t directly mentioning re-adding the U.N investigation it doesn’t mean they aren’t against it as they’ve repeatedly disputed my claim that the U.N investigation isn’t fringe by calling the edit a improvement that shouldn’t be reverted when I mention it (or they ignore it) and I never said the Syrian government claim was in the lead only the accusation against the Syrian government which was placed in the same edit that removed all accusations into a note in which later edits removed the disputes altogether and editorialized the 3rd party accusations as a fact
“If you want to propose we include mention of the Syrian government claims in the lead, or some details of the UN report, please concentrate on that aspect rather than getting distracted by whether we should include references for these two things in the lead.”
I already disputed that the Syrian government accusations being stated as fact in the lead and all the other accusations links including the U.N investigation being removed, regardless the dispute of perpetrators doesn’t have to be in the lead to be in the perpetrators infobox Bobisland ( talk) 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Stumbled across this article while reading Worlds in Collision, in which the author is quoted criticising the book. However, the section Mike_Baillie#Comet_theories seems to affirmitively support Baillie's comet catastrophism claims in wikivoice. I am aware this is a BLP, but the section should be heavily modified/cut down. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
New user edit-warring WP:PROFRINGE text into articles. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
[ https://martinsweatman.blogspot.com/2022/11/james-powells-response-to-mark-boslough.html?m=1] defending Allen West. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE POV being advocated at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Book of Daniel. Please reply there.
DRN has been closed at premature. I was speaking of edits like [10] and [11]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The second-century date for the visions of Danial (caps. 7-12) is accepted as beyond reasonable doubt by critical scholarship. The dating of the tales in chaps. 1-6 is less evident and is keenly debated.[1]
Modern scholarship now judges that the book had a long process of development. Although oral traditions concerning Daniel may indeed go back to the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (mid-6th century BCE), the story collection appears to have taken shape during the Persian period and to have reached its final form in the early Hellenistic era (3rd century BCE). The apocalypses, however, can be closely dated to the time of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168–164 BCE).[2]
That division is obscured by the articles opening "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse..." and buried later in Book_of_Daniel#Development. fiveby( zero) 04:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
Lot of fringe- and fringe-adjacent edits emanating from mostly infrequent editors. More eyeballs may be helpful. Neutrality talk 21:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Persistent IP edit-wars fringe stuff in. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Can there be “scientific consensus” among near-death researchers? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 11:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@ AvantiShri:. Welcome to Wikipedia! We have been working on these kinds of topics for a long time. jps ( talk) 16:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The Galileo Project ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just alerted to this one where it’s basically a “we’re looking for UFOs project” that seems to be focused on sourcing from the research group itself. Didn’t have time to really delve into it since I’m just heading out, but it definitely set off some red flags for me at a glance. Hopefully someone more familiar with this area can take a look. KoA ( talk) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Are stigmata "real"? Is it fringe to describe them as such? See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The followers of Pio claim not only the authenticity of his stigmata, but also the authenticity of levitation (!), miracles, healings, prophecies etc.. This is all nonsense, of course, and is based on the "reports" of affect-laden followers. The user SanctumRosarium (nomen est omen!) now wants to press a Catholic summary into the introduction of the article. This is certainly not possible, because all the criticized things never happened, of course. In addition, extremely long quotations from followers are put into the article, which do not contain any encyclopedically meaningful information. They should be massively shortened, and in some cases deleted. A WP-article can present faith content, but it certainly cannot pretend that the view of believers and often fanatical followers is equivalent to an ideologically neutral orientation.
Catholic POV is what both users Rafaelosornio and SanctumRosarium in particular are trying to set. Both are believers in an ultra-conservative form of Catholicism. Their contributions are not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia. I ask for support to let the article remain reasonable. Mr. bobby ( talk) 17:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Aseem Malhotra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last paragraph of the lede:
His views on diet and health have been criticized by the British Heart Foundation as "misleading and wrong", and his public questioning of the need ever to use statins has been condemned as a danger to public health.[10] His "Pioppi diet" was named by the British Dietetic Association as one of the "top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018".[4] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malhotra published a book called The 21-Day Immunity Plan,[11] which claims that following the diet can quickly help people reduce their risk from the virus; such claims are not backed by medical research evidence.[1] He has also campaigned against the use of COVID mRNA vaccines.[12]
Dispute over how much background info to present on (mostly nutritional) health, for which he has notable fringe viewpoints. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Some editors may recall discussions of Sweatman and Göbekli Tepe, eg Talk:Göbekli Tepe/Archive 4 Pinging a few: @ Aluxosm, GenQuest, Schazjmd, and Joe Roe:. The attacked editors are me and User:Hoopes. The blog, evidently the first of several, is here. [14]. Among other things it says that someone, probably me, deleted an article he created about Coherent Catastrophism. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). SPI about the creator of the article, MystifiedCitizen, is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Interested editors should check out Comet Research Group. I just removed material sourced to the dubious journal "Science Progress". jps ( talk) 12:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Re: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: That WP:PROSELINEy mess that is the "The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis " section needs a total rewrite. It also screams "cherry picking! cherry picking!". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that pocket journals exist. The question really is one of trying to decide how much of the idea has been discussed by truly independent sources. What I suggest is contacting relevant experts in paleoclimatology and asking them what they think. After they stop yelling, try to gather some indication of where the best debunking may be. Some of it is already present in the article, no doubt. jps ( talk) 01:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia is a community project, it is fine for someone to do all the work themselves. One technique if you are nervous is to WP:SANDBOX your ideas. Don't worry about formatting, style, community building, etc. The oldtimers can shepherd that through. We are happy just to have the data dump, as it were. jps ( talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need sentences like this?
Proponents of the hypothesis have responded to defend their findings, disputing the accusation of irreproducibility or replicating their findings, [1] [2] [3] [4] and have published further research. [5] [6] Critics of the hypothesis have addressed the claims, [7] [8] [9] and have published counterarguments. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
This essentially says nothing of substance. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Now that you've provided that information, I recall reading about it before, but this connection has been pretty thoroughly buried in the search results. Allen Whitt, probably, does not deserve as standalone article, I'm guessing. jps ( talk) 16:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Is Powell's opinion really due here? What does this sentence add to the article? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)In January 2022, James L. Powell compared the hesitancy in accepting the hypothesis to other initially controversial ideas such as continental drift, lunar impact cratering, and anthropogenic global warming [15] and suggested that a kind of groupthink had set in amongst critics. [16]
References
Starts November 11. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Never heard of him before, found his name in a stupid book by Wikipedia-article-less David Ash and Peter Hewitt, who mention his "L-field" and put him in a line with Hans Driesch, Semyon Kirlian and Rupert Sheldrake. The article about him could possibly use improving. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Article about a form of alternative medicine. A few months ago the article was massively expanded by SPA, who also significantly expanded the article about the its creator Marion Rosen. Needs cleanup to comply with WP:MEDRS. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The brand new article vabbing could use some attention. First two sentences: "Vabbing is a term coined to describe the process of rubbing vaginal juice as a perfume. It has been described as being a very effective way to attract individuals of the opposite gender." Surely pseudoscience, right? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Professor Elgar says there's no research that vabbing works. "I think the whole idea of vabbing is hilarious, and I hope no one takes it too seriously."[15] Text sourced to that citation:
There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne.Lol. Endwise ( talk) 06:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There has been some science to support vabbing as per Dr. Marc Elberg of the University of Melbourne., and then goes on to mention some junk studies. Seems pseudoscientific to me. I can't say the same for the "lipstick on jeans" example though. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely pseudoscience to claim that humans have pheromone receptors. But the easy solution is to just excise that poorly attributed idea entirely. The sources used are fine. We just need to focus on the facts rather than the wild speculations of the true believers. jps ( talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
His COVID politics is described as "vindicated", higher death rates in Florida are deleted for no reason, and the criticism of it is described as "initially". Is that how it should be? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 14:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
"The pseudoscience of intelligent design" - that is in several ledes of ID cranks. The usual dance is "IP deletes the word pseudoscience, regular reverts that - repeat until FALSE". Now, User:Emir of Wikipedia has deleted it and, for the first time, someone gave a valid reason. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
electronic cigarette ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
See this talk page section
An editor at this page (joined by a brand new SPA) is attempting to remove the text "nicotine is highly addictive
" based on research reports from Public Health England
[17] and the National Academies
[18] which say, in effect "more research is needed to understand if the delivery system affects how addictive a nicotine product is". These sources also say that it could be more addictive based on the added flavorings and delivery mechanisms, or less addictive if limited in delivery and without other tobacco ingredients etc. These same sources say that trading smoking for e-cigarette use is preferable given the much lower health risks of e-cigarettes. Which is pretty undisputed at this point, but does not mean that it helps them quit vaping as well, so much as trading one for the other:
[19]
[20]
[21]
And then we have reports, clinical practice guidelines, and systematic reviews from the NIH/ Surgeon General/CDC/ American Academy of Pediatrics/ Cochrane/ US PSTF/ American Thoracic Society which say that nicotine in e-cigs is still highly addictive. And we have systematic reviews from other very trustworthy publications which say that it may not actually help people quit smoking (let alone quit nicotine), if done outside of a medical therapeutic relationship or otherwise supervised "quit" program: [22] [23] [24]
Would be great to get some other eyes on this. Thanks all — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
We seem agreed that it is incorrect to characterise telegony in general as pseudoscience. Discussions as to whether specific recent research merits discussion in the article appear to be outside the remit of this noticeboard, and should be discussed on the article talk page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is about [25]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Before the discussion, we need to define the terminology first. Scientific terminology must be defined in the way scientists use in scientific literatures. Telegony is not a theory. The term is used to call an observed phenomenon by scientists. The definition of telegony written in the latest scientific research papers.
Please reply if you have any objections. -- Trusci ( talk) 11:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that Tgeorgescu is the only remaining opponent to my contributions, having tried to have a constructive talk based on evidences. But he is uncooperative, not answering the questions that I think are necessary. So I, as a newbie here, am not sure what an appropriate action is in this situation. I would really appreciate it if you suggest effective things or express objections to the content of the contributions, if exist, with reasons explicitly. -- Trusci ( talk) 09:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
|
A new RfC which should be of interest to WP:FRINGE-savvy editors. Bon courage ( talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
As Doug predicted, we're seeing some disruptive edits to articles on topics related to or mentioned in Graham Hancock's new Netflix documentary. Additional eyes on these articles would be appreciated:
Please feel free to add things to the list. And here's some early critical reviews of the series, for those interested: Jason Colavito, Carl Feagans, Flint Dibble. – Joe ( talk) 08:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
the Wikipedia article on Graham Hancock is not WP:RSIt is new to me that any WP article could be a RS. And the term pseudoarcheology is sourced in that article. But admittedly, the proper source was not placed where it should be. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
How is the pseudoscience provenance of Hancock's claims at all controversial? jps ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a new editor adding unsourced text to the Bimini road article. Paul H. ( talk) 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Specifically should the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis be described as fringe in the lead? Doug Weller talk 16:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I think one important point is that few sources describe the Sphinx as older than Egyptian civilization. I think this absence of sources is really the reason why this theory is fringe and should be called as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
No mention of his fringe views, and should we call him an expert in the lead? Seems related to the Graham Hancock issue. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think any of the awards should be there. Awards should generally have their own article.
I don't think that the academic merits of Danny Hilman are much of relevance here. Many reknowned experts occasionally have their unlucky moments of dubious fame, especially when it comes to bold statements that have not been proposed in scholarly publications, but rather in non-academic contexts such as interviews etc. The dating hype was an ephemeral storm in a teapot, and the article was expanded in 2012/2013 around this hype, with the usual poor sources inapt for a topic like this. I'm against making too much of this by construing a "Pseudoarcheaology" or "Fringe" section; this is why I've initially dumped this under the heading "Media coverage". Megalithic sites in Indonesia are cool enough without weird stories of lost continents etc.
Btw, Doug and I would be happy to see an English version of the article about Harry Truman Simanjuntak :) It is rather telling that Indonesia's top archaeologist remained quite in the background during this hype. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Person says stupid thing about climate science, person repeats same stupid thing years later, editor wants to document stupid thing twice. Yeah, let's hammer it in that climate has always been changing and that climate has always been changing. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis over how to present the recent "extensive literature review" [28] by James L. Powell a longtime advocate of the hypothesis, which unsuprisingly, concludes that the YDIH was "prematurely rejected". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the talkpage, I brought up a pretty good deep dive into the question as to whether this program even existed. Now tagged as factually disputed. jps ( talk) 01:09, 20 November 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.
See WP:BLPN#Graham Hancock. The crew is being naughty by removing "best known for his pseudoscientific theories" from the lead. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Is here [29] Doug Weller talk 15:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Obviously no good as a source, but loads of reliable sources. [30]. But it looks as though it might have been inactive this year. (Also I may have mentioned this before, if so, apologies.) Doug Weller talk 17:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Fertility and intelligence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user with 5 edits, 3 of them edit warring over this article, insists on reverting my removal of material I believe to be WP:PROFRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:SYNTH. I've begun a discussion here: Talk:Fertility and intelligence#WP:PROFRINGE / WP:OR. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Ooo, mind control by electromagnetic radiation. I think some people believed that sort of thing in the 1970s. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've had this biography of an allegedly levitating Saint on my watchlist for some time, after removing Wikipedia-voice claims to the effect that he actually flew, and note that despite my efforts it is still in need of much work. Is there anyone here that could take a look, and maybe do something about the way it describes those who find said Saint's aeronautic adventures less than plausible as being 'skeptics'? I'm rather engaged in dealing with other articles at the moment, and maybe fresh eyes on it would be better anyway. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comet Research Group
Please comment. I was somewhat surprised to come to this conclusion, but there really is not much of anything written about the group per se. It's all about individual members, teams, and associated beliefs, as far as I can tell. jps ( talk) 09:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
See Flying car#List of flying cars, and Talk:Flying car/Archive 1#Whitehead.
In brief, the Flying cars article includes in its list of such vehicles, Gustave Whitehead's alleged 1901 machine, claimed by his supporters to have successfully flown that year, two years prior to the Wright brothers first flights. Though the description given in our list is somewhat equivocal ("Believed not to have flown, although this has been challenged") any inclusion in the list at all appears to me to be undue per WP:FALSEBALANCE etc, given the lack of credibility given to the claims by academic historians of aviation. Am I right in my assessment? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 09:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems to me that the list contains a lot more than just literal "flying cars". Some of the things included are just plans. jps ( talk) 12:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
American immigrant Gustave Whitehead believed that a practical aeroplane would have to be roadable, so that it could be taken from its storage shed to a suitable takeoff point. In 1901 he equipped his No. 21 aeroplane with a road engine. Although mainstream consensus is that it never flew (the claim remains controversial), the machine was reported to have driven satisfactorily.which seems to be accurate and acceptable. Whiteheads' #21 was built as a flying car, although perhaps not a successful one, so it should be included. If this article excluded unsuccessful flying cars, ones that were only prototypes or very short production runs that never made full production, then we could just delete the whole article, as there has not been one produced in any significant numbers to date. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
(the claim remains controversial). - Ahunt ( talk) 13:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
An aircraft can still be an aircraft if it hasn't flown, or is incapable of flight...? Really? So Wikipedia should describe things that can't fly as 'flying cars'? I'd like to see a policy-based justification for that... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Putting aside whether it flew or not, do any sources refer to Whitehead's invention as a "flying car"? The flying car article describes a flying car as "a vehicle which can function both as a personal car or automobile and as an aircraft" - was there any indication that Whitehead's invention functioned as "a personal car or automobile" or was it just an "aircraft" with a novel way of taxiing? - M.nelson ( talk) 15:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Closing this before it goes any further
WP:OFFTOPIC for this noticeboard. This is not an indictment of any particular user, but simply an attempt to help decrease tensions. Stop sniping at each other. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
A wider issue has emerged from this discussion. Many articles on aircraft discuss and/or list both types which have flown and types which have not and/or never left the drawing board. An illustrative selection include; List of de Havilland aircraft, Variable-sweep wing, the overarching multi-page List of aircraft and of course Flying car; there are dozens, if not hundreds more. This follows the standard practice of the thousands of reference works which these articles draw on as reliable sources. (There are exceptions, of course. For example there are works dedicated to unbuilt projects under one theme or another, and no doubt some of those will have sufficient coverage here to merit their own articles. But these are the relatively rare exceptions that prove the rule.) However some editors here, who are not familiar with mainstream aviation literature, feel that this is confusing. Should all these articles and lists be:
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
|
Give the obvious issues with the
Gustave Whitehead biography - the same boosterism of Whiteheads discredited claims to flight - I started a thread on the talk page. With much the same results as noted elsewhere. Including this gem of an argument: Whitehead's supporters may not have provided sufficient evidence that it flew, but it's also true that no one has been able to definitively prove that it did not fly. Sure, some have speculated that the aircraft could not have achieved flight due to various reasons, but even those are based on photos or drawings which may or may not have accurately depicted the aircraft in its final configuration for the alleged 1901 flight. Your failure or refusal to recognize these factors leads me to believe that you are unable to contribute neutrally to this topic.
[35] 'Neutrality' on this topic thus appears to revolve around vacuous unsourced speculation about things Whitehead might possibly have done with his machines to make them fly being given equal weight with the opinions of those qualified to actually discuss the matter. This is fringe POV-pushing of the most blatant kind, and needs serious attention from anyone not wishing Wikipedia to be a platform for pseudohistorical fan-fiction.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 19:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
But I also recognize that the 1948 Wright-Smithsonian contract renders the Smithsonian a non-independent source.The idea that a 1948 contract, made before most people involved were even born, in any way invalidates the peer-reviewed opinions of the curator of the exhibit (a respected academic historian who publishes on many things) is ludicrous. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Is this: Tom Crouch, senior curator of aeronautics for the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) of the Smithsonian Institution, studied evidence for the alleged flight and in 2016 he issued a strong rebuttal, noting many other authorities who had already done so.
the article content in question? I've looked through
Gustave Whitehead,
Whitehead No. 21, and
Claims to the first powered flight without seeing a usage where we would actually need to worry about a COI. The above quote is in a paragraph discussing Jane's, is clearly attributed and a well-known rebuttal, so what's the problem? Until there some content in wiki-voice to be included but can't be cited to the
RAeS statement or Scientific American it's a nonissue. But
ZLEA if that comes up, the 2016 article is not a Smithsonian publication and the journal editors were well aware of the contract.
There is an unrelated issue with "The Flight Claims of Gustave Whitehead": there are more than one version 2013-2016 and one unpublished by Gibbs-Smith. It looks like more of a running, updated rebuttal to Whitehead claims so issued in 2016 isn't really correct. Also not sure about the 38 historians and journalists "Statement Regarding The Gustave Whitehead Claims of Flight" because i cannot find where it has been published and can't find a copy. fiveby( zero) 04:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
We the undersigned are convinced that the evidence now available fails to support the claim that Gustave Whitehead made sustained, powered, controlled flights prior to the Wright brothers. The arguments in favor of such flights are based on a single flawed news article combined with questionable witness testimony gathered more than thirty years after the fact. Whitehead's claims were rejected by local newspapers and by individuals in the best position to judge, including virtually all of those who funded his experiments. Whitehead left no letters, diaries, notebooks, calculations, or drawings recording his experiments, his thoughts, or the details of his craft.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
To pseudoscience or not to pseudoscience, that is here the question. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I recently tried to fix this article but I was reverted by a single purpose account a few times giving edit summaries that content is biased. I am sure there will be more white-washing on the article. I suspect there is conflict of interest with the account, because the account and IP that have done reverts have only edited material related to Stephen Budiansky going back years.
In a nutshell Stephen Budiansky is a biographer and writer who has written quite a few books about animal cognition, nothing fringe about that but some of his ideas in these books are fringe. Budiansky is one of the few writers in the world on this topic who denies animals have consciousness. Most academics and scholars in the field of animal behaviour accept animal do have consciousness (I know there is a big debate still about how much) but Budiansky is one of the very few who denies it outright. He also speculates in his books that animals feel no pain, he is pretty much alone in that camp. He has also written a bunch of books criticizing conservationism, ecology and the environment. He seems to confuse the animal rights movement with conservationism which is a bad error because they are at odds with each other. He also confuses artificial selection with natural selection. His arguments in his books have been criticized by Jerry Coyne, Niles Eldredge and several other evolutionary biologists for containing inaccuracies. The consensus from academics in the journals is that Budiansky has been making a lot of mistakes in his books. I don't think we should suppress reviews if they happen to offer critical content. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Noticeboard readers may be interested in this ongoing RFC Talk:Male_expendability#Request_for_comment:_State_ideas_about_biology_in_Wikipedia's_voice?. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
A user added a fringe-sounding content about an incident being caused by a specific type of strangelet called a magnetized quark nugget. The source used is a paper in Scientific Reports, but is it credible? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
"Terrestrial craters caused by non-meteorite impacts offer larger areas and longer observation times.", then lists Tamil Nadu as 1 of 3 non-meteorite impacts mentioned in the news. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Here. [39] Starts with "This series publicly disparages archaeologists and devalues the archaeological profession on the basis of false claims and disinformation. I write to encourage you to correctly classify the genre of the show, to provide disclaimers about the unfounded suppositions in the show, and ideally to balance the deleterious content in the show with scientifically accurate information about our human past." It notes that "the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists". There's also "Netflix and ITN Productions are actively assaulting our expert knowledge, fostering distrust of our scientific community, diminishing the credibility of our members in the public eye, and undermining our extensive and ongoing efforts at outreach and public education." Well worth reading. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Much of the article Ivan Katchanovski is a discussion of the theory that the Euromaidan Massacre in Ukraine was a false flag operation by allies of the protesters. See the section Ivan Katchanovski#The "Snipers' Massacre" and the talk page discussion Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski#Snipers'_Massacre. Readers of this noticeboard are invited to contribute. Adoring nanny ( talk) 16:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Much of this article is taken up with a theory that the 2014 Massacre of Euromaidan protesters in Kyiv was a false flag operation by protesters and their supporters. See Ivan_Katchanovski#The_"Snipers'_Massacre" and Talk:Ivan_Katchanovski#Snipers'_Massacre. Readers of this board are invited to participate. Adoring nanny ( talk) 16:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
There is now evidence for its effectiveness, according to the lede. Are the sources good enough? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The classic media claims that hypnotherapy would help with smoking cessation was popular decades ago, but I don't think this is the go-to any longer (we should to look for some more recent metareviews for that). There are far stronger aids for such according to even the sources in the article. The menopause claims are a bit concerning to me as they are sourced to precisely one researcher/practitioner, Gary Elkins: [41]. This strikes me as some really borderline stuff. jps ( talk) 16:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Criminal stereotype of African Americans ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Brand new account seeks to include the exciting discovery of a gene *proving* that African-Americans are genetically predisposed to violence. Under discussion at Talk:Criminal stereotype of African Americans#MAOA gene, where this user is accusing me of censorship for pointing out that they've misread the study. As usual with this sort of thing, more eyes would be helpful. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 22:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Göbekli Tepe#Removal of claimed "pseudoscience" from further reading about whether to include a) a sceptical blog post and/or b) five sources on what I would call fringe views in the further reading section. Third opinions are welcome. – Joe ( talk) 08:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It's published in a peer-reviewed journalComplete junk is published in peer-reviewed journals all the time. We are not obligated to include any paper simply because it's peer reviewed. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
it doesn't actually say anything of substance about Göbekli Tepe
It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat.I'd highly advise simply using less charged language, as you did with 'outing' above. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Although the OP didn't list them, there are several other sources in question here. Excluding the Sweatman articles already discussed, they are:
Anyone have any reasons to exclude any of these? Skyerise ( talk) 15:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Noticed some edits from a class project starting to arrive on articles on various spices, fruits and so on. These will probably need review. The course page is Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Siena College/Traditional Chinese Medicine (Fall 2022). - MrOllie ( talk) 00:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Siena College/Traditional Chinese Medicine (Fall 2022). jps ( talk) 01:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This may be a stretch to list here. Suggestions on better venues are appreciated.
Shadow banning is a main topic of Twitter_Files#Part_two_(by_Bari_Weiss). Shadow banning has been partial protected, but I expect we'll need more eyes, especially until everyone is distracted by Twitter files part three. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Almost all of the sources seem rubbish. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Lots of unreliable sources, the article reads as promotion. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Javier Sierra and Jonathan Black. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Under attack by IP who misrepresented at least one source (see edit summary of one of my reverts). Could use more watchers, maybe. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 21:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I have never used this noticeboard before, but I hope, I am in the right place. This theory is about nutrition and body weight.
I have looked into the following reference books to find information about the set point theory and they don't even mention it:
The article should make clear that this is not an established concept, but I am having trouble to find references to do so. The theory seems to be from the 1990 and early 2000s. It never made it's way into the body of evidence of nutritional science. Can someone help to put the article in better context? CarlFromVienna ( talk) 07:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
A new article, Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death, was created in August that seems a watered down version of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. I haven't had a chance to go over it in detail, but thought it might be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 14:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is being discussed at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contrary_reports_about_Adolf_Hitler's_death— blindlynx 19:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Please expect more-than-average disruption. Thanks to Elon Musk. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
A couple of articles to give some perspective. I expect lots more disruption.
I've notices that articles related to the Sovereign citizen movement, pseudolaw, tax scam etc.. ecosystem are peppered with sentences not been clearly describing stuff as nonsense or otherwise written in an universe tone, particularly in the history sections. Doesn't seem to serious just something that's worth having a few more eyes on— blindlynx 21:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)